Arrest Alone Doesn’t Make It Right!
11 reasons crime victims deserve universal compensation
1. Universal compensation would promote fairness and justice.
2. It would provide much-needed support for victim recovery.
3. Governments have the duty to keep the public safe.
4. It would encourage victims to report crimes.
5. It would reduce victim blaming.
6. The economy would benefit.
7. It would replace inequitable, fundamentally unjust systems such as insurance companies and lawsuits.
8. It would reduce reliance on security measures, which are often frustrating and ineffective.
9. It would restore faith in the legal system.
10. Victim compensation is not completely unprecedented.
11. By not including victim compensation, the current justice system passively allows past injustices to remain uncorrected.
Existing legal systems focus almost entirely on punishing wrongdoers, and have neglected an equally important aspect of justice: taking care of the victims. Punishment alone cannot restore what was lost or make victims whole again. Victims of theft, assault, and other crimes should automatically be entitled to compensation. Not as a privilege, not as a case-by-case courtesy, but as a basic human right like oxygen.
This reform may demand public investment for cost reasons, but that’s no excuse for inaction. Incarcerated individuals serving two years or longer should have their nonessential assets (or at least the high-value ones) seized in order to fund compensation efforts. It is fundamentally unjust for those convicted of serious crimes to retain wealth while their victims go unsupported.
Reason 1: Justice and fairness
Protecting society from criminals doesn’t mean simply arresting them. Just as importantly, it also means taking care of the victims. It should not be the victim’s job to replace stolen property. If the stolen property is damaged, or not found and returned in a timely manner, the victim should receive financial compensation instead.
Compensation aligns with the principles of justice, both by acknowledging the harm caused by crimes and by ensuring that victims are not left to bear the consequences alone. It fosters trust in the justice system, demonstrating a societal commitment to fairness and the well-being of all citizens. We are long overdue for a just and trustworthy society.
Reason 2: Support
Providing compensation formally recognizes the victim’s suffering, offering both emotional validation and financial aid to help them recover and rebuild. Stolen goods are often expensive to replace. Offering automatic compensation validates their suffering and gives them the means to rebuild.
Compensation should be a given, not a gamble. Everyone who has been wronged should be entitled to compensation! A just society must never leave its most vulnerable behind.
Reason 3: Public safety
Governments and societies have the moral responsibility to ensure public safety. When they fail, they owe something to those affected. Compensation may not undo the crime, but it does show that society takes responsibility and stands with its victims. No one should be expected to “move on” without assistance.
No one deserves to live in fear! Everyone should have the fundamental right to feel safe! Compensation addresses societal failures by supporting those who were harmed.
Reason 4: Incentive to report
As it stands, many crimes go unreported. Some victims keep quiet because they are afraid of angering their aggressors, or more commonly, because they do not expect results. A system of compensation may deter potential offenders, and more importantly, it would encourage more victims to report crimes. This, in turn, improves justice outcomes and strengthens the entire system.
Reason 5: Reduced victim blaming
Victims are too often left to fend for themselves, subtly suggesting they were somehow at fault. Automatic compensation shifts the burden away from the victim and makes clear that responsibility lies with the perpetrator, as well as the system that failed to protect. It’s never okay to blame an innocent person, and certainly not the victim!
Reason 6: Victim recovery and economic stability
Many crimes have profound, long-term effects on victims’ lives. Most immediately, theft and fraud create lasting financial hardship. Theft victims may be unable to replace crucial items such as phones, tools, vehicles. Financial support ensures victims don’t bear the burden of loss alone, helps offset these impacts, and supports short-term recovery. This, in turn, prevents long-term economic damage and social decline.
Reason 7: Replacing inequitable systems
Insurance companies are private businesses, profit-driven and bureaucratic. Many go to great lengths to avoid paying claims. The current model is not just frustrating; it contradicts the very fundamentals of justice! Bureaucracy should never stand in the way of support.
Fixed compensation could replace “pain and suffering” settlements, ensuring fairness and consistency while addressing economic and social needs. (Special thanks to my friend, James M., for pointing this out.) Courts passively favour the rich, thanks in no small part to lawyers charging outrageous fees.
Some countries have imposed caps on pain and suffering settlements, but most of these limits are high. In situations not involving injuries or property damage, Canada’s maximum settlement is $125,000. Suffering is highly subjective and difficult to price, but a $125,000 settlement is undeniably an excessive response to nothing more than hurt feelings.
Instead of using unreliable private institutions, society should guarantee universal compensation as a public right. This approach would be simpler, faster, and fairer. The needs of the many should automatically outweigh the needs of the few, especially in contexts where the “few” are rich. Therefore, it is crucial to replace private insurance companies and greedy lawyers with a universal and retroactive right to be compensated.
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 8: Reduced security reliance
Banks, online stores, and other organizations have imposed increasingly complex security measures in recent years. They are often ineffective and succeed only in causing frustration. 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 reduce the need for these cumbersome measures. It would lead to a generally more secure society, ease the pressure on individuals, and encourage more meaningful systemic improvements to safety. All without asking people to jump through hoops just to access their own money.
Reason 9: Restoring faith
We are long overdue for a just and trustworthy society. A justice system that stops at arrest and conviction is incomplete. Compensation restores trust by showing victims they matter, demonstrating a societal commitment to fairness and the well-being of all citizens. It proves that the law exists to serve people, not just punish criminals. This is the kind of system we should be proud to uphold.
Reason 10: Precedent
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.
These examples show that our society already recognizes the moral power of restitution. Now it’s time to apply that same principle to everyday victims.
Reason 11: 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. If we only help future victims, we leave today’s survivors behind. That’s not just unfair; it’s cruel.
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 in cases where the victim has passed, their heirs. Ideally, payouts would be dealt on a “first wronged, first served” basis.
Justice delayed should not mean justice denied! 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 bringing a major injustice to its long-overdue end would be a wise investment. Complete justice means no room for legacy clauses!