NationStates Jolt Archive

Given that I believe all rapists should be sentenced to a minimum life sentence of hard labor with all their earnings going directly to their victims, this seems quite fair to me.

A retired teacher today won a landmark law lords ruling giving her the right to claim compensation from a serial rapist who won £7m on the national lottery.

The 78-year-old woman tried to sue Iorworth Hoare after he won the lottery in 2004, but was unsuccessful because the sex attack happened 19 years ago.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2249056,00.html)

Hoare, 59, who had subjected six other women to serious sexual assaults, including rape, attacked her as she walked in Roundhay Park, Leeds, West Yorkshire. The retired teacher says she still suffers from nightmares and claims the brutality of the attack destroyed her self-esteem, wrecked her relationships and ruined her life.

Hoare had not been worth suing until he won £7m. He was jailed for life in 1989 and spent 16 years in prison before buying the winning Lotto Extra ticket while on day release. He was released in 2005 and is reported to live in a £700,000 house near Newcastle.

Frankly I feel you can't punish rapists enough, up to the point where I support neither torture nor the death penalty but what do you think?

I do agree with that...
Looking at the situation from a distance, I can't help appreciating the cruel but sublime ironies of life.

An idea begins to form. I see certain crimes being punished by the offender paying a portion of their income to the victim, perhaps for a given time period, perhaps as long as they earn money. Hmmmm. *ponders*

Hmm. I don't know what to make of it. On one hand, she's getting compensation for a horrific crime of which she was a victim, which appeals to my sense of fair play, but on the other, it seems like further punishment for a crime which the perpetrator has already lived out a full sentence for, which does not.

Oh well. It's not like she's going to take all his winnings. Even if she takes most of them, he's still going to be very very rich, which makes it hard to feel sorry for him.

Hmm. I don't know what to make of it. On one hand, she's getting compensation for a horrific crime of which she was a victim, which appeals to my sense of fair play, but on the other, it seems like further punishment for a crime which the perpetrator has already lived out a full sentence for, which does not.

Oh well. It's not like she's going to take all his winnings. Even if she takes most of them, he's still going to be very very rich, which makes it hard to feel sorry for him.

I simply cannot think of a better solution - I'd toyed with the idea that it would be better to place the money in trust for future rape victims, shelters or the like.

Yet, ultimately, I can't see why she should be denied compensation because he has no money and I don't see why, if he comes into money in the future, he should not be made to pay.

Theoretically, if he'd had the money at the time, he'd have served his sentence as well as pay compensation - time shouldn't alleviate him of that duty.

I feel that you commit a crime, the court sentences you, and that is your punishment and your punishment alone. If the punishment isn't enough, that is a problem with the courts.

I simply cannot think of a better solution - I'd toyed with the idea that it would be better to place the money in trust for future rape victims, shelters or the like.

Yet, ultimately, I can't see why she should be denied compensation because he has no money and I don't see why, if he comes into money in the future, he should not be made to pay.

Theoretically, if he'd had the money at the time, he'd have served his sentence as well as pay compensation - time shouldn't alleviate him of that duty.

But, when he was poor she didn't get anything. When he was rich she's allowed to claim?

It feels wrong that victims of crime don't benefit unless the attacker is wealthy.

I feel that you commit a crime, the court sentences you, and that is your punishment and your punishment alone. If the punishment isn't enough, that is a problem with the courts.
And the court settled this, ruling that his punishment includes paying additional money to his victim.

Hence, you have no objection here.

But, when he was poor she didn't get anything. When he was rich she's allowed to claim?

It feels wrong that victims of crime don't benefit unless the attacker is wealthy.

It is indeed unfair, but not as unfair as victims of crime not benefiting at all - I'd rather they benefit where possible than blanket take away all compensation to ensure equal treatment.

It's not as if it's a case of being lucky to be raped by a rich person.

It's not as if it's a case of being lucky to be raped by a rich person.
Oh, just wait. I'm sure we'll soon have at least one troll insisting that this ruling will lead countless women to "get themselves raped" by wealthy men in order to collect phat payouts.

Theoretically, if he'd had the money at the time, he'd have served his sentence as well as pay compensation - time shouldn't alleviate him of that duty.
I see where you're coming from on this, but I think we're getting into very murky waters if we start introducing "speculative compensation" into our criminal justice system. Why would a rapist bother to mend his ways and reintegrate into society if his gains were ciphoned off to the victims of his past offenses? By having this eternal threat of seizure of capital dangling over their heads, ex-convicts have a severely reduced incentive to earn in any official capacity. The benefits of continuing a life of crime suddenly seem to far outweigh the stigma and threat of punishment of being branded a criminal, and any hope of rehabilitation of criminals goes out the window.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think we're getting into very murky waters if we start introducing "speculative compensation" into our criminal justice system. Why would a rapist bother to mend his ways and reintegrate into society if his gains were ciphoned off to the victims of his past offenses? By having this eternal threat of seizure of capital dangling over their heads, ex-convicts have a severely reduced incentive to earn in any official capacity. The benefits of continuing a life of crime suddenly seem to far outweigh the stigma and threat of punishment of being branded a criminal, and any hope of rehabilitation of criminals goes out the window.

Hmm...

I'm wondering if I'd have different thoughts where the rapist had worked hard for his money on leaving prison.

It's after the fact so it's not fair for me to adamantly state that I wouldn't, which would make me inconsistent, excusable for me but not for the law. I wonder if the courts would have, I'm going to go check their reasoning.

EDIT: Right, although I do think it's murky if applied to all criminals, this is really in sexual cases and a good point is made here:

Leading child abuse lawyer Tracey Storey, of solicitors Irwin Mitchell, said the decision ended the "bizarre situation" which meant child abuse victims over the age of 24 could not sue
their abusers.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_yorkshire/7216895.stm)

I suspect the 'Lottery' focus is for headlines whereas the point goes far deeper.

I see where you're coming from on this, but I think we're getting into very murky waters if we start introducing "speculative compensation" into our criminal justice system. Why would a rapist bother to mend his ways and reintegrate into society if his gains were ciphoned off to the victims of his past offenses? By having this eternal threat of seizure of capital dangling over their heads, ex-convicts have a severely reduced incentive to earn in any official capacity. The benefits of continuing a life of crime suddenly seem to far outweigh the stigma and threat of punishment of being branded a criminal, and any hope of rehabilitation of criminals goes out the window.


What makes you think that he could have been "rehabilitated"? We aren't talking about somebody driven into a life of petty theft by extreme poverty, after all, we're talking about a rapist... so maybe he wasn't properly "habilitated" to start with...

Eh, I don't know. On one hand I feel like the guy did his time with 16 years in prison and I'm sure he's on a Sexual Predator's list now, there's really no need to make him suffer more since he already did his time, but I dunno...this just seems wrong to me for some reason.

*puts on flame suit*

so the court can just randomly decide that I get punished again

fuck I stole a mars bar as a kid and even drunk underage! I'm in for it now *waits for police to call my parents*

What makes you think that he could have been "rehabilitated"?

do you have any evidence that he has committed any crimes since? :p

do you have any evidence that he has committed any crimes since? :p

No, but that could have been due to the deterrent effect of the long prison term that he got last time around (and that he doesn't want to get another one of) rather than to 'rehabilitation' as such...

Good for her, they ought to take his millions and distribute it amongst his victims. Then chop his fucking nuts off.

No, but that could have been due to the deterrent effect of the long prison term that he got last time around (and that he doesn't want to get another one of) rather than to 'rehabilitation' as such...

I'm willing to bet the millions also helped, I'd like to see some research done into this myself

or rather maybe he now gets the help he needs and all is happy :)

Good for her, they ought to take his millions and distribute it amongst his victims. Then chop his fucking nuts off.

I get the feeling you have a bias against lottery winners :p

so the court can just randomly decide that I get punished again

You realize, I hope, the difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil suit, yes?

[QUOTE=Wilgrove;13410435]Eh, I don't know. On one hand I feel like the guy did his time with 16 years in prison and I'm sure he's on a Sexual Predator's list now, there's really no need to make him suffer more since he already did his time, but I dunno...this just seems wrong to me for some reason.
QUOTE]

I feel queasy too, and I think I know why.
It's that uneasy feeling of having to extend things like fairness, equality and justice even to the despicable.

If a rapist is liable for a hefty fine awarded to the victim, so be it. Make it so, make it law, make it equal for all rapists and all victims. If the crime entitles a victim to a percentage of future earnings, make it so- beforehand, equally, fairly for all.

This smacks of opportunism here- you're rich now, so we're imposing an extra penalty, just because we want the money.

It hovers dangerously close to a double standard. The penalty for rape is apparently much higher if you are wealthy! Generally the wealthy get off with LESS of a penalty, but that doesn't make it right to flip it around, just correct it.

I would never disparage the victim, (the lawyers, I will disparage) but clearly, the victim had no intentions of pursuing additional penalties for the rapist until the possibility of money showed up.


These things vex me. Much easier if they simply made the lottery off limits to felons.

I feel queasy too, and I think I know why.
It's that uneasy feeling of having to extend things like fairness, equality and justice even to the despicable.

If a rapist is liable for a hefty fine awarded to the victim, so be it. Make it so, make it law, make it equal for all rapists and all victims. If the crime entitles a victim to a percentage of future earnings, make it so- beforehand, equally, fairly for all.

This smacks of opportunism here- you're rich now, so we're imposing an extra penalty, just because we want the money.

It hovers dangerously close to a double standard. The penalty for rape is apparently much higher if you are wealthy! Generally the wealthy get off with LESS of a penalty, but that doesn't make it right to flip it around, just correct it.

I would never disparage the victim, (the lawyers, I will disparage) but clearly, the victim had no intentions of pursuing additional penalties for the rapist until the possibility of money showed up.


These things vex me. Much easier if they simply made the lottery off limits to felons.

*sigh*. OK, let me try to clear this up. This is not an "additional fine". This isn't "another criminal penality". He's not being punished by the state again because suddenly he has money.

She's suing him. That's all. That's it. She's filed a civil suit. This isn't the state swooping in and saying "oh you have money now, so we're going to take it!" This is her deciding to file a lawsuit now that he is capable of paying a judgement against her.

All this is about is a simple matter. 119 years ago she did not sue because he had no money, she would have had to bare the costs of the lawsuit, go through the trouble, reopen those wounds, talk about her rape, in public...for nothing. Even if she won she couldn't collect. But now she can, so she wants to.

The only issue worth the debate was that 19 years had past and it was unusual to allow a lawsuit to procede after such a time frame. The high court found that the circumstances regarding the lottery and the perpetrator's sudden ability to satisfy a judgement was sufficient reason to exercise discretion, and allowed the lawsuit to procede.

But that's all that's happening here. You take away the sensationalism of now he's a lottery winner, and 19 years have passed, and boil it down to its most basic, a rape victim is suing her attacker.

There's nothing odd or unusual about that.

What makes you think that he could have been "rehabilitated"? We aren't talking about somebody driven into a life of petty theft by extreme poverty, after all, we're talking about a rapist... so maybe he wasn't properly "habilitated" to start with...

If we're working on the assumption that a felon is a felon is a felon and can't be rehabilitated, why let them out at all? Isn't the very idea of having a sentence other than life based on the assumption that once released, the felon can assume some normal sort of life?

Does he have to carry Jean Valjean's yellow ticket of leave, damning his life til the end of his days, or do we assume an ex-felon has paid his price?

Why not just shoot them all, if they are not able to be rehabilitated?

If we're working on the assumption that a felon is a felon is a felon and can't be rehabilitated, why let them out at all? Isn't the very idea of having a sentence other than life based on the assumption that once released, the felon can assume some normal sort of life?

Does he have to carry Jean Valjean's yellow ticket of leave, damning his life til the end of his days, or do we assume an ex-felon has paid his price?

Why not just shoot them all, if they are not able to be rehabilitated?
I know you weren't talking to me, but I hope you won't mind my answering these questions.

In my opinion, we shouldn't let rapists out of prison. Ever. Even IF they could be rehabilitated, which I have serious doubts about, I also believe that prison is a means of paying one's debt. I believe a lifetime of hard labor is the bare minimum that a rapist should be expected to pay.

The reason I don't support simply shooting a rapist in the head is because I don't believe our system of justice is infallible, and as such I cannot support the application of the death penalty. We can release a falsely-imprisoned individual. Until we are able to revive a falsely-executed individual, I don't think it it appropriate for us to be executing anybody.

I know you weren't talking to me, but I hope you won't mind my answering these questions.

In my opinion, we shouldn't let rapists out of prison. Ever. Even IF they could be rehabilitated, which I have serious doubts about, I also believe that prison is a means of paying one's debt. I believe a lifetime of hard labor is the bare minimum that a rapist should be expected to pay.

The reason I don't support simply shooting a rapist in the head is because I don't believe our system of justice is infallible, and as such I cannot support the application of the death penalty. We can release a falsely-imprisoned individual. Until we are able to revive a falsely-executed individual, I don't think it it appropriate for us to be executing anybody.

To quote something I've heard before on NSG, wouldn't that encourage rapists to kill off their victims to not leave witnesses, as they have nothing to lose if caught?

Hmm. I don't know what to make of it. On one hand, she's getting compensation for a horrific crime of which she was a victim, which appeals to my sense of fair play, but on the other, it seems like further punishment for a crime which the perpetrator has already lived out a full sentence for, which does not.
All of the common law countries allow for both criminal and civil sanctions in these cases. Most often, the person is not pursued in civil court because they don't have the assets to satisfy the claim. The issue here is the Statute of Limitations...the amount of time you have to make a claim. The courts here have said that although that limitation period is laid out in legislation, they (the courts) have discretion to extend that period. I'm a bit leery about that actually.

Oh, just wait. I'm sure we'll soon have at least one troll insisting that this ruling will lead countless women to "get themselves raped" by wealthy men in order to collect phat payouts.

They can already do that.

This ruling means the whores can go out and raped by guys they THINK might get rich some day down the road and THEN sue them.

Well... yes and no. Something does feel weird about having civil action brought against you for the damages resulting from the crime that you've already been tried, convicted and served for. If there was enough evidence to confirm that the crime was committed, there was presumably enough evidence to confirm the corresponding tort in the same court session. Why wasn't that aspect of it dealt with then?

Wait...what? Maybe this is a british thing but...what the hell? Civil cases and criminal cases have entirely different standards of proof, they have entirely different rules of evidence, defendants have entirely different rights and obligations, juries are selected and chosen by entirely different people, they have entirely different rules of procedure.

Maybe this is something that do in England, but in the US, the idea of having a criminal case and a civil case going on in the same courtroom simultaniously is....bizarre and nonsensical.

What makes you think that he could have been "rehabilitated"? We aren't talking about somebody driven into a life of petty theft by extreme poverty, after all, we're talking about a rapist... so maybe he wasn't properly "habilitated" to start with...
This is a good point, but it's more of a question of the purpose and effectiveness of criminal justice rather than anything to do with this particular case. In my own opinion, I defer to Mott Haven's points on this; if someone isn't capable of reform then we should seriously consider whether we should be releasing them at all. That being the case, the question of whether they can ever justify earning a proper salary is dealt with: you don't need to get paid to be imprisoned for the rest of your life.

But that's all that's happening here. You take away the sensationalism of now he's a lottery winner, and 19 years have passed, and boil it down to its most basic, a rape victim is suing her attacker.

There's nothing odd or unusual about that.
Well... yes and no. Something does feel weird about having civil action brought against you for the damages resulting from the crime that you've already been tried, convicted and served for. If there was enough evidence to confirm that the crime was committed, there was presumably enough evidence to confirm the corresponding tort in the same court session. Why wasn't that aspect of it dealt with then?

Maybe this is something that do in England, but in the US, the idea of having a criminal case and a civil case going on in the same courtroom simultaniously is....bizarre and nonsensical.

Don't worry, it isn't that way in England either.

Well... yes and no. Something does feel weird about having civil action brought against you for the damages resulting from the crime that you've already been tried, convicted and served for. If there was enough evidence to confirm that the crime was committed, there was presumably enough evidence to confirm the corresponding tort in the same court session. Why wasn't that aspect of it dealt with then?

Probably because it was a criminal trial and not a civil trial. It happened with O.J. Simpson too. First he was tried in criminal court, then civil. They aren't combinable.

I'm with Bottle on this one. In my opinion, rape is one of the few crimes that I think perpetrators forfeit their lives in committing. But since making the mistake of executing an innocent is too great, they should rot in prison with life sentences (at least until we can hire Jesus to be the executioner).

Well... yes and no. Something does feel weird about having civil action brought against you for the damages resulting from the crime that you've already been tried, convicted and served for. If there was enough evidence to confirm that the crime was committed, there was presumably enough evidence to confirm the corresponding tort in the same court session. Why wasn't that aspect of it dealt with then?
A criminal conviction can be used as evidence in a civil suit, but it is not conclusive. You can absolutely have a situation where you're found guilty of a crime, and not guilty for a civil wrong...and visa versa. Neo Art has pointed out the other differences already.

To quote something I've heard before on NSG, wouldn't that encourage rapists to kill off their victims to not leave witnesses, as they have nothing to lose if caught?
One could just as easily argue that if all rape carried a minimum life sentence, instead of a shorter sentence than most drug convictions, maybe more rapists would think twice before raping.

Or one could point out that the conviction rate for rape is amazingly low compared to the conviction rate for murder.

Rape a woman, and odds are she won't even report the crime. If she does, odds are you won't be prosecuted. If you are prosecuted, odds are you won't be convicted.

In the case of a homicide, the police can't choose to believe that she must have consented to have her head smashed in at the time, but then she changed her mind in the morning. The defense can't argue that her slutty, slutty skirt is proof that she was asking to have six bullets pumped into the back of her head. The victim can't be shamed into remaining silent or refusing to testify, and her inability to confront her attacker can't be used as proof that she really wasn't attacked.

Personally, I think it would probably even out and there wouldn't be an statistically significant difference in the number of rapists who murder their victims.

Remember, also, that a great many rapists don't think what they did was rape. They think she was asking for it. They think she owed them sex. They think she was a prostitute and therefore can't be raped because she has to have sex with whomever wants it. They think she was their spouse, and a spouse can't say "no". Neither can girlfriends say "no" to their boyfriends (or vice versa).

Why should the rapist worry about the presence of a witness to their crime? They didn't commit a crime. They just forced somebody to have sex against her wishes.

In the case of a homicide, the police can't choose to believe that she must have consented to have her head smashed in at the time, but then she changed her mind in the morning. The defense can't argue that her slutty, slutty skirt is proof that she was asking to have six bullets pumped into the back of her head. The victim can't be shamed into remaining silent or refusing to testify, and her inability to confront her attacker can't be used as proof that she really wasn't attacked.

I love you.


No but seriously, your right.

ps- On a federal level, minimum sentence for burglery is 5 years. Min for rape is 2. Think about it.

If we're working on the assumption that a felon is a felon is a felon and can't be rehabilitated, why let them out at all? Isn't the very idea of having a sentence other than life based on the assumption that once released, the felon can assume some normal sort of life?

Does he have to carry Jean Valjean's yellow ticket of leave, damning his life til the end of his days, or do we assume an ex-felon has paid his price?

Why not just shoot them all, if they are not able to be rehabilitated?
I'm not saying that all felons are incapable of rehabilitation, I'm saying that it seems less likely in some cases than in others... and in the case of the rapist in question, going by newspaper articles from the time when he won that lottery prize, it seems fairly unlikely.

If the aim of prison is punishment, let them serve their set time -- whatever that is (and for rape I'd be prepared to consider life imprisonment) -- and then, if they're still alive, be released...
If the aim is rehabilitation, shouldn't they be kept in custody until they can convince the authorities that they have been rehabilitated rather than for some specified period of time? And shouldn't recidivism, in those cases, be met with life imprisonment -- or execution, if society prefers -- as an 'incorrigible'?

I don't like this at all. In fact, I consider it a serious abuse of the legal process.

It's a continuation of a disturbing trend - never forgive. Once a person commits a crime - any crime - it seems they are never to be permitted to have a normal life. They have never paid enough, done enough, to be left alone ever again.

With certain "heinous" crimes, notably anything sexual, the perpetrator is never permitted to be rehabilitated - they will, quite literally, be punished forever. Somebody commits statutory rape when they're 16? Guess what - he'll still be labeled a "sex offender" when they put him in his grave ninety years from now.

This guy comitted horrid crimes 19 years ago. Guess what? He paid for that. This action is just so that this woman can legally steal his money - hell, they admit as much when they note "he wasn't worth suing before". In any other circumstance, it wouldn't be permitted, but because this guy "is a criminal", they allow it.

I have to ask the question: what motivates this guy to not reoffend? If he's to be punished forever, is there ANY reason for him to remain law abiding?

If he was truly rehabilitated then he should have recognised the heinousness of his past actions... and therefore should voluntarily have offered compensation to his victim without her needing to sue him for it...

I have to ask the question: what motivates this guy to not reoffend? If he's to be punished forever, is there ANY reason for him to remain law abiding?

That's actually a very good point. I mean if you're never given the chance to prove that you've changed, that you are now a law abiding citizen, if people are permitted to just take what you did 19 years ago and beat you over the head with it again, and again, and again, then what's the point? Why even bother proving that you changed, people are still going to see you as this dangerous sexual predator.

As for me, I would probably shift all of my money either into off shores account under an alias, or put it away somewhere where the woman can't reach it and can't collect because technically the money isn't mine.

I get the feeling you have a bias against lottery winners :p

No, just rapists.

If he was truly rehabilitated then he should have recognised the heinousness of his past actions... and therefore should voluntarily have offered compensation to his victim without her needing to sue him for it...
Win.

Or, we could realize that the guy did his time for the crime and to just drag it up all over again, 19 years later because he now won the lottery is insane and all it does is going to reopen wounds and put salt in the wounds.

And I'll point out yet again, you do realize there's a difference between a criminal action and a civil one, yes?

Is getting money from the guy really going to help the woman? I mean what, she gets the money and now she's going to feel better because she can afford a Beamer? If she is still hurting 19 years later, then she needs Therapy.

So it's your argument that a rape victim does not deserve to sue for compensation from her rapist?

This guy comitted horrid crimes 19 years ago. Guess what? He paid for that.

Under criminal law, not civil law. Again, you do realize there's a difference between the two, yes?

With certain "heinous" crimes, notably anything sexual, the perpetrator is never permitted to be rehabilitated - they will, quite literally, be punished forever. Somebody commits statutory rape when they're 16? Guess what - he'll still be labeled a "sex offender" when they put him in his grave ninety years from now.

Um, boo hoo?

Poor, poor rapists, having to deal with the pain and sorrow of being called a rapist for the rest of their life.

You know how you avoid that? Don't rape anybody.

Do you suggest we stop calling somebody a murderer if it's been 25 years since he murdered anybody?

If you raped somebody, you're a rapist. For the rest of your life, you are a rapist. Don't like it? Don't rape anybody.


This guy comitted horrid crimes 19 years ago. Guess what? He paid for that.

He spent some time in prison, as per his criminal sentence. He is now also paying monetary restitution, as per the civil suit brought against him.


This action is just so that this woman can legally steal his money -

She's not stealing it if the court says it's legally hers.


hell, they admit as much when they note "he wasn't worth suing before". In any other circumstance, it wouldn't be permitted, but because this guy "is a criminal", they allow it.

You fail at British law.

Do you really think that only people who have been convicted in a criminal court can be sued?


I have to ask the question: what motivates this guy to not reoffend? If he's to be punished forever, is there ANY reason for him to remain law abiding?
If he requires a REASON to not go around raping women, is there any reason we should permit him to continue living among us?

Call me crazy, but if everybody was calling me a rapist and suing me, I still wouldn't want to go out and rape somebody. If you honestly think this guy would, then it sounds like you agree with me: he should never have been released.

If he was truly rehabilitated then he should have recognised the heinousness of his past actions... and therefore should voluntarily have offered compensation to his victim without her needing to sue him for it...

Or, we could realize that the guy did his time for the crime and to just drag it up all over again, 19 years later because he now won the lottery is insane and all it does is going to reopen wounds and put salt in the wounds.

Is getting money from the guy really going to help the woman? I mean what, she gets the money and now she's going to feel better because she can afford a Beamer? If she is still hurting 19 years later, then she needs Therapy.

Damn corrupted government making me defend a rapist...I am hating myself right now.

You fail at US law.

Do you really think that only people who have been convicted in a criminal court can be sued?

pssst, this was in Britain. The point stands however, the principle is the same

She started suing after he won the lottery? Sounds like cheap money grubbing even if he did rape her.

And I'll point out yet again, you do realize there's a difference between a criminal action and a civil one, yes?

Yes, but comon, I thought even criminals deserved justice even if they did rape multiple women. I'm just simply amazed that a woman who stated in the same article back then that he wasn't worth suing, but now he is! Jeez, it's like me asking a woman out before all of my surgries and having her turn me down, and yet now after my surgeries she wants to date me because I'm "acceptable". I'm sorry but the Courts should've stuck with the statue of limitation on something like this. To come back 19 years later and sue because he won the lottery and now have money you can take away from him, that just doesn't sit well with me.

So it's your argument that a rape victim does not deserve to sue for compensation from her rapist?

She does, but not when she feels like he should pay. The Statue of Limitation really should've been enforced in this instead of making an exemption for her because he won the lottery.

The Statue of Limitation really should've been enforced in this instead of making an exemption for her because he won the lottery.

They have not made an exception for her - on the contrary they have established a legal precedent which has already been applied to four other sex abuse cases.

Maybe this is something that do in England, but in the US, the idea of having a criminal case and a civil case going on in the same courtroom simultaniously is....bizarre and nonsensical.
I don't think it's generally done that way here either, but in the case of damages on a claim of rape, why not do the two together? The idea of having separate standards to determine whether the person was wronged and whether a crime was committed seems in the case of rape to be an unnecessary duplication of effort given that the two are necessarily entangled (if someone is guilty of rape, then they raped someone, vice versa and converse).

Yes, but comon, I thought even criminals deserved justice even if they did rape multiple women.

They do. He got his day in criminal court, he'll get his day in civil court.


I'm just simply amazed that a woman who stated in the same article back then that he wasn't worth suing, but now he is! Jeez, it's like me asking a woman out before all of my surgries and having her turn me down, and yet now after my surgeries she wants to date me because I'm "acceptable".

Did those women try to rape you? No? Then your analogy sucks.

I'm sorry but the Courts should've stuck with the statue of limitation on something like this.

Why is that exactly? Perhaps you can explain to me the justification for statute of limitations, and whether they apply in this case or not...

To come back 19 years later and sue because he won the lottery and now have money you can take away from him, that just doesn't sit well with me.

It doesn't sit well with you that a rapist be made to pay compensation for his heinous acts now that he is capable of paying it?

That's all your argument is. You don't feel he should be made to pay compensation now that he is capable of it.

She does, but not when she feels like he should pay.

I'm willing to bet she's felt like he should pay every single day of those 19 years. Every. Single. Day.

It's only now that he actually has the means to pay.

The Statue of Limitation really should've been enforced in this instead of making an exemption for her because he won the lottery.

So she should have sued back when she couldn't possibly recover? That's your argument?

Or, we could realize that the guy did his time for the crime and to just drag it up all over again, 19 years later because he now won the lottery is insane and all it does is going to reopen wounds and put salt in the wounds.

Whose wounds?

The victim seems to feel fine about this choice on her part, and I trust her judgment about her "wounds" a shitload more than I trust yours.

Far as I'm concerned, the rapist's "wounds" over the "trauma" of having raped somebody should stay open until the day he dies.


Is getting money from the guy really going to help the woman? I mean what, she gets the money and now she's going to feel better because she can afford a Beamer? If she is still hurting 19 years later, then she needs Therapy.

Possibly the most revolting and ignorant statement to rape victims that I've read all week. Well done.

I'm just simply amazed that a woman who stated in the same article back then that he wasn't worth suing, but now he is!
What's amazing about it?

Before, he didn't have the money. She could have sued him, spent all that money and time fighting it out in court while she was still grappling with the immediate aftermath of having been raped, only to win precisely nothing because he couldn't pay the settlement anyhow. Seems pretty rational to judge that as "not worth it."

Now, he's got oodles of money. He never paid her any restitution for what he did to her, so now she's calling to collect. Good for her.

I don't think it's generally done that way here either, but in the case of damages on a claim of rape, why not do the two together?

Because they are entirely different things, with entirely different standards, entirely different burdens, entirely different rules, entirely different procedures and entirely different parties.

You can't hold a criminal case and a civil case at the same time, any more so than you can play football and baseball at the same time


The idea of having separate standards to determine whether the person was wronged and whether a crime was committed

The bolded part is your error. A civil case is not deteriming whether a crime was committed. A civil case is to determine whether a tortious act has been committed.

seems in the case of rape to be an unnecessary duplication of effort given that the two are necessarily entangled (if someone is guilty of rape, then they raped someone, vice versa and converse).

But if someone is guilty of a crime does not necessarily mean someone is liable for a tortious act. Vice versa, just because someone is liable in civil court does not mean he's guilty of a crime (see OJ Simpson). The two things are entirely different processes and can't be run at the same time in the same proceedings.

pssst, this was in Britain. The point stands however, the principle is the same
Lol, corrected.

The most disgusting and sickening thing in this thread is that people seem to believe that this woman who was raped only now decides that her rapist should pay, only now thought that she deserves compensation.

This woman was a rape victim, to try and argue that only now that he has money does the thought occur to her "I should sue" is abhorant. This woman has likely been haunted by this for almost two decades. I'm quite sure she has wanted compensation for this act every day of those 19 years.

However there was no compensation to be gotten until now. He had no money, he had no means to pay a judgement. She could have sued, gone through all the expense, pain, and difficulty of yet another trial, won a jugement and...what? Gain nothing. Even if she won, she would have lost.

Now she actually has a means to receive compensation. Now she actually has a means to collect on a judgement in her favor. Now she can actually seek a redress of her injuries. To deny that now would be fundamentally contrary to our understandings of justice.

Far as I'm concerned, the rapist's "wounds" over the "trauma" of having raped somebody should stay open until the day he dies.


I do actually know of a rape case years ago (a particularly horrific one at that) where the defence barrister, offering mitigation, said his client would have to live the rest of his life under the terrible burden of knowing what an awful thing he'd done.

The burden was so awful, in fact, that he committed another sex offence within weeks of being let out of jail.

Add: It was this case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6255231.stm

It is impossible for you to be held accountable for raping someone (acknowledging damages in a civil sense) without the people holding you accountable acknowledging that the illegal act of rape has occured (in a criminal sense).

This is where you are in error.

This just seems obvious to me.

That's nice.

If the standards of proof are sufficiently different to create different rulings then the standards of proof of one, the other or both courts are necessarily flawed.

I think I speak for the entire history of british and american common law when I say the system shall endure for all the reasons it has endured, despite what some guy on the internet things about it. Moreover, the standard of proof problem is perhaps the smallest hurdle preventing criminal and civil cases proceeding at the same time, one that can theoretically be dealt with with a proper jury instruction. There's a whole bunch of other procedural, evidentiary, testimonial, and a slew of other problems.

Like I said, you can't play baseball and football at the same time for many reasons, only one of which is that they score differently.

Rape is a crime that necessitates wronging a victim. It is absolutely impossible for you to rape (in a criminal sense) without raping someone (causing damages in a civil sense)

I suggest you prove this to be the case.

A civil case is not deteriming whether a crime was committed. A civil case is to determine whether a tortious act has been committed.

But if someone is guilty of a crime does not necessarily mean someone is liable for a tortious act. Vice versa, just because someone is liable in civil court does not mean he's guilty of a crime (see OJ Simpson). The two things are entirely different processes and can't be run at the same time in the same proceedings.
Rape is a crime that necessitates wronging a victim. It is absolutely impossible for you to rape (in a criminal sense) without raping someone (causing damages in a civil sense). It is impossible for you to be held accountable for raping someone (acknowledging damages in a civil sense) without the people holding you accountable acknowledging that the illegal act of rape has occured (in a criminal sense). As a result, the two verdicts must be exactly the same in order for the rule of law to be consistent; either you are guilty and accountable for damages or you are not guilty and not accountable for damages.

This just seems obvious to me. If the standards of proof are sufficiently different to create different rulings then the standards of proof of one, the other or both courts are necessarily flawed.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2249056,00.html)



Frankly I feel you can't punish rapists enough, up to the point where I support neither torture nor the death penalty but what do you think?

I rarely use this acronym, but: WTF? This Guy raped seven people and he is still on the street?

I object. When he committed the crime he couldn't have reasonably expected to be subject to a £7 million penalty.

Ha, only in Europe would this even be an issue. One more reason I would never move there.


Really, are ALL you Europeans Sissy's when it comes to enforcing the LAW?

I object. When he committed the crime he couldn't have reasonably expected to be subject to a £7 million penalty.

Why not? do you have the average civil suit judgements for rape in great britain onhand? No? Then I think you have no idea what he could reasonably expect. And besides, where the hell are you getting the idea that the judgement will be £7 million? As far as I read, there hasn't even been a trial yet, let alone a finding of liability and a hearing on damages. You have no idea what the judgement will be in the end if she even wins

It seems to me that you argument is that when he raped her he couldn't reasonably expect to be sued and lose. Are you fucking on crack?

If you raped somebody, you're a rapist. For the rest of your life, you are a rapist. Don't like it? Don't rape anybody.



So, why not just kill them? If you're going to sentence someone for a crime, that sentence is the price that person pays for his error. NOT "that sentence plus whtever we want to throw on top". If there is to be no end to punishment, execution would be more humane.

You fail at British law.

Do you really think that only people who have been convicted in a criminal court can be sued?

In this case, YES. Britain has a time limitation on civil suits - only if the Judge deems it an extraordinary case can that limitation be overridden. In this case, ONLY a person convicted in criminal court could be sued.


If he requires a REASON to not go around raping women, is there any reason we should permit him to continue living among us?

Call me crazy, but if everybody was calling me a rapist and suing me, I still wouldn't want to go out and rape somebody. If you honestly think this guy would, then it sounds like you agree with me: he should never have been released.

If you are going to be punished forever, then there is no reinforcement for the moral value of obedience to the law. And we already know he has weak moral values since he already did it once.

Which is better: 1: Execution/Permanent Imprisonment (they're more or less the same thing), 2: Release and attempted rehabilitation, or 3: Release and reinforcement of criminal activities? 2 is obviously better, but you are arguing for 3!

Why not? do you have the average civil suit judgements for rape in great britain onhand? No? Then I think you have no idea what he could reasonably expect. And besides, where the hell are you getting the idea that the judgement will be £7 million? As far as I read, there hasn't even been a trial yet, let alone a finding of liability and a hearing on damages. You have no idea what the judgement will be in the end if she even wins

It seems to me that you argument is that when he raped her he couldn't reasonably expect to be sued and lose. Are you fucking on crack?
That was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry about that.

I can't say I object to compensatory damages, but I don't understand why there's a completely different legal system to deal with them. The OJ Simpson case is a great example where he was ordered to pay damages for something for which he wasn't criminally responsible.

In this case, he was criminally responsible, so that problem doesn't arise, but he should have faced this penalty sooner. File the suit, get the judgement, and collect future earnings until it's covered.

I do object to punitive damages. Those should just be fines paid to the state.

If he requires a REASON to not go around raping women, is there any reason we should permit him to continue living among us?
Yes, because we oppose thought crimes laws.

If he was truly rehabilitated then he should have recognised the heinousness of his past actions... and therefore should voluntarily have offered compensation to his victim without her needing to sue him for it...
Selflessness is a necessary result of rehabilitation? What?

This is where you are in error.



No kidding... I'm not sure about any cases in the UK, but in the US you have the similitude in the case of O.J. Simpson, who was cleared of murder (in a criminal sense), but then found liable for "wrongful death" (in a civil sense)...

I actually disagree with this situation, but it's not impossible... since it has occured, at least in the US.

In this case, YES. Britain has a time limitation on civil suits - only if the Judge deems it an extraordinary case can that limitation be overridden.

And that's exactly what happened here. The House of Lords, the national supreme court, ruled that this case, in which a judgement proof defendant suddenly became not judgement proof, without notice or expectation, 19 years later, was a sufficiently extraordinary instance.


In this case, ONLY a person convicted in criminal court could be sued.

The fuck? Where in hell are you getting this from?

Which is better: 1: Execution/Permanent Imprisonment (they're more or less the same thing), 2: Release and attempted rehabilitation, or 3: Release and reinforcement of criminal activities? 2 is obviously better, but you are arguing for 3!

It seems to me that she is arguing that a person who committed a tortious act should be required to compensate the victim of his tortious act, consistant with the civil law system.

He being made to pay for the harm he caused her is not "reinforcement of criminal activities". It's making him pay for the damage he caused her.

I can't say I object to compensatory damages, but I don't understand why there's a completely different legal system to deal with them. The OJ Simpson case is a great example where he was ordered to pay damages for something for which he wasn't criminally responsible.

Different things, different things at stake, different standards of proof. It was never determined that OJ was innocent. He was never found innocent. He was found not guilty. It was found the state could not meet the burden of proof necessary to convict him, but the plaintiffs could meet the lesser burden of proof necessary to hold him liable

In this case, he was criminally responsible, so that problem doesn't arise, but he should have faced this penalty sooner. File the suit, get the judgement, and collect future earnings until it's covered.

Presumably this would be the best situation, however let's look at the facts. This guy was going was broke, totally judgement proof. He was going to jail for twenty years. She was going to be eighty by the time he got out, if she was even still alive. What you're suggesting is that she should have brought the suit, gone through the pain of the trial, shouldered the expense, time, and effort, knowing she wasn't going to collect a dime until twenty years later on the off chance he got out, got a job, and earned enough to pay her off before she died.

Yeah, that probably would have been the best thing to do as a matter of law as written, but the statute is written to allow some discretion in instances of extreme situations, and I think that understanding that she didn't file suit, go through all the pain effort and expense, just in case she'd still be alive 20 years later and he would, quite literally, win the lottery. I think we all agree she likely wanted compensation, she deserved compensation, but the odds of her getting that compensation were...extremely dubious, at best given the facts at the time, and that a reasonable person in those circumstances just would not have bothered with the expense, and the effort, and the pain. Now that he has the actual means to pay that compensation 20 years later, I think this qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance, and sufficient reason to set aside the statute of limitations and allow her to argue her case.

Especially since many of the reasons we have statute of limitations don't really apply in this matter.

That was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry about that.

I can't say I object to compensatory damages, but I don't understand why there's a completely different legal system to deal with them. The OJ Simpson case is a great example where he was ordered to pay damages for something for which he wasn't criminally responsible.

In this case, he was criminally responsible, so that problem doesn't arise, but he should have faced this penalty sooner. File the suit, get the judgement, and collect future earnings until it's covered.

I do object to punitive damages. Those should just be fines paid to the state.

In this I agree with you... Damages should be handled for crimes against person or property within the context of criminal trials.... They usually are, restitution is generally assigned in criminal cases, at least where I am from, most of the time in addition to, or in place of a harsher sentence... I think you enter a dangerous area, when criminal restitution can be ignored in original cases, when victims know they can now simply sue at some undetermined later date...

Selflessness is a necessary result of rehabilitation? What?

One can argue that if he is not willing to compensate someone for the harm he caused her he is not truly rehabilitated.

In this I agree with you... Damages should be handled for crimes against person or property within the context of criminal trials.... They usually are, restitution is generally assigned in criminal cases, at least where I am from, most of the time in addition to, or in place of a harsher sentence...

That's...not at all how things are handled in the US and the UK. Restitution is a matter of civil law, not criminal, and handled in different trials.

I think you enter a dangerous area, when criminal restitution

Again in the UK it's not criminal restitution, it's civil restitution

can be ignored in original cases, when victims know they can now simply sue at some undetermined later date...

Perhaps, but let's keep these particular facts in mind. he won the lottery 20 years later. How was she supposed to know that would happen?

That's...not at all how things are handled in the US and the UK. Restitution is a matter of civil law, not criminal, and handled in different trials.



Again in the UK it's not criminal restitution, it's civil restitution



Perhaps, but let's keep these particular facts in mind. he won the lottery 20 years later. How was she supposed to know that would happen?

Ok, no offense, but you are absolutely incorrect... In Virginia restitution can and IS awarded by criminal courts at criminal trials at the time of sentencing...

Ok, no offense, but you are absolutely incorrect... In Virginia restitution can and IS awarded by criminal courts at criminal trials at the time of sentencing...

admittedly I don't know much about virginia law, but I have to ask, in what crimes does this occur, what are the limitations of this restitution, does it still allow for a civil case? Does the victim have a choice in where to pursue this restitution, in criminal or civil court?

Is this restitution to the victim or fines to the state?

One can argue that if he is not willing to compensate someone for the harm he caused her he is not truly rehabilitated.
One can argue that, but it requires that a rehabilitated inmate be selfless.

Not that it matters. As I've argued many times, rehabilitation can't work on rational criminals.

Really, are ALL you Europeans Sissy's when it comes to enforcing the LAW?
No, we just don't live in Mega-City One.

You realize, I hope, the difference between a criminal prosecution and a civil suit, yes?Query? Doesn't the Statute of Limitations apply to Civil Suits as well?

Really, are ALL you Europeans Sissy's when it comes to enforcing the LAW?

I'm rather curious as to your understanding of what "the law" is.

admittedly I don't know much about virginia law, but I have to ask, in what crimes does this occur, what are the limitations of this restitution, does it still allow for a civil case? Does the victim have a choice in where to pursue this restitution, in criminal or civil court?

Is this restitution to the victim or fines to the state?

Much like our system of child support, it's payed to the victim through the state... And generally failure to pay results in loss of driving privileges, garnishment of wages, further incarceration, etc. There is no limit of the restitution past what the victim can prove as a financial loss by the defendants crime; It's pretty much always attached to property crimes, and fairly often to crimes against person... It does not allow for a civil case... And there is no choice... Of course part of this may be due to the fact we do not actually have a seperate "civil court"... We have three clases of initial courts; Juvenile and Domestic Relations, General District, and Circuit Courts... "General District" hears all Civil, criminal misdemanor, preliminary felony, and traffic cases, where as Circuit handles only felonies. And Juvenile and Domestic Relations is our equivalent of Family Court (but also handles divorce cases).

Query? Doesn't the Statute of Limitations apply to Civil Suits as well?

Yes it does, and as the article clearly points out, the statute has a built in provision allowing a judge to ignore its limitations in circumstances that are sufficiently extraordinary. The House of Lords found that this was the case.

It's extraordinarily disingenuous to arue that somehow this case should not go through because the statute of limitations prevents it, when the statute itself has a built in provision to allow it to go forward if the judges find it warranted. The statute itself allows for it to not apply in certain circumstances. Circumstanced the House of Lords found present in this case.

Much like our system of child support, it's payed to the victim through the state... And generally failure to pay results in loss of driving privileges, garnishment of wages, further incarceration, etc. There is no limit of the restitution past what the victim can prove as a financial loss by the defendants crime; It's pretty much always attached to property crimes, and fairly often to crimes against person... It does not allow for a civil case... And there is no choice... Of course part of this may be due to the fact we do not actually have a seperate "civil court"... We have three clases of initial courts; Juvenile and Domestic Relations, General District, and Circuit Courts... "General District" hears all Civil, criminal misdemanor, preliminary felony, and traffic cases, where as Circuit handles only felonies. And Juvenile and Domestic Relations is our equivalent of Family Court (but also handles divorce cases).

Very interesting...question, what about emotional distress and the like, are those considered as part of "loss"? If not, does emotional distress and "pain and suffering" damages just not exist in virginia?

Yes it does, and as the article clearly points out, the statute has a built in provision allowing a judge to ignore its limitations in circumstances that are sufficiently extraordinary. The House of Lords found that this was the case. I wonder tho. would they still give the same ruling if he had bought the lotto ticket after he'd been released?

that is if I'm reading it right and he was still technically serving his time when he bought the ticket.

It's extraordinarily disingenuous to arue that somehow this case should not go through because the statute of limitations prevents it, when the statute itself has a built in provision to allow it to go forward if the judges find it warranted. The statute itself allows for it to not apply in certain circumstances. Circumstanced the House of Lords found present in this case. not arguing that, was just asking if Civil Suits were subject to Statute of Limitations. :cool:

Ha, only in Europe would this even be an issue. One more reason I would never move there.


Really, are ALL you Europeans Sissy's when it comes to enforcing the LAW?
Huh?

First of all, England is a common-law jurisdiction, while the rest of Europe is a civil law jurisdiction. Lumping them together in this legal sense is laughable.

Second, what exactly do you mean by 'enforcing the law' when that's exactly what was done here?

Third...you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Rhetorical question.

I can't say I object to compensatory damages, but I don't understand why there's a completely different legal system to deal with them.

So you do not understand why there is a criminal system and a civil system? Seriously?

Much like our system of child support, it's payed to the victim through the state... And generally failure to pay results in loss of driving privileges, garnishment of wages, further incarceration, etc. There is no limit of the restitution past what the victim can prove as a financial loss by the defendants crime; It's pretty much always attached to property crimes, and fairly often to crimes against person... It does not allow for a civil case... And there is no choice... Of course part of this may be due to the fact we do not actually have a seperate "civil court"... We have three clases of initial courts; Juvenile and Domestic Relations, General District, and Circuit Courts... "General District" hears all Civil, criminal misdemanor, preliminary felony, and traffic cases, where as Circuit handles only felonies. And Juvenile and Domestic Relations is our equivalent of Family Court (but also handles divorce cases).

You sound like you're muddying the waters here. Garnishment of wages etc, are a part of judgment enforcement and can apply to both criminal and civil judgments. If you have, for example, a driving conviction and as a result are fined under a criminal statute, the state can go after you in a number of ways...jail time, increased fines, wage garnishment etc. If when you are sued by the victim of the automobile accident you were responsible for, and they get a judgment, they can also go through a process which would have your wages garnished etc to satisfy that judgment, if such is allowed in your laws. One is criminal law, one is civil law. Ditto with child support...failure to pay child support may indeed be a criminal offense in your state, and it may indeed be the case that the statute in question forbids civil actions, and instead refers you to some sort of administrative adjudication. In any case, there is probably going to be some mechanism to enforce maintenance, either through that adjudicative process (which is not strictly speaking, criminal in nature), or directly through the civil courts.

Our provinces don't have 'separate civil courts' per se...the Provincial court hears criminal and civil matters...with specialisations such as Family Court, small claims etc. A provincial judge has to be versed in both criminal and civil procedure, which sounds like the case in your state as well.

I wonder tho. would they still give the same ruling if he had bought the lotto ticket after he'd been released?

that is if I'm reading it right and he was still technically serving his time when he bought the ticket.

That doesn't seem to be relevant here. What is relevant is that 20 years later, he now has the money to satisfy a judgement against him, where previously he did not. The fact that he was in jail at the time he had this windfall seems to me to be irrelevant.

The fact is, she had no good reason to bring this suit during the normal period. The man was judgement proof. She would have to pay all the fees and costs (no way she'd find a lawyer to work on contingency) in order to get a judgement. Then, since this guy was going away for 20 years, there was no way she'd see a penny of it for at least two decades. Add to that she was already 60 years old, and the odds that she'd even be alive to collect anything was rather low.

Sure, she could have brought suit, paid all that money, spent all that time, gone through all that pain...for what? For the off chance that she might receive compensation 20+ years later, if she were even alive? Counting on the fact that she'd live long enough to see him get out of jail and get a job with enough pay to satisfy the judgement?

Would any rational person really do that? Probably not. They'd do exactly what she did, decide it just wasn't worth it. But now, 20 years later, he has the money to do it, she can actually sue, win, and collect.

Where he bought the ticket is somewhat irrelevant to that. The matter is that a judgement proof defendant suddenly gained a lot of money, sufficient to satisfy a judgement against him. The statute of limitations on its face barred such an act, but it has provisions for just such a thing.

Our provinces don't have 'separate civil courts' per se...the Provincial court hears criminal and civil matters...with specialisations such as Family Court, small claims etc. A provincial judge has to be versed in both criminal and civil procedure, which sounds like the case in your state as well.

That's actually the case in most states actually. What he's describing though seems to suggest that the courts do not hear criminal and civil cases seperatly, but rather just amalgamate the two. Which seems..odd, but anything's possible. It would lead to some very interesting constitutional issues though.

That's actually the case in most states actually. What he's describing though seems to suggest that the courts do not hear criminal and civil cases seperatly, but rather just amalgamate the two. Which seems..odd, but anything's possible. It would lead to some very interesting constitutional issues though.

That does seem to be what he's suggesting, I just can't see how or why that would be, and given the general lack of basic understanding when it comes to the legal system, I'll admit I'm assuming he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. I'm bad like that :P

One can argue that, but it requires that a rehabilitated inmate be selfless.

Not that it matters. As I've argued many times, rehabilitation can't work on rational criminals.

Not really. One can acknowledge blame and desire to make amends without wanting to help old ladies cross streets and rescue kittens out of tall trees.

Selflessness is not a prerequisite of admitting guilt and offering to right wrongs.

Very interesting...question, what about emotional distress and the like, are those considered as part of "loss"? If not, does emotional distress and "pain and suffering" damages just not exist in virginia?

Only if the victim can provide proof of medical/psychological costs incurred due to suffering or distress caused by the defendant...

You sound like you're muddying the waters here. Garnishment of wages etc, are a part of judgment enforcement and can apply to both criminal and civil judgments. If you have, for example, a driving conviction and as a result are fined under a criminal statute, the state can go after you in a number of ways...jail time, increased fines, wage garnishment etc. If when you are sued by the victim of the automobile accident you were responsible for, and they get a judgment, they can also go through a process which would have your wages garnished etc to satisfy that judgment, if such is allowed in your laws. One is criminal law, one is civil law. Ditto with child support...failure to pay child support may indeed be a criminal offense in your state, and it may indeed be the case that the statute in question forbids civil actions, and instead refers you to some sort of administrative adjudication. In any case, there is probably going to be some mechanism to enforce maintenance, either through that adjudicative process (which is not strictly speaking, criminal in nature), or directly through the civil courts.

Our provinces don't have 'separate civil courts' per se...the Provincial court hears criminal and civil matters...with specialisations such as Family Court, small claims etc. A provincial judge has to be versed in both criminal and civil procedure, which sounds like the case in your state as well.

Well, when the restitution is assigned through our criminal courts, failure to pay results in an automatic garnishment filed by the clerk to the state department of taxation... The victim does not have to initiate the procedure through the courts subsequent to the case, it's automatic.

Well, when the restitution is assigned through our criminal courts, failure to pay results in an automatic garnishment filed by the clerk to the state department of taxation... The victim does not have to initiate the procedure through the courts subsequent to the case, it's automatic.

That sounds like a terrible system.

That sounds like a terrible system.

I think it's very effective... It's certainly better than crowding the courts with additional cases as it prevalent elsewhere... It also makes it easier for victims to see money owed without incurring addition costs for civil proceedings and lawyers, since it's all handled by the Commonwealth Attorney's office (our version of the DA).

So you do not understand why there is a criminal system and a civil system? Seriously?
Probably not.

The criminal system appears to mete out punishment for violating a set of rules.

The civil system appears to move compensation to those who are harmed by others from those who harmed them, assuming that harm was prohibited.

But the civil system has issues. If I'm harmed by someone, why is the amount of compensation to which I'm entitled affected by the wealth of the one who harmed me?

But the civil system has issues. If I'm harmed by someone, why is the amount of compensation to which I'm entitled affected by the wealth of the one who harmed me?

It's not, and why would it be? The wealth of the one who harmed me, however, is relevant to whether or not you will be able to recover that which you are entitled to.

We shouldn't establish a precedent where the rich are punished more for crimes than the poor.

Is it not the case that if the money awarded weren't to change based on wealth that the poor would be punished more for crimes than the rich?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2249056,00.html)



Frankly I feel you can't punish rapists enough, up to the point where I support neither torture nor the death penalty but what do you think?

First, I'll say the rapist has an ironic name.

Second, I would not condemn a certain amount of compensation, however we must be reasonable. Depending on his sentence, (how long it was, and whether he's served it) I would have to say that the compensation (in money) might change. We shouldn't establish a precedent where the rich are punished more for crimes than the poor.

First, I'll say the rapist has an ironic name.

Second, I would not condemn a certain amount of compensation, however we must be reasonable. Depending on his sentence, (how long it was, and whether he's served it) I would have to say that the compensation (in money) might change.

No it should not. Compensation is based by how much he harmed her. Whether he spent time in prison, and for how long, does not change the harm he caused her, and shouldn't affect the compensation he owes her.

Is it not the case that if the money awarded weren't to change based on wealth that the poor would be punished more for crimes than the rich?

What I'm saying is that if he's already served a sentence (though it should be of good length), then he shouldn't be greatly punished further. I'm not against the woman getting a portion of his money, but we must be reasonable.

I'm rather curious as to your understanding of what "the law" is.

I am sorry, I shouldn't have expected rape to be illegal in Europe.

What I'm saying is that if he's already served a sentence (though it should be of good length), then he shouldn't be greatly punished further. I'm not against the woman getting a portion of his money, but we must be reasonable.

I was clearly referring to this comment: "We shouldn't establish a precedent where the rich are punished more for crimes than the poor."

Huh?

First of all, England is a common-law jurisdiction, while the rest of Europe is a civil law jurisdiction. Lumping them together in this legal sense is laughable.

Second, what exactly do you mean by 'enforcing the law' when that's exactly what was done here?

Third...you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Rhetorical question.

7 Rapes, still on the street, I am sorry that sounds right to you.

I am sorry, I shouldn't have expected rape to be illegal in Europe.

Do you actually think about what you're saying before you say it?

7 Rapes, still on the street, I am sorry that sounds right to you.

you do realize he spent sixteen years in jail, right? I mean, did you miss that part? Did you actually read the article you're supposedly trying to talk about?

What I'm saying is that if he's already served a sentence (though it should be of good length), then he shouldn't be greatly punished further.

Again, you do realize that civil liability and criminal liability are different things, right?

you do realize he spent twenty years in jail, right? I mean, did you miss that part? Did you actually read the article you're supposedly trying to talk about?

That's it?

That's it?

So I was right, you didn't actually read the article before talking about it, did you?

Oh, just wait. I'm sure we'll soon have at least one troll insisting that this ruling will lead countless women to "get themselves raped" by wealthy men in order to collect phat payouts.

Maybe, or maybe not. But I do remember a fairly recent case (up to a year ago) of a man being released from prison after serving the majority of a sentence for rape because the police discovered the woman who had made the allegations kept changing her name and making allegations against other people too. It was a shocking case of a woman sending innocent men to prison for one of the worst crimes possible, ruining their marriages and their lives completely. The guy who was released after having his sentence revoked also discovered that his name was already circulated on a sex offenders list. How 'nice' for him!
The woman in question seemed to like being on a witness protection plan, or something like that if i recall. Every time she was rehoused by the police and given a new name, she would wait a while and set up another man for a fall.
I would never wish anyone to be a victim of rape, but I would admit to finding some irony if she actually became a real victim one day and nobody believed her.

But in the OP case, the woman deserves the money more than the rapist. I hope the other victims all come forward and take a share too, so he is left with nothing.

That's it?

I do hope you're going to back up your judgments with all those cases in the USA where rapists were executed, which is, I assume, what you want.

Off the top of my head I seem to recall Mike Tyson is bandying about town after a fairly short jail sentence for rape.

It's not a European thing, it's a comment on how rape is viewed as a crime perhaps but that's the same for most countries, Europe and the USA are among the best on this issue, not great but better than most.

That's it?

Ah, yes, in America those rapists are punished much more harshly.

...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Irony should work both ways. The rapist won the lottery, and it seems fitting that he loses it all to one of his victims.

I don't like this at all. In fact, I consider it a serious abuse of the legal process.

It's a continuation of a disturbing trend - never forgive. Once a person commits a crime - any crime - it seems they are never to be permitted to have a normal life. They have never paid enough, done enough, to be left alone ever again.

With certain "heinous" crimes, notably anything sexual, the perpetrator is never permitted to be rehabilitated - they will, quite literally, be punished forever. Somebody commits statutory rape when they're 16? Guess what - he'll still be labeled a "sex offender" when they put him in his grave ninety years from now.

This guy comitted horrid crimes 19 years ago. Guess what? He paid for that. This action is just so that this woman can legally steal his money - hell, they admit as much when they note "he wasn't worth suing before". In any other circumstance, it wouldn't be permitted, but because this guy "is a criminal", they allow it.

I have to ask the question: what motivates this guy to not reoffend? If he's to be punished forever, is there ANY reason for him to remain law abiding?

And for what crime is his victim paying with low-self esteem, inability to have relationships, and nightmares for the rest of her life?

Was this a civil suit or a criminal court?

I was clearly referring to this comment: "We shouldn't establish a precedent where the rich are punished more for crimes than the poor."

Well, is there a maximum as to how much one can be forced to pay for such crimes (in GBR)?

While someone that is too poor to pay should not be bled to death on it, I also don't think it should be based entirely on the percentage of available money.

That doesn't seem to be relevant here. What is relevant is that 20 years later, he now has the money to satisfy a judgement against him, where previously he did not. The fact that he was in jail at the time he had this windfall seems to me to be irrelevant.except both you and the article said "extraordinary circumstances". is getting a windfall so extraordinary that it would allow for a suspension of the Statute of Limitations?

realise that this opens the door to alot of things. you commit a crime and you can still be sued for that crime after you win the megabucks at Las Vegas 20 year after you've been released?

The fact is, she had no good reason to bring this suit during the normal period. The man was judgement proof. She would have to pay all the fees and costs (no way she'd find a lawyer to work on contingency) in order to get a judgement. Then, since this guy was going away for 20 years, there was no way she'd see a penny of it for at least two decades. Add to that she was already 60 years old, and the odds that she'd even be alive to collect anything was rather low.

Sure, she could have brought suit, paid all that money, spent all that time, gone through all that pain...for what? For the off chance that she might receive compensation 20+ years later, if she were even alive? Counting on the fact that she'd live long enough to see him get out of jail and get a job with enough pay to satisfy the judgement?

Would any rational person really do that? Probably not. They'd do exactly what she did, decide it just wasn't worth it. But now, 20 years later, he has the money to do it, she can actually sue, win, and collect. so, the extraordinary circumstances in which a person can be sued beyond the Statute of Limitations is the fact that they gain alot of money after they did the crime. nothing else?

Where he bought the ticket is somewhat irrelevant to that. The matter is that a judgement proof defendant suddenly gained a lot of money, sufficient to satisfy a judgement against him. The statute of limitations on its face barred such an act, but it has provisions for just such a thing.

Why not put into law that any such windfall by any criminal will be divided up by the survivng victims or in the case of the criminal causing the victim's death, their survivors, reguardless of when the windfall is recieved? then you bypass all the court fees for lawsuits, and it still accomplishes what she did. Which is punish a person after the crime passes the Statute of Limitations.

In fact, why have a Statute of Limitations for Civil Suits if only the fact that the criminal got money is enough to bypass it?

so, the extraordinary circumstances in which a person can be sued beyond the Statute of Limitations is the fact that they gain alot of money after they did the crime. nothing else?

If, after reading:

The fact is, she had no good reason to bring this suit during the normal period. The man was judgement proof. She would have to pay all the fees and costs (no way she'd find a lawyer to work on contingency) in order to get a judgement. Then, since this guy was going away for 20 years, there was no way she'd see a penny of it for at least two decades. Add to that she was already 60 years old, and the odds that she'd even be alive to collect anything was rather low.

Sure, she could have brought suit, paid all that money, spent all that time, gone through all that pain...for what? For the off chance that she might receive compensation 20+ years later, if she were even alive? Counting on the fact that she'd live long enough to see him get out of jail and get a job with enough pay to satisfy the judgement?

Would any rational person really do that? Probably not. They'd do exactly what she did, decide it just wasn't worth it. But now, 20 years later, he has the money to do it, she can actually sue, win, and collect.

All you managed to gleen from that was "the fact that they gain alot of money after they did the crime. nothing else?" then I fear further conversing with you on the matter would be pointless because you appear either unwilling or incapable of understanding the point I'm making.

Yes, but comon, I thought even criminals deserved justice even if they did rape multiple women. I'm just simply amazed that a woman who stated in the same article back then that he wasn't worth suing, but now he is! Jeez, it's like me asking a woman out before all of my surgries and having her turn me down, and yet now after my surgeries she wants to date me because I'm "acceptable". I'm sorry but the Courts should've stuck with the statue of limitation on something like this. To come back 19 years later and sue because he won the lottery and now have money you can take away from him, that just doesn't sit well with me.
Just one question I'd like to ask you Wil:
Did you rage against the 'injustice' of OJ Simpson being dragged into a civil court and being sued by Nicole's and Ron's families?

If, after reading:



All you managed to gleen from that was "the fact that they gain alot of money after they did the crime. nothing else?" then I fear further conversing with you on the matter would be pointless because you appear either unwilling or incapable of understanding the point I'm making.

Then what, in your opinion, is the 'extraordinary circumstances' that would allow her to sue her rapist when the Statute of Limitations is up.

You yourself said she didn't persue a lawsuit earlier because he had no money and wasn't worth suing.

is it the fact that he got the money after being sentenced for the crime of rape?

or is it the fact that he got the money while he was serving his sentence for rape?

or is it something else entirely? and if so, what?