If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Lotto Rapist victim can sue for damages
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Comments
I hope she gets every single penny that cunt owns. It makes me feel dirty every day knowing that I live less than three miles from where that pondlife is living the life of luxury. He should have his name and address printed in the paper so we can all go round and give him a good kicking.
I'm not staunchly against the idea, but i know how het up people get about rape on these boards, and i'm not sure it helps a balanced debate.
I'd say there should be no statute of limitations on suing the perp on any crime of violence - as long as you can show there was a reasonable reason why you didn't do it in the first six years (and there seems to be in this case). So I'd cover assault as well, but not burglary (unless there was violence involved).
you should set a specified amount of money for any given crime if you're going to have financial renumerations
Why is that a bad thing?
I don't think you understand what the law change means. You already have the right to sue a rich person who rapes you and there are not millions of spurious and false claims about rich people raping people or attacking people violently. The law used to say that you had six years to launch a claim, meaning that if the violent attacker came into money after six years and one day he could live the life of Riley and you could live with the emotional scars of what he has done.
Now there's no time limit for the victims of serious crime. That's a good thing.
Why?
If a rich person violently attacks another person then it is only right and proper that he loses most of his fortune to his victim.
It's rare that it would matter because most violent criminals don't have assets that can be recoverable throough court (any assets they do have are usually very well hidden). Most people have to get compensation from the Criminal Compensation Injuries Board, which does give compensation according to loss and damage on a fixed scale.
The most important tenet of English law is that you take your victim as you find them. I don't see why it is wrong to extend that the other way- if you're rich you are liable to huge compensation claims if you decide to rape someone. If you come into money after 20 years you are still liable. That's how it should be.
The victims of violent crime have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives, so I don't see why the criminals should be protected at all. I certainly don't see why rich rapists should only be liable to a fixed amount- make their whole wealth be put at risk.
Addict, six years is the usual legal amount of time that you have in order to issue a claim, and its there to prevent spurious and/or unprovable claims wasting court time after many years. Normally the six-year time limit is a good thing (e.g. a bank has six years to enforce an unpaid debt otherwise it can't) but there have been other exceptions (such as for mortgage lenders) so I don't see why an exception shouldn't be made for the victims of violent crime.
To be honest if he was really reformed perhaps he should be voluntarily giving some of his new found wealth to his victims...
Because you'd know the pain you inflicted on your victims and would want to make some sort of recompense
why? and if they do what if the previous thought it wasn't enough... :chin:
whose to decide what is a right amount?
i prefer to take the view that once a sentence has been served, other than working with children as a carer/teacher etc that it shouldn't e taken into account as they have served their time
also it'd encourage people who have served time to leave the country and go somewhere where they won't have checks, and make them more likely to reoffend
Why don't they go to the courts and get a fair settlement that's not means tested? Then if the attacker does come into money they get it all, if not then they can drip feed you payments (through PAYE maybe?) until the balance is paid off.
Actually yeah, that would be nicer. If every rapist had to put in as much 'energy' toward making their victim's life better as the impact of their action. Can't see it working as part of the punishment though, for reason such as ShyBoy stated but... in an ideal world a reformed character WOULD want to do that.
The civil law is about restitution, not about punishment. A civil law award will put the defendant back into the same position they would have been had the attack not happened (or will try to- money doesn't fix 20 years of mental scars, after all). A civil claim is not about punishing the defendant, it is about making them repay the damage they have caused, nothing more.
You can't sue someone twice for the same problem against you, and any award of damages is based on your injuries not on their finances.
It is worth bearing in mind, of course, that Mr Hoare has not repaid the criminal "debt" to society- he was sentenced to life imprisonment and was only released on licence. He cannot leave the country as part of the terms of that licence, and if he tries to, he would be sent straight back to jail, not passing go and not collecting £200.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7217728.stm
Great stuff!
I thought that they'd already been awarded compensation for that? I know that the last time the Catholic church got sued for this, the payments effectively bankrupted the New York diocese. Couldn't happen to a nicer organisation.
:yes:
I have a feeling that there is a bit of vengeance in there somewhere, which really isn't a good thing.
The whole time thing does imply that no one can ever move on if they commit a serious crime. Whether it's about punishment or not, the person is still punished perhaps years later after they've reformed and rebuilt a new and honest life. Compleatly destroying the man or woman is only going to make it impossible for them to re-build their own life and cause a whole load of new problems.
If the settlement is a percentage then there are the obvious inequalities as mentioned before. I also think the "acusing rich people of serious crimes" comment was referring to innocent rich people being set up or accused of these crimes with others seeing some easy money. As sick as that sounds i'm quite sure that would happen.
I think this situation shouldn't have been allowed to happen and I think it is an extreme and uncommon case, but I do think society needs to be careful of destroying peoples lives (even if they are criminals and even if it is to help a victim and not to directly punish the criminal). Such vengeful actions, whether purposeful or not, often lead to more trouble.
I agree, so why go after it?
The principle that someone is responsible for the damage their actions cause is as old as the stars. The principle of civil damages for assault has 400 years of tradition in the English common law, and predates the criminal law by a long long way. You'd be going back to the days of Guy Fawkes for when this "dangerous new precendent" was set.
The law of civil damages has been around for four centuries without millions of spurious claims.
What the old law was that someone had six years to issue a claim for damages, under the Limitations Act 1980. In the case of the victims of child sex abuse they had six years from the age of majority, which is now 18. Clearly this was unfair to just about everyone, given that a lot of victims of sexual abuse only gain the courage to report it many years after the event happened, partyicularly in the case of sexual abuse in childhood.
Now, with the consent of the court, someone can issue a claim for damages more than six years after the event. This is particularly important for those who have suffered sexual abuse in childhood and will allow those who have suffered access to restitution from those who abused them and allowed the abuse to happen.
The old law meant that those who sexually abuse vulnerable people could walk away scot-free financially providing they could keep their victims quiet for six years. This would mean that the victim often had no access to restitution from their attacker at all, even if a criminal conviction was secured against the attacker.
The Law Lords have rightly recognised that this unjustly favoured the attacker and have corrected an imbalance in the law. Attackers now cannot hide behind the statute of limitations- a limitation that does not exist in the criminal law, it should be noted. I honestly fail to see how this sets a "dangerous new precendent" and I certainly don't see why it is unethical to make an attacker compensate his victims for his actions.
The other main thing to remember is that the civil law is not about "taking someone to the cleaners", it is about compensation for wrongs committed against someone. A judge still has to agree that it is in the interests of justice to allow a late claim, it is just that the automatic bar has been removed. Clearly that is in the interests of justice.
I have to say that I'm surprised that so many people are concerned about the welfare of Mr Hoare, who was living in Newcastle's most prestigious housing estate, as opposed to the elderly woman he raped, though. I'm sure he must be pleased.