so she obviously deserved it...

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

Wouldn't make a difference to me, I'd still say the latter should get more compensation than the drunk one.

How about bad judgment vs inebriation?

In one the victim was by her own admission absolutely hammered and climbed into the first car that offered her a lift home. In the other, a woman finished work late & missed the last train home. She accepted a lift from a stranger. How would you split the money?

Originally Posted by Sosha

How about bad judgment vs inebriation?

In one the victim was by her own admission absolutely hammered and climbed into the first car that offered her a lift home. In the other, a woman finished work late & missed the last train home. She accepted a lift from a stranger. How would you split the money?

neither deserve compensation, they deserve justice!!

Originally Posted by Sosha

How about bad judgment vs inebriation?

In one the victim was by her own admission absolutely hammered and climbed into the first car that offered her a lift home. In the other, a woman finished work late & missed the last train home. She accepted a lift from a stranger. How would you split the money?

This is a pointless exercise. This isn't a case about someone having a few glasses of wine and being raped. The case is about the uncertain prosectution when the victim isn't able to properly provide any recollection of the event.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

This is a pointless exercise. This isn't a case about someone having a few glasses of wine and being raped. The case is about the uncertain prosectution when the victim isn't able to properly provide any recollection of the event.

Was personally wondering more about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/12/justice


"The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was under pressure today to give full payouts to at least 14 rape victims who had their awards cut because they had been drinking when they were attacked.
Justice minister Bridget Prentice called on the body to automatically review cases where women had been told their alcohol consumption had contributed to their fate, insisting it was not government policy to blame victims and the guidelines had been wrong applied."


But I believe you're right - it is a pointless excersise as I don't think you can generalise.

Originally Posted by neio79

neither deserve compensation, they deserve justice!!

This is true. I don't really see why the victim should get compensation unless it's from the criminal concerned (rather than the taxpayer) or the crime means that their usual avenues of income are cut off or that they inccur additional costs above those they would have had the crime not been committed.

Originally Posted by neio79

neither deserve compensation, they deserve justice!!

+1

Money makes the whole thing seem a little cheap. Like they are only miffed because they are not getting as much money out of it. I've not read the articel so can't comment on that part. Being raped is the most single horrifying , life scarring experience a person can go through. How the hell they can even consider money as some form of justice is just as messed up.

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

I don't really see why the victim should get compensation unless it's from the criminal concerned (rather than the taxpayer) or the crime means that their usual avenues of income are cut off or that they inccur additional costs above those they would have had the crime not been committed.

Don't see why the taxpayer shouldn't foot the bill if the criminal concerned is skint or unavailable - like hospital costs, un-employment benefit etc. Other than that agreed.

take the compo from the criminals assets first.

[Messie]

I'm sorry but alcohol has nothing to do with it - neither the crime nor the compensation.

A person was RAPED. That means they were forced to have non-consensual sex. That means there was a RAPIST. The personality, background, inebriation, colour, clothes or anything else about the victim is irrelevant. Someone (the rapist) commited an offense against another (in this case woman but would equally apply to a man).

It really is that simple.



PS and as I recall financial compensation is available from the public purse for anyone who is the victim of a crime.

Originally Posted by Messie

I'm sorry but alcohol has nothing to do with it - neither the crime nor the compensation.

A person was RAPED. That means they were forced to have non-consensual sex. That means there was a RAPIST. The personality, background, inebriation, colour, clothes or anything else about the victim is irrelevant. Someone (the rapist) commited an offense against another (in this case woman but would equally apply to a man).

It really is that simple.

It is simple. But not like that.

If someone is raped, the rape is a crime regardless.
If someone wakes up with no recollection of the event, you can't claim rape as you can't be sure of your actions to tell if it was crime or not. Locking up an innocent man however; is a crime.

Don't be so quick to judge everyone as guilty.