Philosophical and Normative Arguments

Introduction

There has long been equal amounts of support and opposition for victim recompense. Since the time of the Hammurabi code and the early Middle English Common Law, such methods have been upheld in legal and legislative circles. In both scenarios, the offender would be brought to justice after being apprehended and would typically be executed. Depending on the type of losses suffered, there may also be recompense for their family or for themselves. Later, thinkers like Jeremy Bentham strengthened the concept of victim compensation, which is now a cornerstone of law in many countries around the world. (William & Steven, 2012). Nevertheless, there has been a significant section of persons who have questioned the rationale of such payouts by the state. Such persons often allude to the fact that the affected persons often suffer losses due to their own victimology, which does not warrant state liability. Others are selective in their support for victim compensation viewing it as necessary only in situations of natural disaster or circumstances that are beyond human control. Where the victim could have predisposed themselves to harm is considered inappropriate for compensation (Johnston, Shields & Suziedelyte, 2017).

Philosophical Arguments for Victim Compensation

This paper shall explore both philosophical and normative arguments for victim compensation. The social contract theory and social welfare supports victim compensation from philosophical viewpoints. Personally, I support the practice due to its role in promoting good relations between victims and the criminal justice system, as well as promoting victim recovery.

The Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory is one of the main philosophical grounds under which victim compensation is justified. The theory was fronted by Jeremy Bentham who explained how the government and its people operate in a contract mode that justifies for the compensation of victims of crime. The social contract outlines that the government taxes the people and provides essential services in an unwritten contract with them. They are supposed to offer care and safety on the premise that the people have relinquished such authority to them (William & Steven, 2012). They give away such authority to the government in return for their safety and wellbeing. Thus, when they become victims of crime, such happenings are tantamount to the government’s failure to honor their contract and provide safety and care. Therefore, the government is obligated to restore such parties to their former status given that they have flouted the provisions of their unwritten contract.

The Social Welfare Argument

The social welfare argument also supports victim compensation from a philosophical standpoint. It is the responsibility of the government to offer a minimum standard of living for all its citizens through welfare activities. Victims fall below this standard against will and are; therefore, required to be compensated just like others who are forced into such circumstances by different reasons. They suffer material losses that may impoverish them to unprecedented levels, besides psychological, emotional, and other types of losses (William & Steven, 2012). Welfare is designated for those who are unfortunate, disabled, or deprived in the community, and victims of crime join the deprivation group, which qualifies their access to welfare. Together with the social contract theory, the welfare hypothesis assumes that the plight of the victims is not self-inflicted. This is a point of departure to most opponents of victim compensation who attribute various facets of victimology to the individual’s own doing. However, the provision of welfare to a great extent implies the qualification of crime victims for compensation.

Benefits of Victim Compensation

One of the reasons why I support victim compensation is its role in promoting cooperation between the victims and the criminal justice system. Many victims of crime fail to volunteer and testify against the perpetrators on the premise that such actions do not make financial sense. They end up spending more time and resources in the courts, perhaps to a positive outcome where the perpetrator is brought to book but to no financial reprieve. The fact that a criminal has been put behind bars does not mitigate the financial harm incurred as a result of the crime or the process of working towards justice. For this reason, many victims opt to stay away and move on rather than collaborate with the justice system (Johnston, Shields & Suziedelyte, 2017). The provision of compensation not only allows them to avail themselves to the courts and other sections of the criminal justice system conveniently but also recoup some of their lost value due to the occurrence of crime. This creates a sense of goodwill between the system and the victims, which in the end may encourage higher reporting rates of crimes and their prosecution. The increased reporting of crimes and the coordination between the victims and the justice system will longitudinally lead to a drop in crime rates. Therefore, victim compensation is supportable on the basis of fostering good relations between the victims and the criminal justice system.

Another ground that has been often overlooked is victim recovery. There is a need to offer victim compensation to aid in their recovery process, which is normally tough, and lengthy (Johnston, Shields & Suziedelyte, 2017). Depending on the nature of the crime, victims need lots of support in a bid to get over the circumstances that befell them. Take, for instance, victims of arson, homicide, and other types of horrendous crimes that not only cause material but physical and emotional losses. The victims spend the better part of their lives recovering from such acts and may never attain full recovery. They may get irreversible psychological defects and other challenges that may render them barely whole for the rest of their lives. For instance, rape victims struggle to cultivate healthy sexual relationships due to the emotional and psychological damage that is inflicted. Therefore, it is important to offer compensation to ensure that victims at least have some support in their recovery process. They may not find it any easier to recover but at least afford technical assistance and everything else that they shall need.

Conclusion

In conclusion, victim compensation is necessary and can be justified both philosophically and on normal grounds of justice. The social contract theory in which the public surrenders their autonomy to the government in return for safety suggests that crime is a breach of such an unwritten contract. Therefore, victims deserve compensation as crime is interpreted as a failure by the government to accomplish its role. Under social welfare, the government is obligated to offer a certain standard of living to the deprived, which also justifies welfare activities. Victim compensation can also be justified as a scheme for promoting positive relations between victims and the criminal justice system, as well as promoting victim recovery.

References

Johnston, D. W., Shields, M. A., & Suziedelyte, A. (2017). Victimisation, Wellbeing and Compensation: Using Panel Data to Estimate the Costs of Violent Crime. The Economic Journal.

William, G. D., & Steven, P. (2012). Victimology. 6th ed. Aderson Publishing Co.