Are victims of Theft entitled to compensation?

techdiver

Hi,

As the title states, are victims of theft entitled to compensation from the person who committed the crime?

In my case the person who stole from me was caught and is up in court for this. Should I be awarded compensation for my financial loss of he is found guilty?

I would think it is only fair that this would be the case??

SetOverSet

There is a fund administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, but as far as I am aware the scheme does not cover theft, only personal injuries; more information here.

In some cases - to avoid a custodial sentence, for example - the courts may order the offender to pay compensation to the victim. Or, you may be able to take a civil action against the offender, but you would need to speak to a solicitor.

techdiver

SetOverSet wrote: »

There is a fund administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal, but as far as I am aware the scheme does not cover theft, only personal injuries; more information here.

In some cases - to avoid a custodial sentence, for example - the courts may order the offender to pay compensation to the victim. Or, you may be able to take a civil action against the offender, but you would need to speak to a solicitor.

Thanks for the reply. Yeah I was reading up on the fund, and I knew that was only for violent crimes etc.

I would have thought though that it should be a clear case of someone steals an items worth x amount from another individual, either they should have to return it or compensate the victim for the value of the item.

Otherwise as is the usual state of affairs in Ireland the perpetrator gets a slap on the wrist, meaning crime does indeed pay and the victim as always would lose out.

hullaballoo

There are two relevant strands to the justice system in case of theft of valuable goods. In the first instance, the criminal justice system deals with the offence against the state, which is contained in the statute book under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001.Criminal cases are taken by the DPP on behalf of the State (and by extension, society in general.) Judges have broad sentencing powers both under statute and at common law that allow them to deal with such offences appropriately. They take a common sense approach and will not make a compensation order in cases where the accused has no means because the sentence would be ineffectual.

On the other side of things, the civil justice system operates to allow people who are unlawfully deprived of their rights to seek remedies against other parties as personal litigants. That means that you can sue the thief in your own name for damages arising from the incident under a number of civil heads of claim. Again, a common sense approach is needed here. It is expensive to bring a claim in your own name. Many solicitors will give the benefit of a no foal no fee arrangement where a case has a reasonable prospect of success - i.e., not just a successful judgment but also success in enforcing the judgment and actually getting the money from the other person.

Most thieves do not have funds sufficient to pay damages/costs if a civil case is taken against them.

As mentioned above, a victim can also apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation fund, where appropriate.

A solicitor will guide you in relation to the reality in you obtaining compensation in your own case.

Denny_Crane

You can sue them civilly. You can't get blood out of a stone though.

GM228

Denny_Crane wrote: »

You can sue them civilly. You can't get blood out of a stone though.

+1

Realistically there is no point in suing the man of straw, a waste of time and more of your money.

techdiver

I understand the case of not being able to get blood out of a stone, but the issue I have is, if you have something of value stolen you have no real recourse then. For instance the thief should have the money taken from his or her dole in installments if needs be. It's sickening that we are the ones funding the lifestyle of this underclass with our tax money, whilst they are free to rob and steal with impunity as there is no real consequence for them. They won't be given a custodial sentence for petty crime and they won't be any financial penalty, so what exactly is the deterrent against this type of behaviour.

BTW, my item was not stolen out of necessity of financial need, it was stolen through complete opportunism and when he realised he didn't want it anymore, he just threw it in a ditch (not recovered though).

Sorry if I'm coming across "ranty", I know the the advice/answers I'm being given here is sound, and is sort of what I expected anyway in Ireland.

hullaballoo

techdiver wrote: »

I understand the case of not being able to get blood out of a stone, but the issue I have is, if you have something of value stolen you have no real recourse then. For instance the thief should have the money taken from his or her dole in installments if needs be. It's sickening that we are the ones funding the lifestyle of this underclass with our tax money, whilst they are free to rob and steal with impunity as there is no real consequence for them. They won't be given a custodial sentence for petty crime and they won't be any financial penalty, so what exactly is the deterrent against this type of behaviour.

BTW, my item was not stolen out of necessity of financial need, it was stolen through complete opportunism and when he realised he didn't want it anymore, he just threw it in a ditch (not recovered though).

Sorry if I'm coming across "ranty", I know the the advice/answers I'm being given here is sound, and is sort of what I expected anyway in Ireland.

It is the same elsewhere. Even in the most successful jurisdictions from a criminal justice perspective, they haven't managed to figure out how to create money out of thin air.

The soapboxing is great fun and everything but the reality is that the system we have, while not perfect, was adopted as the best of a bad lot.

The reality is that the criminal justice systems that have been shown to actually work - decreased crime rates, low recidivism, rehabilitated and remorseful offenders etc. - won't be implemented here because the populist approach (and therefore, the one that democracy dictates as the one the government must follow) is to hang everyone from the gallows for even the most minor infraction.

techdiver

hullaballoo wrote: »

It is the same elsewhere. Even in the most successful jurisdictions from a criminal justice perspective, they haven't managed to figure out how to create money out of thin air.

The soapboxing is great fun and everything but the reality is that the system we have, while not perfect, was adopted as the best of a bad lot.

The reality is that the criminal justice systems that have been shown to actually work - decreased crime rates, low recidivism, rehabilitated and remorseful offenders etc. - won't be implemented here because the populist approach (and therefore, the one that democracy dictates as the one the government must follow) is to hang everyone from the gallows for even the most minor infraction.

I'm not looking to "hang" anyone and I do believe in the rehabilitation approach as opposed to the vengeance approach. What I am saying though is their has to be consequences to our actions. If I break a neighbour's window, I must pay for it to be repaired. If a child does something wrong there should be a consequence to that, e.g. steal something from a neighbour, either return it, or replace it, etc.

I'm not asking for a pound of flesh here, what I'm saying is that there should be some reasonable and proportional consequence to our actions. In this case someone with less means should pay a relative amount to someone with means. The do nothing approach does not curb crime either. Even if it's €5 per week, there should be some punishment. As it is the person whole stole from me will walk free and bear no financial cost for what they have done. I on the other hand will bear financial cost for their actions against me.

A system in Finland of "Day-fine" is actually fair. That is a country with a very low recidivism rate.

RayCun

techdiver wrote: »

As it is the person whole stole from me will walk free and bear no financial cost for what they have done.

But the person who stole from you will be jailed. They won't bear a financial cost, they'll be deprived of their freedom.

The day-fine system in Finland doesn't mean that thieves pay money to the people they stole from, it means that fines are proportional to income.

hullaballoo

Apologies if I wasn't clearer, I wasn't saying that you are part of the hang-em-high brigade or that you are seeking a pound of flesh. I meant that the populist standpoint on sentencing generally is that minor offences carry the maximum penalty to "stamp it out" despite that not working. That standpoint is what gets in the way of rational discourse, which might yield not just better results for society in general but also for the victims of crime.

FWIW, I agree with you that the victims of crimes should be compensated by the assailant even on a long-term basis such as a proportion of income etc. There used to be a very useful system in place in this country whereby the victim or their family could go to the family of the assailant and distrain goods to the value of the offence - unfortunately, that system has been gone for nearly 1,000 years at this stage. (A murder victim's family could kill the murderer and if the value of the murderer's life (lóg n-enech) was less than that of the victim, they could further distrain goods to make up the difference!)

Unfortunately, the government has painted itself into a corner when it comes to taking directly from State Benefits and the maximum weekly amount that can be taken from someone on the dole is €2. (That is discussed further elsewhere on this forum, iirc. It has something to do with the minimum amount that can be received by someone on welfare is €186 and the payment atm is €188. I don't know much more about it tbh.)

I suppose one of the main reasons why in this country judges are slow to make compensation orders against those who cannot afford to pay is that they will obtain money by dangerous or unlawful means and will ultimately end up in more trouble as a result. They may steal it from someone else if they are very stupid, or, they may get it from a money lender or by selling drugs etc.

Denny_Crane

I'm all for a restorative justice approach, especially with regard to property crimes. However the supervision requirements would be huge. Again not a problem per se but it would have a knock on increase in tax effectively depriving you of money in the longer term. I know I'm a broken record on this point but if we could sort out our absolutely ludicrous drugs policy, and maintained funding for the CJS at current levels, we could focus on dealing with the very small numbers of criminals not committing crimes related to drugs.

Del2005

hullaballoo wrote: »

The reality is that the criminal justice systems that have been shown to actually work - decreased crime rates, low recidivism, rehabilitated and remorseful offenders etc. - won't be implemented here because the populist approach (and therefore, the one that democracy dictates as the one the government must follow) is to hang everyone from the gallows for even the most minor infraction.

That isn't even done in our justice injustice system, there's no consequences for the majority of the people convicted.

drunkmonkey

How long have you after the crime have you to take on the thief yourself. for example if they had no money at the time of the crime but roll on 10 years and there wealthy can you take a case then?

Denny_Crane

The statute of limitations would apply. 2 or 6 years springs to mind but any delay needs to be justified. Laches (if that's the right term when deal with damages) would apply. The reasoning behind this is that memories fade and evidence gets disposed of. Furthermore closure has to happen at some point, for all parties concerned.

Peregrinus

techdiver wrote: »

I understand the case of not being able to get blood out of a stone, but the issue I have is, if you have something of value stolen you have no real recourse then

Of course you have recourse. You can sue him, just like anyone who has been wronged by anyone else can sue them.

The question is why, if you don't want to sue him or don't think he's worth suing, you should expect the taxpayer to do it for you.

techdiver wrote: »

Sorry if I'm coming across "ranty", I know the the advice/answers I'm being given here is sound, and is sort of what I expected anyway in Ireland.

Are you under the impression that it's different in other countries?

hullaballoo

Del2005 wrote: »

That isn't even done in our justice injustice system, there's no consequences for the majority of the people convicted.

Wow. Really?

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

Wow. Really?

No, not really.