Compensation and restitution to victims of crime

Abstract

"The guilty man lodged, fed, clothed, warmed, lighted, entertained, at the expense of the State in a model cell, issued from it with a sum of money lawfully earned, has paid his debt to society; he set his victims at defiance but the victim has his consolation; he can think that by taxes he pays to the Treasury, he has contributed towards the paternal care, which has guarded the criminal during his stay in prison." In somewhat bitter and sarcastic words, Prins, the Belgian representative in the 1895 Congress, voiced his indignation at the various difficulties raised against his proposals on behalf of the victim. Nearly a century later, theorists and jurists are still grappling with the issues involved in the area of effective help to victims of crime, trying to put in words through legislation, what has been accepted in principle by many. Before entering into any debate on the twin concepts of restitution and compensation to victims, one needs have a look at the historical development and theoretical evolution of these concepts with a view to seeing the subject from its many facets, keeping in mind that it has been considered "as one of the most important problems in penal legislation." It is an accepted fact that restitution to victims of crime is an ancient institution, well established in the history of penology - such that for a long time it was almost inseparably attached to the concept of punishment for crimes. In the ages before formal law and criminal justice was thought of, spontaneous revenge would be the gut reaction to attack, as victims would seek to get even with their aggressors by inflicting physical injuries and by taking back things of value. Such a counter-attack was sometimes so ferocious that the 'unfortunate' assailants would end up victimized!