Sign here

Justice systems are too focused on arresting criminals, and have completely forgotten an equally important aspect of justice: compensating victims. When my (admittedly inexpensive and beaten-up) bicycle was stolen in October 2022, I was horrified to learn that there is no law entitling victims to compensation.

It is imperative to establish universal insurance; that is, the right of victims to be compensated. Wherever possible, said compensation should be paid out by whoever did the wrong or the heir thereof. Each victim would receive their stolen property (or failing that, the cash value of the item). Obviously, there would have to be an exception if the offender is broke or never found, or the victim is the offender's only living heir. This is why all incarcerated people should have all of their major assets confiscated, to help pay for the damage.

While it may take a few years to fight this battle, I will stop at nothing until all crime victims are entitled to compensation. Not just retroactive to 2022, but all the way to Day One! True justice means no legacy clauses whatsoever. Past infractions should be treated the same as future ones, with compensation for the victims. Compensating all the past victims may take a few years' worth of confiscated assets, but it would be worth it to know that a major injustice is coming to its long-overdue end.

Reason 1: Not a victim's job

Protecting society from criminals doesn't mean simply arresting them. Just as importantly, it also means taking care of the victims. If the stolen property is not found and returned in a timely manner, or is found in a damaged state, the victim should receive the cash value of the item instead. Maybe up to a certain cap (let's say $100,000). Many people can't afford to replace their stolen goods. No one should be left high and dry. Everyone who has been wronged should be entitled to compensation!

Reason 2: Insurance companies

Insurance companies are businesses, and especially bureaucratic ones at that. They are known to weasel out of paying any way they can. I don't know about you, but I believe bureaucracy is pure evil and should be categorically banned in favour of convenience. The needs of the many should automatically outweigh the needs of the few, especially in contexts where the "few" are rich.

Besides which, it's pretty much a sure thing that no insurance policy in the world would cover a stolen bike that was not locked up. (Even though most places of business don't provide bike parking, despite being required to by an unenforced BC law.) Therefore, it is crucial to replace private insurance companies with a universal and retroactive right to be compensated.

Reason 3: "Pain and suffering" settlements

Special thanks to my friend and one-time bike lender James Mercer for adding this reason. Just days before I returned his bicycle to him, he pointed out that fixed amounts of victim compensation could replace "pain and suffering" lawsuits. (Thank you, James! You'll always be a friend to me.)

These lawsuits are a prevalent issue primarily associated with the United States, where settlements as high as nine figures have been reached for nothing more than emotional distress. However, this problem also exists in other countries, including Canada, where several settlements in the six-figure range have been awarded for three figures of property damage. Undoubtedly, this is an outrageously excessive response.

This is not to say large settlements are inherently unjust. One Canadian was awarded $4,500,000 for a permanent injury. In my opinion, this was a fair amount. Ideally, victim compensation amounts would be based directly on the severity of the offence, regardless of the victim's feelings.

Reason 4: Security measures

Banks, online stores, and other organizations have imposed more complex security measures in recent years. They are usually unpopular. These measures may include answering multiple security questions or entering passwords daily, even when using a personal desktop computer that is not shared. Universal insurance would lead to a generally more secure society, and reduce the need for said cumbersome measures.

Reason 5: A precedent exists

Compensation for injustice victims (or heirs of victims) is not a new idea. In 1991, the Canadian government compensated Japanese immigrants who had been interned during World War II. In 2004, the government compensated the descendants of the Indian passengers of the Komagata Maru, a ship that had been turned away in 1914.

Canada's early aboriginal treaties were not honoured, but in recent years, there has been progress in compensating the indigenous peoples for the resources that were taken from them. This is an important step towards justice, as it acknowledges the historical wrongs and provides financial restitution.

Reason 6: The passive "legacy clause"

"From now on" is the ultimate middle finger to people who were wronged before the law was passed, which often includes the very people who fought for it. All reforms worth having (and there are many!) are worth making fully retroactive.

In the case of direct democracy, this would mean having existing laws come up for review regularly. But in this case, the approach would be far simpler; compensation would be a right for all verifiable past victims (and heirs of deceased victims).

Counter-arguments

1. This may be difficult and expensive to implement.
2. Confiscating the assets of criminals could increase recidivism.
3. "Just get insurance!"
4. How to determine the value of stolen goods?
5. Liars could thwart the system.

Counter-argument 1: Difficulty and cost

Universal insurance would certainly be too expensive for taxpayers to cover. This is why individuals serving a prison sentence of two years or more should have all their major assets confiscated. It is unjust that prisoners have the ability to own property while incarcerated. By confiscating these assets, the funds could be used to provide compensation to the victims.

International repo companies may need to become more common in order to deal with situations where criminals hold property abroad. (Of particular note, I have heard about a crook who scammed elderly people out of millions of dollars, and spent $2 million on a house in the Bahamas.)

Ideally, victims would receive their payouts on a "first wronged, first served" basis, as it would be the fairest approach.

Counter-argument 2: Recidivism

If criminals were to lose their property, it could potentially serve as a motivation for them to engage in unlawful activities once again. This is precisely why Canada and other nations should consider adopting the approach taken by Finland, and implement open prisons. (I have a full argument for this too!)

By shifting the focus from punitive measures to rehabilitation, prisons can become more effective in reintegrating offenders into society. Rather than continuously isolating individuals, these institutions prioritize the development of skills, education, and job training, equipping inmates with the necessary tools to lead a law-abiding life upon release.

Counter-argument 3: The argument for insurance

The idea of theft victims being responsible to have insurance is flawed. Insurance companies are driven by profit rather than justice. They find reasons to avoid paying claims, leaving victims uncompensated. In light of this, it should be the government's responsibility to provide compensation for theft victims. By taking on this role, the government would prioritize the interests of the victims rather than profit margins.

Money shouldn't make the world go round! Justice should!

Counter-argument 4: The value of the stolen goods

Determining the value of stolen goods can be a complex issue. A large part of it could be old police reports. I can't remember for sure, but I think I had to specify how much my stolen bike was worth. I paid $850 for it new in December 2020 (that's cheap for a large bike). But because it was worn out, I played it safe and said my bike was only worth about $300 or $400 (if I remember correctly).

I should note that my approach to this matter is more honest than that of someone who might inflate the value, claiming it would cost $1,200 to replace it, despite initially paying only $850. Some people would be even more dishonest than that, perhaps saying it was a custom-built bike worth $6,000.

Counter-argument 5: Fraud

One problem with universal insurance is that liars could thwart the system. However, this is already an issue within the current system involving private insurance companies. Maybe a receipt or a high-quality photograph of the item should be a requirement. When people buy valuables, they should keep the receipts. As it stands, insurance companies often ask for receipts or have contacts for that reason. By incorporating these verification measures, the risk of false claims can be greatly reduced. This will ensure that compensation is provided only to those who are genuinely in need.