CJ390 Assignment 04
November 3, 2018
The United States is obligated to give funding to to help crime victims two philosophical arguments to the proponent that the government is obligated to compensate its citizens. through its own system of taxation and special provisions should be enacted to compensate vitims who were affected by serious crimes.
The next argument is the agreement which the government attempts to provide a standard of living for victims of crimse who have suffered hardships which are not induced by their own actions.
The United States government should accept its obligation of compensating victims of serious crimes who have been left with no other means. The compensation can be monetary, housing, or any number of public assistnace through programs like Children and Familiy services.
1. The government is responsibile for making sure that victims of crimes are compensating for losses, damages or harms, which is no fault of their own. There are two arguments which supports the idea that victims should be compensated, the social contract agreement and the welfare contract agreement.
One idea is that the government should compensate victims of crime is the Social welfare concept. This concept forwards the idea that the Government has obligations to ensure that its citizens in society can peacefully enjoy some sort of standard of living. The Government needs to help people achieve this if they are unable to do it themselves. Social welfare can be used as a foundation for victims to be compensated , those who are affected through no fault of their own should be compensated. Harm is an unforseen circumstance. upright citizens should not have to struggle to cope in society after becoming victims to a serious crime.
The approach of this is that the responsibility for one’s actions is their alone.
surprisingly, this is also one of the cons of conservative tendency. In a perfect world a
person would not intentionall place themselves in a dangerous situation: like taking a
walk in a dnagerous neighborhood, or asking for directions in gang territory.
The propensity for becoming a victim in a nice neighborhood is less, also it is
least likely that someone walkingat midnight in the suburbs, or asking directions in
Beverly Hills, will be in a risky situation.
The argument places the responsibility on the government and not the
victim. it is apparent that people would be purposely careless and not responsible .
For example, this is factual;
In Illinois, the public assistance programs for the poor are being removed . to some
politicians this a waste of tax dollars being wasted. some feel that the poor are victims
because they don’t have the drive to improve their way of living. The Government states
this is debilitating and offers no real course of action. the cons of this approach is that due
to age and disability there are programs that are succesful.
Another reason the government should provide compensation for victims of crime is that not all victims of crime are seriously harmed by their victimization. One of the philosophical bases for victims’ compensation is that of Social Welfare and the needs to make sure all its citizens have good standard of living. Majority of victims of crime do not have their standard of living affected greatly by crime. For e.g. , someone steals john’s motor cycle, he is hurt, but his standard of living does not fall below the minimum standard of living that the government is supposed to ensure he is compensate. The government might have an obligation to help people who are seriously harmed by crime e.g. fire victim who’s house have been burned down by someone else , but does not have an obligation to provide compensation for all crimes to all victims.
William G. Doerner, ? , 2011 Victimology (6th edition).
LE Walker – Victimology, 1983 – psycnet.apa.org retrived from http//:googlescholar.com