This paper discusses two key philosophical arguments supporting victim compensation programs. First, it examines the government's fundamental duty to protect its citizens and the obligation to provide compensation when that duty is breached. Second, it addresses the moral imperative to restore victims to their original state after violent crime, acknowledging the profound psychological and physical harm such crimes inflict. The paper refutes common objections—that harm cannot be quantified and that programs are too costly—by drawing parallels to insurance practices and noting that untreated trauma creates greater societal harm. The analysis concludes that victim compensation serves both justice and practical human needs.
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 that enforces justice and restores the victim as much as possible to his or her original state. The victims of many violent crimes such as domestic violence and child abuse often suffer profound psychological impact for which they need additional support simply to feel normal again. As Schultz (1975) notes, "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." Simply incarcerating the perpetrator does not undo the often irreparable harm to the victim in body, mind, and spirit.
An important distinction exists between compensation and restitution. "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. In compensation programs, "the amount of monies paid typically reflects the nature and extent of the injury suffered by the victim" ("Victim compensation fund," 2015). Proponents of victim compensation have developed several philosophical arguments supporting the government's obligation to provide such programs, two of which warrant careful examination.
The government has a duty to protect its citizens, and advocates of victim compensation programs believe that when this obligation is breached, compensation is in order. The federal government has recognized this principle through concrete action. For example, financial compensation programs have been designed to give restitution to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their descendants, acknowledging the government's failure to prevent that catastrophic harm.
Beyond strictly financial measures, the government has also created non-monetary compensatory systems in response to victim advocacy. The Amber Alert system was set up to notify the public about child abductions, established in response to victim outcry over children who were kidnapped or victimized (Doerner & Lab 2014: 21). Similarly, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, the Protect Our Children Act, and other legislation have been issued to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to engage in effective policing of these serious crimes, given the additional responsibility society has to protect children (Doerner & Lab 2014: 22). These programs demonstrate that when the government's protective duty fails, it incurs an obligation to compensate victims and prevent future harm.
Beyond the duty-to-protect argument lies a deeper philosophical position: that government has a moral obligation to restore victims to their original state insofar as possible. This restoration-based argument acknowledges what perpetrators' imprisonment cannot achieve. Restorative justice frameworks recognize that traditional punishment alone fails to address victim needs or repair the multifaceted harm of violent crime. Victims frequently experience severe psychological trauma alongside physical injury, financial loss, and disruption to work and daily functioning. Compensation programs address these real consequences by providing resources for therapy, recovery time, and ongoing support that incarceration of the offender simply cannot provide.
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. While this may be true in a philosophical sense, on a practical level, doing so is very common in our society. Insurance companies regularly 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 objection is that victim compensation is too costly for society. However, a compelling counter exists: not treating the aftereffects of crime causes even greater harm. Untreated trauma from violent crime often results in long-term mental health deterioration, lost productivity, and cascading social costs. Most victims experience a need for therapy, time off work, and a period where they require ongoing support. Financial compensation can be a viable and cost-effective means of enabling this recovery.
Finally, it is important to note that even if someone has been victimized, they might not necessarily be able to see the offender brought to justice, much less be compensated by him or her. This is often the case for the victims of mass tragedies like the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "Since the vast majority of offenders are never caught, prosecuted or convicted, and given the inadequacy of private insurance, government compensation funds then become the only means of repairing the harm left in the wake of crime" ("Victim compensation fund," 2015).
The philosophical case for victim compensation ultimately rests on two interlocking principles: the government's duty to protect and its moral obligation to restore. Since all of us could be—or have been—potential victims of crime, by supporting victims, we are, in effect, supporting our potential future and past selves. This perspective transforms victim compensation from a burden into a collective expression of justice and mutual protection.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.