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 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.
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, high-value assets seized 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 is not found 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 taken care of. It fosters trust in the justice system, demonstrating a societal commitment to fairness and the well-being of citizens.
Reason 2: Support
Providing compensation formally recognizes the victim’s suffering, offering not only financial aid but also emotional validation. Stolen goods are often expensive to replace. Offering automatic compensation 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 fear their aggressors and/or because they do not expect results. A system of compensation may deter potential offenders, and would certainly encourage 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, implying they were at fault. Automatic compensation shifts the burden away from the victim and makes clear that responsibility lies with the perpetrator and the justice system. It’s never okay to blame an innocent person, and certainly not a 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. Financial support 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. This contradicts the very fundamentals of justice! Bureaucracy should never stand in the way of support.
Fixed amounts of 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’ 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. This amount is an excessive response to hurt feelings; ideally, victim compensation amounts would be based directly on the severity of the offence.
Instead of using unreliable private institutions, society should guarantee universal compensation as a public right. 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.
Reason 8: Reduced security reliance
Banks, online stores, and other organizations have imposed increasingly complex security measures (multifactor authentication, security questions, etc.) in recent years. These measures often fail to prevent theft or fraud.
Universal insurance would reduce the need for these cumbersome measures. It would lead to a more secure society, ease the pressure on individuals, and encourage more meaningful systemic improvements to safety. All without asking people to jump through hoops 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 well-being. It proves that the law exists to serve people, not just to punish criminals.
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 Numbered Treaties (1871-1921) were not honoured at first, but are now protected by the 1982 Constitution Act. As a result, there has been progress in compensating Indigenous peoples for the resources that were taken from them. Though not yet complete justice (Indigenous peoples have to go through the courts for compensation), this was still an important step towards justice; Canada acknowledges historical wrongs and recognizes the moral power of restitution.
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 those who fought for it. 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. 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. This reform 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!