There is a story in the UK at the moment about a convicted rapist who won £7million (about $12.7m ). You can read about it here.

In essence, a convicted rapist was nearing the end of his custodial sentence, and was transferred to a low-security prison to ease his reintroduction into society. As part of this, he was allowed out on "day release" with little or no supervision. He did not commit any known crimes during this time, but instead he bought a ticket for the British National Lottery which later won the jackpot.

For clarity, he had already been caught and was being punished for his crime. There are no prison rules, let alone any laws, prohibiting day release prisoners from buying lottery tickets (or taking part in any other type of legal gambling). And the lottery winnings could not conceivably be argued to be proceeds of his crime, which took place before the launch of the Lottery in this country.

Sections of the press, and (to my mind, regrettably) two British Government Ministers have publicly speculated on whether, in this particular case, the man should get to keep the winnings in whole or part; whether the man's victims should pursue civil proceedings to win damages from him; and whether new rules should be introduced preventing prisoners from entering such lotteries, and/or allowing victims of crime to claim damages from monies obtained by criminals from legitimate sources after the crime has taken place (in this case long after).

My questions for debate are in two strands:
1. Assets of criminals:
a} Do you think that the legal earnings, winnings or inheritances of criminals should be proscribed in view of their crimes? (i.e. certain sources of income should be blocked to them, automatically earmarked for victim compensation, and so on)
b} Should there be a distinction between from assets they had or obtained, legally or illegally, before, during, or as a consequence of, their crimes, and ones that they legally obtain afterwards?
b} Do you think that victims should be able to claim damages against theoretical future assets at the time of the crime? i.e. They stake a claim against potential future assets.
c} Do you think that victims should be able to launch claims long after their victimhood when their wrongdoer obtains new assets, regardless of the punishment meted out by the state?
2. Reaction of politicians:
a} Do you think it is wise of members of government to publicly and immediately take a position in reaction to every passing news story?
b} What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing or not doing so, both in principle and practice?
Edited for clarity

All assets held by criminals regardless of how obtained should be available for victims compensation. Only after these obligations are settled should criminal be allowed to retain a dime.

Victims should have the right to claim damages against future earnings or winnings of criminals.


2. a) I don’t really care. In some cases they have to or the press assumes they are not speaking for a reason.

Incarceration is payment for the crime unless fines are associated apriori. I take it that no rape fine had been associated, but if there had been, then take the amount for the fine.

In rule of law, if the law doesn't exist apriori, then the state can take no action. The state can make a new law for future situations.



Absolutely. If the idea is to temporarily incarcerate, I suppose with the idea of rehabilitating the criminal to go and sin no more, then another supposition is that the former criminal may legally gain assets after paying the penalty.



That would put a stake in the ground. It would also remove motivation for the former criminal to gain any assets, and so would probably only work in a lottery win scenario.



I think that can be done now. It's a matter of whether a jury would award the claim.



No. It shows a lack of reflection on the subject.



Engage brain before opening mouth so you don't remove all doubt about being a fool.

If there is a law that the criminal must pay reparations or fees of some sort to the victim, then that should be paid first.

However, I see no moral reason why a felon should not be allowed to win the lottery. Or even get a job that makes him rich at some point, unless he ends up making money as a RESULT of his crime.

Do you think that victims should be able to launch claims long after their victimhood when their wrongdoer obtains new assets, regardless of the punishment meted out by the state?

No. Although I entertain the thought of seeing baby rapists experience the original iron maiden punishment needs to stop when you're a free man again, assuming you can wait to present the ticket once you're out for good. Apart from the crime and guilty verdict this is nothing like the Max Factor heir case where victims sued for punitive damages. If Brits don't want lottery winnings going to "less deserving person[s]," according to the first officer who arrested Hoare, then Brits should not let felons in custody putter around in society until they've completed serving their time. The same goes for parole.



Life term in the UK must not mean life term. The government doesn't deserve to interfere on the victims' behalf when it makes a lottery winning possible to begin with, and disagrees with the judge on the severity of Hoare's crimes. That is the real measure of the value the legal system allotted to the victims' suffering and it's too late to make like karma took a day off.

I think the term Double Jeopardy comes to mind. Once a case is tried, guilt and punishment are decided. I agree with Leslie. If the British pols feel he hasn't paid his debt to society or the victims, then they need to rethink their sentencing standards.

My personal belief is that victims of crime should always be reimbursed their damages from the crime/criminal.

I believe that part of every punishment on every criminal should be the obligation to repay the victim.

So, if such laws were in place, after receiving these winnings the criminal would be obligated to pay off his/her debt to their victims. The remaining proceeds, if there are any would be theirs.

1. Assets of criminals:

a} Do you think that the legal earnings, winnings or inheritances of criminals should be proscribed in view of their crimes? (i.e. certain sources of income should be blocked to them, automatically earmarked for victim compensation, and so on)

No except in the case of profiting from the crime.

b} Should there be a distinction between from assets they had or obtained, legally or illegally, before, during, or as a consequence of, their crimes, and ones that they legally obtain afterwards?

No except in the case of profiting from the crime. This is a bit of a dangerous area, it seems to me. If the criminal had a job at the time he committed the crime, continued working after the crime right up until he was incarcerated, should he return that money? There should be a distinction, as I said, upon whether the moneymaking was related to the crime itself.

b} Do you think that victims should be able to claim damages against theoretical future assets at the time of the crime? i.e. They stake a claim against potential future assets.

No, I don't. We got rid of debtors prisons long ago -- I don't think we should bring them back.

c} Do you think that victims should be able to launch claims long after their victimhood when their wrongdoer obtains new assets, regardless of the punishment meted out by the state?

No. Isn't there a statute of limitations? If not, there should be.

2. Reaction of politicians:

a} Do you think it is wise of members of government to publicly and immediately take a position in reaction to every passing news story?

Some reactions are easy to have, in the case of violence, for instance. It's a bit touchy regarding the subject of someone's guilt, obviously. I do think that politicians are people too and have the right to react.

b} What are the advantages and disadvantages of doing or not doing so, both in principle and practice?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Politicians can have election issues regarding news stories, so there are obvious advantages and disadvantages related. For the victims of the crime, comments can reduce the jury pool, be sensational, or even emotionally hurtful.

My quarrel with all this is that the American view is that money cures all ills. In my opinion, it does not. The emphasis on money is one which comes from the legal profession -- and it does not always have the victim in mind.

I personally don't believe a victim should be able to get all the criminal's future earnings based upon some overblown civil award. I think this is negative if not immoral thinking -- that money can make you happy, that money can cure your emotional hurt and that money can 'restore' you to the state you were before. I don't believe it can.

I really don't see why a criminal cannot buy a lottery ticket. The purchase has nothing whatsoever to do with the victim or the crime.