Why Victim Compensation?

Victim Compensation Proponents of victim compensation have philosophical bases for believing that the government has the obligation to provide victim compensation. Choose two of these reasons and briefly discuss. Victim compensation programs entail giving payments to the victims of violent crimes (Doerner & Lab 2014: 20). The intention behind them is to create a system which enforces justice and restores the victim as much as possible to his or her original state.

Also, the victims of many violent crimes such as domestic violence and child abuse often suffer a profound psychological impact for which they need additional support, just to feel normal again. "The rationale for victim compensation rests on a moral concern for the welfare of the injured citizen, and the current lack of any effective compensation provisions results in punishment for crime victims" (Schultz 1975). Simply incarcerating the perpetrator does not undo the often irreparable harm to the victim in body, mind, and spirit.

"Compensation refers to monies paid by the government, or by another party unrelated to the offender, to the victims of crime" versus restitution made directly by the offender and "the amount of monies paid typically reflects the nature and extent of the injury suffered by the victim" ("Victim compensation fund," 2015). The government has a duty to protect its citizens and advocates of these programs also believe that when this obligation is reneged upon, compensation is in order.

For example, financial compensation programs have been designed to give restitution to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their descendants. But not all victim compensation programs are strictly financial in nature. The Amber Alert system was set up to notify the public about a child abduction, in response to victim outcry over children who were kidnapped or victimized (Doerner & Lab 2014: 21).

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, the Protect our Children Act, and other Acts have also been issued to similarly strengthen the ability of law enforcement efforts to engage in effective policing of this serious crime, given the additional responsibility society has to protect children (Doerner & Lab 2014: 22). Arguments against victim compensation include the idea that it is morally wrong to attempt to 'put a price' on a crime and that the harm done by crime cannot be quantified.

But while this may be true in a philosophical sense, on a more practical level, to do so is very common in our society. Insurance companies attempt to quantify the value of human life or property damages for awards. The fact that life has aspects that cannot be reduced to a financial equation does not necessarily mean victims should not be compensated. Another argument is that it is too costly for society.

A counter to that argument is that not treating the aftereffects of crime causes even greater harm and most victims experience a need for therapy, time off work, and experience a period where they need support -- and financial compensation can be one viable way to obtain this. Finally it is also important to note that even if someone has been victimized, they might not necessarily be.