CHAPTER - III
VICTIMS IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
"Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of
crimes and misfortunes."
- Voltaire
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The role, importance, and visibility of the victim have varied greatly in
human societies. These variations reflect the historical evolution of legal concepts,
as well as diverse approaches to the interpretation of such notions as that of
individual responsibility. At one time in history, the victim of crime enjoyed the
central position in the administration of the criminal justice. Over the centuries,
however, the victims have evolved as a mere witness in the criminal proceedings. In
this chapter we will attempt to trace the rise and fall of victim in the criminal justice
system.
The crime is inevitable in every human society and has been existent in every
age since creation of the society. Some violation or the other of any code of conduct
prescribed for the members of a society is bound to occur. Not only is crime
inevitable but paradoxical as it may sound, some criminologists have gone to the
extent of saying that crime, to some extent helps in promoting social solidarity
among the people constituting the society. Directly or indirectly, repercussion of
every crime is creation of 'victim'. There can not be a victimless crime thus being
both interdependent. Conversely, crime has basically two elements; criminal (crime
doer) and victim (sufferer).
Crime and Criminal has been recognised throughout history of mankind. The
subject of criminality in one way or the other concerns with maximum emphasis on
crime doer i.e., criminal. Our endeavour has been to check the crime and criminals
51
and hence, advent of a branch of study called 'Criminology'. The branch was placed
both under legal science and social science in as much as, crime is violation of some
legal norms whilst criminal being part of a human society. This branch devoted its
study on crime with special reference to criminals. The other important element of a
crime i.e., victim happened to be a totally neglected species in as far as the study is
concerned till the proposition of an evolutionary science, later developed to be called
as 'Victimology', the sub discipline of Criminology. The victim who was
traditionally ignored as a component of the crime came back into light with the
advent of this new field namely victimology.
Till the end of Second World War there has been virtually no
consideration of the victim's participation in the wrong doing or victim's perception
of criminal justice system or compensation to the victim of crime by the criminal
law and criminologist. But historically the victim once enjoyed the golden age
during which his important role was recognised and also an emphasis was given for
due consideration to compensation recognizing his right to physical and economic
well being in terms of human dignity.
But the traumatic experiences of the Second World War in Europe acted as
a catalytic agent for thinking minds in the criminological field to concentrate their
thought processes on this vital element for whose benefit, protection, and for whose
peaceful existence organized society established systems of criminal justice namely,
the victim. The term 'victimology' appears to have been coined in 1949 by the
American psychiatrist Frederick Wertham,1 who called for 'a science of victimology'
which would address itself to the sociology of the victim. It is, however, the work of
his contemporary Hans Von Hentig2 and Benjamin Mendelsohn3 during the late
1940s on victims, which is now widely regarded as the seminal text in developing
victim studies and origins of Victimology. Both these writers were concerned to
1
Frederick Wertham : The Show of Violence, New York. (1949)
Hans Von Hentig: The pioneer of Victimology, Hans Von Hentig was born in Berlin in 1887. In
1948 his book "The Criminal and his Victim (1948)" was published by Yale University considered to
be the seminal text in the study.
3
Benjamin Mendelsohn : A French lawyer, coined the term 'Victimology-', to be the new field of
study. (1947). Born in Rumania, Benjamin Mendelsohn did his study of law and jurisprudence and
was admitted to the bar of Bucharest in 1934. Having been himself victim of discrimination in his
country, he became much interested in the victj and his / her relationship with the criminal.
2
52
understand the relationship between the victim and offender, endeavoured to
construct victim typologies as one way of achieving such an understanding. Today
the study of the victim is an academic endeavour delivered by numerous scholars.
Indeed, the discipline of victimology is now an important global perspective within
the social sciences. The frequent and diverse use of term 'Victim' both in
conversation and in print has changed the way people think of victims today.
"There is no society that is not confronted with the
problem of criminality. Even a society composed of
persons possessing angelic qualities would not be
free from violations of the norms of that society with
the result that faults which appear venial to the
layman will create there the same scandal that the
ordinary offence does in ordinary consciousness".
- Emile Durkheim
Crime and criminals have been recognized throughout the history of
mankind. So also in the criminal-victim relationship, the aspect which was
recognized altogether was the harm, injury or other damages caused by the criminal
to his victim. Till the end of World War II, there has been virtually no consideration
of the victim's participation in the wrong-doing or victim's perception of criminal
justice system or compensation to the victim of crime by the criminal law and
criminologist. But, historically, the victim once enjoyed the golden age during which
his important role was recognized and also an emphasis was given for due
consideration to compensation recognizing his right to physical and economic well
being in terms of human dignity.
The role, importance and visibility of the victim have varied greatly in
human societies. These variations reflect the historical evolution of legal concepts,
as well as diverse approaches to the interpretation of such notions as that of
individual responsibility. At one time in history, the victim enjoyed the central
position in the administration of the criminal justice.
53
As the modern state emerged and the government took on itself the
responsibility of enforcing justice, the offender gradually became the central figure
in the criminal arena. It is of course, true that the evolution has not been uniform
through out the world; there are countries where eye for an eye, tooth for tooth,
cutting of hand for committing theft and death penalty for adultery still prevails, but
they are the exceptions. The general tendency is the other way. Therefore, with the
criminological theories becoming more and more sophisticated, the victim is getting
almost forgotten. Victimology seeks to rectify this omission and resurrect the victim
from oblivion. It looks at the crime from the victim's point of view.
The dominating role of the victim originated from the middle age and this is
very evident from the system of "composition" (compensation). Though the victim
enjoyed a golden age in the middle ages, then also it must be admitted that the
restitution to the victim of crime is an ancient practice and which has inseparable
link with the system of punishment.
In early times, compensation and restitution were enforced for purposes of
increasing the punitive sanctions against the criminal. In those times, punishment
was on the basis of revenge and cruelty and it was not uncommon for a thief to have
his hand cut off or for a rapist to be castrated. Sometimes the criminal's obligation
was as much as 20 times the value of the damage caused. The primary focus of
ancient law was on restitution from the criminal to the victim, not on compensation
from the state to the victim. In few instances of compensation in history, it has been
suggested that it was "motivated less by a concern for the victim than by a desire to
punish society for failing to find the criminal."4
By end of the Middle Ages, it was generally recognized that the person
harmed must have recourse through the common law, rather than taking the law into
his or her own hands. Unfortunately, because of the state's interest in "bringing the
wrongdoer to justice" and punishing criminal, victim's needs for compensation were
often postponed or completely ignored. Whenever the criminal act was treated as a
crime against society, the civil remedy for damages was delayed until after the
4
Arthur J Goldberg : "Preface" (Symposium on Victim Compensation), Southern California Law
Review 43 (1970).
54
offender's trial, conviction and sentencing. All too frequently, this resulted in the
denial of any monetary or tangible personal compensation to the victims.
During the early 1700s, the tribal law, an offence against an individual was
viewed as an offence against the individual's clan or tribe and the victim's concern
were often taken over by the tribe. The tribe's response might have been a long
blood feud, a vendetta or monetary reparation. The main purpose of a blood feud
was not the restoration of any moral order, but the restoration of the power of the
tribe and the securing of conditions for its survival.
During eighteenth century, only the exceptional cases, being prosecuted at
the expense of the Crown, were noted. For most cases, the responsibility for
prosecution lay with the victim. This implicated the victim in every stage of the
criminal justice process from, bringing the prosecution, choosing the charge, getting
witnesses, to being involved in the court proceedings themselves. Victims also had
the ultimate right to intercede on the sentence passed if they felt it was too harsh or
likely to be subject to royal pardon. It is not too difficult to conclude that
prosecution was a time-consuming, expensive and troublesome process.
It is interesting to note that this did not necessarily deter victims
from participating in the criminal process. However, whilst the victim's
right to compensation may have diminished in the middle ages, victims
continued to play a vital part in the process of prosecution until the midnineteenth century.
According to Sir Henry Maine, author of one of the most scholary works on
the development of law, "the penal law of ancient communities is not the law of
Crimes; it is the law of.... Torts. The person injured proceeds against the wrongdoer
by an ordinary civil action, and recovers money damages if he succeeds."5 Hence,
many offences which we view as crimes were treated exclusively as torts under
Roman law. Thus for centuries, victims of crime have had in theory, the option of
bringing tort actions against individuals who have wronged them through the
commission of crimes. Since the citizens depended upon the law of tort and not upon
a law of crime, for protection, then the person who suffered the wrong, not the state,
5
Henry S. Maine : Ancient Law (London : John Murray 1887 11th ed.) p. 370.
55
was conceived to have been wronged. While there were laws punishing acts against
the state, and torts, in general, unlike today, there was little notion of "injury to the
community."6 This was most notable, according to according to Sir Henry Maine, by
the fact that at trial "the magistrate carefully simulated the demeanour of a private
arbitrator casually called in."7 In the early European courts (Roman, Greek,
Germanic and Anglo-Saxon) the state did not take money from the defendant for any
wrong done to the state, but claimed a share in the restitution "awarded to the
plaintiff as the fair price of its time and trouble."8
In real practice, this potential civil remedy is usually of little value. In a large
number of cases, the offender is not known to the victim; even when the offender is
known, the victim often cannot afford the expense of bringing a civil lawsuit against
him or her. Furthermore, since the overwhelming majority of offenders of violent
crimes are unemployed and / or poor, civil judgements against such offenders are
almost impossible to collect.9 In addition, civil actions have often been subject to
delays of several months or sometimes years; such delays can discourage litigants
and dim their hopes of receiving any satisfaction if they pursue their cases.
The disposition of the victims and the remedies provided in any form have
varied greatly from time to time and system to system. They have received erratic
treatment in different ages, eras, and governing systems. These variations reflect the
historical evolution of legal concepts as well as diverse approaches to the
interpretation of such notions concerning victim's role, importance and their
visibility in human societies. Despite being the purpose for which criminal justice
system was established by the society, they became the subject of neglect and
disregard and slowly forced into the oblivion. The position of the victim and the
remedies provided to them, in various systems of governance since creation of the
society has been discussed ahead.
6
Ibid., p. 374.
Ibid.
8
Ibid., p. 378
9
Research by Wolfgang (1965), Mueller (1965) and Geis (1967).
7
56
3.1 VICTIMS IN THE ANCIENT PERIOD
About the victim and their position in social and legal arena ancient times
can be traced through various scriptures, codes, inscriptive contemporary work,
literature and other authoritative text. In various age and times, the victim's position
and their role in prosecution and compensation are being examined to establish their
transition over period of times.
3.1.1 PRIMITIVE LAWS
At the time of advent of human existence on this earth, there was a complete
absence of civilisation and legal norms or setting under which the conduct of the
people was to be administered or regulated. The people were itinerant at the time
and there were no place of permanent residence. As the time grew, a feeling of
groupism cropped in depending upon their work behaviour, liking etc. and hence the
evolution of the society in the form of tribe, clan, band etc. As has been rightly said,
"Crime is inevitable in any human societies", those times were also not deprived of
the inevitable happening i.e, criminality and hence creation of the victim. Due to the
lack of any organized society and justice system, a feeling of vengeance or
retaliation was the prime occurrence among the victims of crime depending upon
their physical strength. And a chaos took place among the people of the group and
the. principle of "might is right" was firmly established this way. They finally
decided to choose a mighty person as their caretaker and protector in as far as the
disposal of crime or wrong committed and their victim are concerned, to save
themselves from the disorder and destruction of life and property. This was the
beginning of the era of ruling by a King/Monarch.
In the ancient societies, redressal for personal wrongs in the hand of the
individual, as he was alone in his struggle for existence. He single handedly faced
the attack and harms caused to him by external forces, He had to take the law in his
own hands and punish the aggressor in accordance with the prevailing practices
57
accepted by his society. He carried out the punishment in form of revenge aimed at
deterrence and compensation. It was the private revenge and compensation was
exclusively personal.10
In primitive societies criminal-victim relationship was the reflection of
existence for survival and power struggle and it was not based on the idea of
responsibility on the theory of survival. So the idea of prevention of future crime
guided the victim to ruthless retaliation and aggressively acquired compensation.
Attack was the defence against the attack.
During the primitive times, "social control," restitution and revenge were
handled by individuals who took the law into their own hands and, in effect, made
the law and carried out the punishment in the form of revenge. The earliest form of
social control was victim retaliation and personal reparation.
The basis of primitive law was the reparation by the offender or offender's
family to the victim for his loss or injury. At the time, there was no political
institution to enforce law and punish the criminal, so the right to punish was vested
with the victim or victim's kin. The victim or victim's family was allowed to punish
a criminal or directly receive goods or money as compensation for a crime.
But, when gradually the primitive groups were firmly established, the
concept of social control came into force and an offence against an individual was
considered as an offence against his clan or tribe. Although the punishment to be
exacted from the offender was neither codified nor always standardized by the type
of offence, some form of restitution or compensation was invariable involved in the
interrelationship between the victim and the offender. In this respect, the individual
victim's position was very often taken over by his clan or tribe. This can be
considered as the emergence of the concept of collective liability.
In the codes of all archaic civilisation, the amount of redress and sometimes
even the mode of redress, were left to the discretion of the injured person and his
10
Sir Henry S Maine : Ancient Law (Oxford Library press) (1946) p. 307. "The penal law of ancient
communities is not the law of crimes; it is the law of wrongs, or to use the English technical word of
Torts."
58
relatives. In fact, in the early stages of civilisation retribution was the only aspect of
punishment which was taken into consideration.
With progress of society and changing values, the material culture reached a
higher level of acceptance with the growing concept of private property. At this
stage any danger to the private property was equated with the physical and mental
hurt. Thus, a trend toward composition is a noticeable corollary of the social and
economic evolution.
3.1.2 BABYLONIC LAWS
"See that proper justice is done."
- Hammurabi to Sin-iddinam (provincial governor of Yamatabai).
The Code of Hammurabi is considered one of the first known attempts to
establish a written code of "conduct". King Hammurabi ruled Babylon at
approximately 2000 B.C. During that period, Babylon was a commercial center for
most of the known and civilized world. Since its fortune lay in trade and other
business ventures, the Code of Hammurabi provided a basis for order and certainty
essential for commerce. The Code established rules regarding theft, sexual
relationships, interpersonal violence and other issues. It was intended to replace
blood feuds with a system sanctioned by the state.
The Code of Hammurabi was divided into five sections:
1.
A penal or code of laws
2.
A manual of instruction for judges, police officers, and witnesses
3.
A handbook of rights and duties of husbands, wives, and children
4.
A set of regulations establishing wages and prices
5.
A code of ethics for merchants, doctors, and officials (Masters and Roberson,
1985).
The code established certain obligations and objectives for the citizens of
Babylon to follow. These included an assertion of the power of the state. This was
59
the beginning of state-administered punishment. The blood feuds that had occurred
previously between private citizens were barred under the code. Protection of the
weaker from the stronger. Widows were to be protected from those who might
exploit them, elder parents were protected from sons who would disown them, and
lesser officials were protected from higher ones.
Restoration of equity between the offender and the victim. The victim was
to be made as whole as possible and, in turn, he or she was required to forgive
vengeance against the offender.
Harding (1982) and Mawby and Gill (1987) relate that the right of the victim
to compensation was firmly located in Babylonian law. In those times; lex talionis,
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and it was not uncommon for a thief to have his
hand cut off or for a rapist to be castrated. Some times the criminal's obligation was
as much as 30 times the value of the damage caused. The Code of Hammurabi also
required the victim's family and the entire community to take responsibility for
helping the victim if the offender escaped or could not be found, and therefore could
not be made to pay restitution.
The Babylonian code of Hammurabi11, instituted by the king of ancient
Babylonia, one of the oldest legal codes, more than four thousand years old, is often
cited as the first legal record and almost generous in compensating victims. It was
the victim who was considered first, not the offender. In Babylon, in a theft victim
was not repaid with goods like value; rather, each crime carried different restitution.
The theft of good while they were being transported was punishable by five fold
restitution and the embezzlement of a merchant's money by one of his employees
required a three fold payment; and stealing from priesthood of state, a more serious
offence, could only be repaid by the death of the offender as punishment. If a thief
was not apprehended, even then the Babylonian state restored the property of the
victim stolen, provided the victim had itemized his property in the presence of
God.12
11
Babylonian code of Hammurabi : Hammurabi, the king of Babylonia, who died 175 BC (1792-50),
known for code of laws, once thought to be oldest existing. Babylonia, the ancient country in the
valley of the lower Euphrates and the Tigris.
12
JL Barke : We Are All Victims, Peel Press, London (1978).
60
In part it reads :
If the brigand has not been taken, the man plundered
shall claim before God what he has lost; and the city
and sheriff in whose land and boundary the theft has
taken place shall restore to him all that he has lost. If
a life, the city and sheriff shall pay one mina of silver
to his people.13
Hammurabi Code further provided that :
Section 22: If a man has committed robbery and is caught, that man shall be put
to death.
Section 23: If a robber is not caught, the man who has robbed shall formally
declare whatever he had lost before a God, and the city mayor in whose territory
or district (he robbery has been committed shall replace whatever he has lost for
him.
Section 24: If (it is) the life (of the owner that is lost) the city or the mayor shall
pay one munch of silver to his kinsfolk.
Every victim was avenged and compensated in accordance with the status. The
theory of an eye for eye had certain qualification. If a criminal blinded a slave, the
amount of compensation was half a mina of silver, A commoner who suffered a
similar injury received an extra mina. If this same crime is committed against an
aristocrat, the criminal himself was blinded in one eye.
Restitution and vengeance were the theme of punishment. It provided that a
thief could not afford to compensate a victim, he become the victim's property and
could be sold as a slave. The victim keeps the sale proceeds as compensation. Theft
was discouraged imposing a severe burden of restitution on the offender by
compelling him to pay four of five times the stolen property.
Such compensation was, however, the exception rather than the rule in the
Code of Hammurabi and in most other ancient codes. The primary focus of ancient
laws was on restitution from the criminal to the victim, not on compensation from
13
Chilperic Edwards : The Hammurabi Code (Port Washington, New York, 1971, p. 31.)
61
the state to the victim. The Code of Hammurabi was based on revenge and cruelty.
The implementation of such rights ultimately relied on the threat of the kingpin feud.
In summary, the code of Hammurabi appears to be an attempt to apply a
scientific methodology - as the Babylonians understood it to the judgements of the
king and the justice thereby wrought. In the Babylonian mind, therefore the 'code'
was a work of science devoted to the exercise of justice.
3.1.3 ROMAN, GREEK AND CHRISTIAN CODES OF LAW
The penal law of ancient communities is not the law of crimes; it is the law
of torts. The person injured proceeds against the wrong doer by an ordinary civil
action, and recovers money damages if he succeeds. Hence many offences which we
view as crimes were treated exclusively as torts under Roman law. These torts
included theft, assault, violent robbery, trespass, libel and slander. "All alike gave
rise to an obligation ... and were all required by a payment of money."14 Similarly,
"the laws of the Germanic tribes'' all describe a system of restitution payments from
homicide on down.15 In the early European courts (Roman, Greek, Germanic and
Anglo Saxon) the state did not take money from the defendant for any wrong done
to the state, but claimed a share in the restitution "awarded to the plaintiff as the fair
price of its time and trouble."
Babylonian law had much influence on any law and code during ancient
times. The penal systems employed for hundred of years by many countries, with
some degree of success, have relied mainly on deterrence and retribution. In fact, in
the early stages of civilisation, retribution was the only aspect of punishment which
was taken into consideration. The law was designed to compensate the victim and
not to punish the offender, state playing the role of an arbitrator. The individuality of
the offender was not taken into consideration. In the codes of all archaic civilisation,
the amount or redress and sometimes even the mode of redress, were left to the
discretion of the injured person and his relatives.
14
15
Henry S. Maine : Ancient Law (Oxford Library Press) (1946).
Ibid.
62
Early reference to compensation are sporadic and do not offer any clear
picture. The death fine is referred to more than once in a Homer,16 In the Ninth Book
of Iliad.17 Ajax18, in reproaching Achilles for not accepting Agamemnon's offer to
reparation, reminds him that even brother's death may be appeased by a pecuniary
fine and that the murdered having paid the fine may remain at home free among his
own people.
Criminal jurisprudence developed when "the state conceived itself to be
wronged, and the Popular Assembly struck at the offender"19 The notion of "sins"
which were to be punished by an authority was not original with Christians, but did
not develop the dichotomy between civil and criminal law. Sir Henry Maine says
that the church, in an attempt to bring order and to gain authority, found a basis in
Scripture for the power of punishment by the civil authorities. "There can be no
doubt.... that modern ideas on the subject of crime are based upon two assumptions
contended for by the Church of Dark Ages20 .... that the state was the representative
of the Church with the respect to crime and that the Church was capable of defining
crimes."21
An example of the detailed payments to be made for various offences is
illustrated by the Dooms of King Alfred of the ninth century :
A man who "lay with a maiden belonging to the
king" had to pay 50 shillings, but if she were a
"grinding slave" the compensation was halved.
Compensation for lying with a nobleman's serving
maid was assessed still lower at 12 shillings.22
16
Homer; 9th- 8th century BC epic poet, a traditional name of authors of epic Iliad and Odyssey,
among greatest poet of history. Reference found in Richard R. Cherry, Lectures on the Growth of
Criminal Law in Ancient Communities, London. (1890).
17
Iliad : Ancient Greek epic poem attributed to Homer.
18
Ajax : A fleet footed Greek hero in the Trojan War who kills himself armour of
Achilles is awarded to Odysseus
19
Sir Henry S Maine : Ancient Law (Oxford Library press) (1946) (p. 381)
20
Dark Ages : A time during which a civilisation undergoes a decline, European
historical period (period preceding middle ages) from about AD 476 to 1000. A period
of unenlightenment.
21
Supra f. n. 19, p.397
22
Christopher Hibbert: The Roots of Evil (New York: Funk & Wagnalh, 1968) p. 3
63
Penalties such as death were prescribed by the courts not as punishment by
the state, but in lieu of the vengeance the victim wished to inflict upon the criminal.
The court acted as a middleman in an effort to establish order.
In Saxon England, under the system of composition, which had Germanic
origins, an offender could buy back the peace he had broken by paying what was
called the "wer" which was payment for homicide, or "bot" which was payment for
injuries other than death, to the victim or his kin according to a schedule of injury
tariffs. In addition to these payments the offender paid what was called the "wite" to
the king or his lord. This payment constituted a fee for having negotiated the
settlement between victim and offender.
The Germanic tribes enjoyed more rights than those of Rome. By the 9th
century AD and the time of Alfred and his so-called "Dooms of Alfred' the blood
feud was invoked only if the victim's request for monetary compensation was
denied. Like Hammurabi Code, each crime had a price depending upon the types of
crime committed as well as victim's status, age, sex.
In spite of the fairly close relationship between the ancient Roman criminal
and civil law, it is not easy to find reliable information concerning the position of the
victim or restitution to him. According to the law of the Twelve Tables the
codification of Roman oral law, written by ten commissioners in 451 B.C., a thief
who was caught in the act of committing the theft was obliged to pay double the
value of the stolen object. In cases where the stolen object was found in a search of
his house, he was to pay three times the value or four times the value if he resisted
the execution of the house search. He was to pay four times the value of the object if
he had stolen it by force or threat of violence. In certain cases the kinship was
exposed to the revenge of the victim.
In the case of the slander also, the insulting person had to pay. The sum to be
paid was decided by the magistrate according to the rank of the victim, his relation
to the offender, the seriousness of the offence and the place where it was committed.
In any case, while the history of Roman law shows some general decline from its
64
classic stage to the Justinian period23, its system of responsibility reached higher
level than did any previous law.
However, in this age as the influence of the king and the court grew, so did
their share of the payment, and the sums received by the victim steadily declined.
This resulted in the total payment being taken by the Crown with the victim's right
to restitution being replaced by a fine decided by a tribunal.
3.1.4 HINDU LAWS
In the early era of history, it is established that the emphasis was on
Compensation to the victim or the "spiritual" and material satisfaction of the victim,
rather than on punishment of the offender.
As Dr Sen has observed :
"It is, however, remarkable that in as much as it was concerned to be the duty
of the King to protect the property of his people, if the King could not restore the
stolen articles or recover their price for the owner by apprehending the thief, it was
deemed to be his duty to pay the price to the owner out of his own treasury, and in
his turn he could recover the same from the village officers who by reason of their
negligence, were accountable for the thief's escape."24
Reparation or compensation as a form of punishment is found to be
recognized from ancient time in India. In ancient Hindu law, during Sutra period,
awarding of compensation was treated as a royal right. The law of Manu25, requires
the offender to pay compensation and pay the expenses of cure in case of injuries to
the sufferer and satisfaction to the owner where goods were damaged. In all cases of
cutting of a limb, wounding or fetching blood, the assailant shall pay the expenses
of a perfect cure or in his failure, both full damages and a fine of some amount.26
23
Justinian Period : 483-565 the Great Byzantine emperor (527-565); oversaw most brilliant reign of
Eastern Empire; collected imperial laws, issued Code of laws, digest, textbook which with new laws
formed foundation of civil law in most of Europe.
24
Dr. priyanath Sen : "General Principle of Hindu Jurisprudence", p. 335.
25
Manu : The progenitor of the human race and the giver of the religious laws of Manu according to
Hindu Mythology.
26
M. J. Sethna : Society and the Criminal, M. N. Tripathi, Bombay (I952), p.218; M.J. Sethna,
Jurisprudence, Bombay (1969) p. 340
65
In ancient Hindu Law, the law givers were fully aware of the necessity of
directly compensating of victims of crime. Thus, Manu in Chapter VIII, Verse 287
says :27
"If a limb is injured, a wound (is caused) or blood
(flows, the assailant) shall be made to pay (to the
sufferer) the expenses of the cure, or the whole (both
the usual amercement28 and expenses as a fine to the
King)."
In Chapter VII, Verse 288, Manu says29 :
"He who damages the goods of another, be it
intentionally
or
unintentionally,
shall
give
satisfaction to the (owner) and pay to the kind a fine
equal to the damages."
Manu thus, provides direct reparation to the victim of crime apart from the
payment of fine to the king (the State).
In Chapter XXI, Verse 10, Brihaspati says30 :
"He who injures a limb, or divides it or cuts it off,
shall be compelled to pay the expenses of curing it;
and (who forcibly took an article in a quarrel
restore) his plunder."
In Chapter XXII, Verse 7, he says :
"A merchant who conceals the blemishes of an
article which he is selling, or mixes bad and good
articles together, or sells (old articles) after repairing
them shall be compelled to give a double quantity (to
the purchaser) and to pay fine equal (in amount) to
the value of the article."
27
The Laws of Manu in Sacred Books of East, Max Muller, Vol. 25, Oxford University Press, Oxford
(1886), p. 304.
28
Amercement : Punishment by a fine whose amount is fixed by a court.
29
Supra, f.n. 27, p. 305.
30
Brihaspati, in Max Muller, Sacred Books of East, Vol. 33 Chap XXII Verse 7, Oxford University
Press, Oxford (1886), p. 360.
66
The law of Vishnu31 and Yajnavalakyas also advocates compensation to the
victim of crime for their injury. Yajnavalakyas, Narada and Brihaspati fix
compensation twice to the purchase (who paid the price) and a fine of an equal
amount, in case of fraudulent sale of one article to another, or knowingly, selling
defective articles as free from defect.32
Again traders of business men who lost their property while traveling
through the kingdom were also compensated.33
In the Hindu law of punishment of crimes occupied a more important place
than compensation for wrongs. Payment of compensation to the individual injured
was in addition to and not in substitution for the penalty. In ancient India, it was
conceived that the King was under a duty to indemnify the individual who had
suffered from a crime.
Thus it can be said that in ancient Hindu law, the victim was placed in
central stage and liability to compensate and satisfy the victim was on both offender
and the King.
3.1.5 MUSLIM LAW
Not only in the time of the Greek, but in still earlier ages, where Mosaic34
dispensation was established among Hebrews,35 traces of restitution to the victim are
apparent. That dispensation, in its penal department, took special and prominent
cognizance of the rights and claims of the injured persons, as against the offender.36
For example, if two men were involved in a fight and one hit the other with a stone
or with his fist with the result that the opponent was badly injured but did not die,
the perpetrator was required to pay for the loss of the injured man's time and cause
31
Vishnu : the preserver god of the Hindu scared triad.
Laws of Vishnu : Verse 75, 76 Laws of Yajnavalakya : 11,226.10, Ubj 11257, Narad 118, 7,
Brihaspati XVIII-411; c.f. Prem Shankar Varshnee, "Compensation to Victim of Crime", in S.N.
Gupta's Criminal Law, The Commercial Publication, Delhi (1982), p. 65.
33
Arthsastra by Acharya Vishnugupta (Chanakya) c.f.P.N. Banerjee, "Compensation to the Victims
of Criminal Violence in India", The Banaras law Journal, Vol. 12 (1976) p. 110.
34
Mosaic : Institutions or Writings attributed to Moses, a Hebrew Prophet.
35
Hebrew : A member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including
the Israelites.
36
Wiliiam Tallack : Reparation to the injured; and the Rights of the Victims of Crime to
Compensation.
32
67
him to be thoroughly healed. For injuries both to person property, restitution or
reparation in some form was the chief and often the only element of punishment.
Among Semitic37 nations the death fine was the general practice and it continued to
prevail in the Turkish Empire.
For every homicide, the Mosaic code bade the elders of the murder's own
city "fetch him and deliver him into the hands of the Avenger of Blood."38
Sometimes the injured persons compounded the offences substantial money
payments.
Reparation and compensation as a form of punishment is found to be
recognized in ancient times. So also during Islamic rule, restitution and atonement
was a recognized form of punishment. The Law of Moses39 provided four, fold
restitution for stolen sheep and five fold for the more useful one.40
In state of Arabia, the tribes in the cities found it necessary to provide
compensation for offences against the person in order to prevent the socially
disintegrating effects of the blood feud.41
Thus, it can well be asserted that in times of yore, the victims of crime were
paramount figures on the stage of the criminal setting.
3.2 VICTIMS IN MEDIEVAL PERIOD
The change from vengeful retaliation to composition was part of a natural
historical process. As tribes settled down, reaction to injury or loss became less
severe. Compensation to the victim served to mitigate blood feuds, which, as tribes
became more or less stable communities, only caused endless trouble because injury
37
Semitic : Constituting a sub-family of the Afro-Asiastic Language Family that Includes Hebrew,
Aramaic (Aramaeans), Amharic (Ethiopia) and Jewish of the ancient Hebrews.
38
Deut (XIX, 12) : the fifth book of canonical Jewish and Christian Scripture containing narrative
and Mosaic Laws.
39
Moses : a Hebrew prophet who led the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery and at Mt Sinai delivered
to them the Law establishing God's covenant with them.
40
Margery Fry : Arms of Law (London) 1951, p. 124.
41
E.B. Tyler : Anthropology, New York (1989).
68
would start perpetual vendetta.42 Composition offered an alternative that was in
many ways equally satisfactory to the victim. In Arabia, the tribes in the cities found
it necessary to provide compensation for offences against the person in order to
prevent the socially disintegrating effects of the blood feud.
It is difficult to pinpoint the start of new developments in community judicial
control, since the community traditionally exercised a certain collective control over
the extent of compensation. The bridge to state criminal law had as a support the
system of composition and the settlement by periodical tribal assemblies of the
amount to be paid provides an early example of judicial proceedings. Soon after the
emergence of composition, some laws elaborated an intricate system of
compensation. Every kind of blow or wound given to every kind of person had its
price.43
Because of the increasing importance of economic goods the delictual
conditions started to change and the system of responsibility was transformed. Blood
feud faded out and physical retribution began to be replaced by financial
compensation. The criminal and his victim introduced the redemption of revenge
and submitted the judgment of guilt to negotiation. In most cases, the agreement on
the question of compensation still involved both interested political entities - the
criminal's tribe, clan, or family and that of the victim. It took some time until the
individual offender and the individual victim stood somewhat as they had in the era
of private revenge, and negotiated guilt and punishment as two individuals. This was
the emergence of a new era in the history of victim's position and compensation
called Middle Age.
Criminal victim relationships were viewed only in term of the victim's
revengeful emotions and his claim for compensation. The injuring party offered
monetary satisfaction or something else of economic value. If the injured party
accepted it, he was fully avenged and the "criminal procedure" was complete.
Payment was entirely to the victim or his family. The amount depended on the
importance and extent of the injury. The amount of compensation varied according
42
H.E. Barnes and N.K. Teeters : New Horizons of Criminology, Prentice Hall, Englowood Cliff,
New Jersey (1944).
43
Fredric Pollock and Fredrick William Maitland : The History of English Law, Cambridge
University Press, Vol. 11 Cambridge (1898), p. 451.
69
to the nature of the crime and the age, rank, sex and prestige of the injured party; "A
free norm man is worth more than a woman and a person of rank more than a
freeman."44
Thus the "value" of the human being and their social position were
involved in determining compensation and a socially stratified composition
developed.
Among the German tribes, the criminal was humiliated to some extent by
compensation, which appeased the victim's desire for revenge.45 At this time it was
assumed that the victim should seek revenge or satisfaction. This was the only
aspect of the criminal - victim relationship that gained recognition.
Composition combined punishment with damages. For this reason it could be
applied only to personal wrongs, not to public crimes.46 This was only why, in its
first stage of development, it was subject to private compromise. This supports the
view that during the Middle Ages the penal law of Communities, in which crimes
were paid for by restitution, was not a law of crimes, but a law of torts.47
From the many differences in the amount of damages and in the "value" of
the victim, a complicated system of regulation evolved that culminated in the earlier
codified law of many peoples. Several aspects of the law of Aethelred48 and of
Alfred49 are mentioned by a Clarence R. Jeffery:50
"Henceforth, if any one slays man, he shall himself
bear vendetta, unless with the help of his friends he
pays compensation for it within twelve months to the
full amount of the slain man's wergild, according to
the inherited rank..... " The authorities must put a
44
Ephrasim Emerton : Introduction to the History of the Middle Age, Boston (1888), p. 87-90, Barnes
and Teeters, p. 401).
45
Hans Von Hentig : Punishment, its origin. Purposes and Psychology, London (1937), p. 215.
46
Barnes and Teeters.
47
Irving E. Chen : "The Integration of Restitution in Probation Services", Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, Vol. 34 (1994), p. 315.
48
Aetherlred : The Unready king of England (978-1016); purchased peace whenever unable to defend
country against Danish and Norse invaders or put up ineffectual resistance.
49
Alfred : The Great King of Wessex (871-899); recognized as ruler of all England not controlled by
Danes (886); compiled laws; promoted learning; translated works of Saint Gregory I, Saint
Augustine, Boethius (For example "Dooms of Alfred").
50
Clarence R. Jeffery : "The Development of Crime in Early English Society", Journal of Crime
Law, Criminology and Police Science. Vol. 47 (1957), pp. 645-666.
70
stop to the vendettas. First, according to the public,
the slayer shall give security to his advocate and the
advocate to the kinsmen of the slain man, that he the
slayer will make reparation to the kindred. If a man
has spear over his shoulder, and anyone is transfixed
thereon, he shall pay the wergild without the fine. If
a bone is laid bare, 3 shillings shall be paid as
compensation. If a shoulder is disabled, 30 shillings
shall be as compensation.
If the wrongdoer was reluctant to pay or could not pay the necessary sum, he
was declared an outlaw; he was to be ostracized, and anybody might kill him with
impunity.51
Gradually, however, the power of the community exceeded the strength of
the individual and the community began receiving. Part of the compensation went to
the victim-wergild52 and another part went to the community- Friedensgeld. In
Saxon England, compensation for criminal offences consisted of two payments that
is, one to the victim's family (Wer, for homicide, Bot for injuries) and the other to
the ruler of kind (Wite).
The next step was for the State to claim all monetary compensation due to a
victim. The growth of royal and ecclesiastical authority in the Middle Ages
contributed to a sharpening division between tort law and criminal law. By the
twelfth century the victim's right to compensation was largely replaced by fines
assessed be a state tribunal against the offender. More offences came to be
considered crimes against the society or breaking the "king's peace" so that
punishment was to be malted out by the king, and the king would be compensated.53
The Anglo-Saxon adopted the Germanic system of splitting fines between victim
and the ruler but whenever a crime was termed as a "breach of king's peace" the king
51
Pollock and Maitland, p. 401.
Wergild : The value set in Anglo-Saxon and Germanic Law upon Human Life in accordance with
rank and paid as compensation to the kindred or lord of a slain persons.
53
Richard Laster : "Criminal Restitution", University of Richmond Law Review 5 (1970), pp. 75-79.
52
71
received the entire amount originally for a crime to breach the king's peace. It had to
affect the king's household and property directly.
A share is claimed by the community or king as a commission for its trouble
in bringing about a reconciliation between the parties, or perhaps, the price payable
by the malefactor either for the opportunity that the community secures for this of
redeeming his wrong by a money payment, or for the protection that it affords him
after he has satisfied the award against further retaliation on the part of the man
whom he had injured.54
The double payment continued, but gradually the king took all off it.
Discretionary money penalties took the place of the old wite, while both gave way to
damages, assessed by a tribunal.55
As the state monopolized, the institution of punishment, the rights of the
injured were slowly separated from the penal law. Composition as the obligation to
pay damages became separated from the criminal law and became a special field in
civil law. Thus, the victim was stripped off the financial compensation and
psychological satisfaction of avenging crime.
Tallack56 attributes the gradual decline of restitution to the 'violent greed' of
feudal barons and medieval ecclesiastical authorities who appropriated the forfeited
property of the offender to themselves instead of victim and also meted out barbaric
punishments to the offender. The victim of the crime continued to be ignored.
With this development, the "Golden Age" of the victim came to an end. It
had been an era when his possible participation in any wrong doing was not taken
into consideration. During that time, in fact, it seem inconceivable that the victim's
relationship with the criminal could have helped to develop or precipitate the crime.
The criminal — victim relationship was strictly divided between the active role of
the doer and the passive role of the sufferer. The criminal alone was responsible for
the crime. The victim was merely the injured party; he was not thought to be
involved in any psychological intricacies of crime causation and pushed his every
54
Heinrich Oppenheimer : The Rationale of Punishment, University Press of London, London.
(1913), p. 162.
55
Pollock and Maitland, pp. 458-591.
56
William Tallack : "Reparation to the injured; and right of the victims of crime to compensation", p.
11-12.
72
advantage as the object of a crime that was allegedly, caused by the criminal. He had
almost dictatorial power over the settlement of the criminal case; at no other time in
the history of crime has the victim occupied such an advantageous position in
criminal procedure.
The state of affairs marks the closing phase of the centuries long period
during which criminal procedure was the private or personal concern of the victim or
his family and was largely under their control. The injury, harm, or other wrong
done to the victim was not only the main or essential issue of the criminal case; it
was the only issue. In the criminal procedure there was no room for societal or other
considerations. The survival and power of the group, so often the real reason behind
the criminal procedure remain almost always behind the scenes. The procedure was
exclusively aimed at the private compensation of the victim, which took the form of
private revenge.
It was indeed the golden age of the victim. Criminal justice served only his
private interests. No other aspects of crime could compete with this concept in this
privately owned and privately administered criminal law.
3.3 VICTIMS IN MODERN PERIOD
After the Middle Ages, restitution, as a concept separate from punishment,
seem to have been on the wane. Little as we know about crime today, even less was
known then. No other possible aspect of the victim's role was taken into
consideration, and the victim became the "poor relation" of the criminal law. The
decline of restitution as a criminal sanction has been traced to several developments
in the criminal justice system.
Even in recent times, but before the Anglo-Saxon57 system of criminal
justice was introduced, the victim was not completely neglected. A story is told how
Emperor Jehangir was faced with a problem in one of his "darbars" and how he
solved it.
57
Anglo-Saxon : A member of a Germanic people that entered and conquered England with the
Angles and Jutes in the 5th century A.D. and merged with them to form the Anglo-Saxon people.
73
One day the Empress in a fit of anger hit her launderer whose work was not
satisfactory. The washerman fell down dead. Somebody persuaded the widow to
attend the Jehangir "darbar" the next morning.
The laundress waited trembling till all the others had mentioned their
grievances and received redress from the Emperor. Finally, Jehangir looked at her
and said, "Who are you? What do you want?" In great trepidation she replied that
she was the court laundress and recapitulated the previous day's calamity. "Your
husband was killed? By whom?" queried Jehangir.
"By the Empress," replied the woman.
It is said that Jehangir was stunned and leaned back on his throne, but only
for a moment. He then came down the steps of his throne and faced the laundress.
Drawing his sword from the gilded holster, he held it out to her and said, "Hold it."
The woman did not know what she was being led up to. But she obeyed the
command of the Emperor. Then he spoke to her along the following lines:
"The Empress killed your husband. Now, with that
sword, you kill the Empress's husband. I command you
to do it.
The laundress was nonplussed. She felt at the Emperor's feet recovered her
equanimity soon enough, and said, "Sire, I have suffered, but I do not want either the
Empress or the country to suffer by my obeying in Your Majesty's command. I am
prepared to take any punishment for this disobedience."
The story goes that Jehangir was so touched by the words of the
washerwoman that he made her a baroness and showered her with riches beyond
measure. It is perhaps one of the earliest known cases of victim compensation in
modern Indian history.
With the growth of centralized legal systems, however, restitution was
gradually phased out. Government took over; crimes seen as act against the State,
and the State assumed the role of the Prosecutor. It was the State that decided what
punishment the offender should undergo and in a sense in return for taking upon
itself the major task of dealing with the criminal offences. In the process of transfer
from a personalized system to an impersonal state-run system, the victim was
74
virtually forgotten by the system. In the evolutionary process, the government
became stronger familial groups which were replaced by the sovereign as the central
authority in matters of criminal few. During this process the interest of the state
gradually overshadowed and supplanted those of the victim. The connection
between restitution and punishment was severed. Restitution to the victim came to
play an insignificant role in administration of criminal law. The victims rights and
the concept of compensation and restitution were separated from the criminal law
instead became incorporated into the civil law.58
By end of the Middle Ages, it was generally recognized that person harmed
must have recourse through the common law, rather than taking the law into his or
her own hands. Unfortunately, the picture began to change with modern criminal
justice in which the government assumed responsibility for dispensing justice by
bringing the offender to book, but it also meant that, with the appropriation of the
fines to the state coffers, the victim was left with ineffective remedies.
Compensations were the means by which humanity moved slowly from the practice
of private vengeance to the enforcement of public justice. As the modern state
emerged and the government took on itself the responsibility of enforcing justice,
the offender gradually became the central figure in the criminal arena. It is, of course
true that the evolution has not been uniform through-out the world, there are
countries where eye for eye, tooth for tooth, cutting off the hand for committing
theft, and death penalty for adultery still prevail, but they are the exceptions. The
general tendency is the other way. Therefore, with the criminological theories
becoming more and more sophisticated, the victim is getting almost forgotten.
Whenever the criminal act was treated as a crime against society, the civil remedy
for damages was delayed until after the offender's trial, conviction and sentencing.
All too frequently, this resulted in the denial of any monetary or tangible personal
compensation to the victims.
However, whilst the victim's right to compensation may have diminished in
the Middle Ages, victims continued to play a vital role in the process of prosecution
until the mid-nineteenth century.
58
Joceylyne A. Scutt : "Victims, offenders and restitution : Real Alternative or Panacea?," The
Australian Law Journal, Vol. 56 (1987), p. 156.
75
A few vestiges of restitution remained, such as in seventeenth century
colonial American law. According to limited court records from the 1670s
restitution was imposed on criminals in about one-half of the theft cases in some
Massachusetts countries. It was also imposed in case of manslaughter, assault and
battery, burglary, lewd, lascivious, and wanton behaviour.59 It was common for a
thief to be "required to make restitution, sometimes three fold, sometimes double.
The law left the matter largely to the judge but provided specifically for treble
restitution for stealing from a person's yard or orchid."
The connection between crime and restitution might have lessened but could
not completely disregarded, even after the introduction of the procedure of
inquisition, in which the theoretical and practical distinction between the demands of
penal law and those of the victim are most acute. Court practice in the 16th and 17
centuries made possible the so called adhesive procedure which opened the way for
discretion by a court concerning the victim's claim for restitution, within the scope
of the criminal proceedings. Though the original rationale for victim restitution
diminished over the years, the potential for restitution itself never completely
disappeared as a criminal sanction. Penal codes of the 19th century also seemed to
give some support to the idea of restitution in the from of the adhesive procedure.
The procedure appeared in the laws of the some states. Later on, however, the
situtation got worse, and even in the criminal procedure, the idea of restitution was
kept alive only by the force of tradition.
The decline in the penological importance of restitution and non recognition
of the victim's functional role in crime gained theoretical support from the
endeavour to find different bases for penal and civil liability. Victims who want that
offender should make good of the losses are left to the civil justice system.
Generally speaking, since the era of composition, the conventional view is
that a crime is an offence against the state, while a tort is an offence only against
individual rights. Also, in accordance with this thinking crime means only the
offender and his offence and the victim's relationship to the crime is viewed in a
civil rather than in a criminal point of view.
59
Edwin Powers : Crime and Punishment in Early Massachusetts, 1620-1692 (Boston Beacon Press,
1966), pp. 404-408.
76
However, this may be, the system of compensation surrendered only after a
struggle; even after the Germanic-Busse Penal law there are records of victims who,
in spite of the common law character of the criminal law, asked for indemnification
and personal satisfaction as well as public punishment.
The revival of restitution and compensation was considered during the
nineteenth century movement for penal change. Jeremy Bentham60 advocated the
return of compensation, holding that, "satisfaction" should be drawn from the
offender's property, but if the offender is without property.... It ought to be furnished
out of the public treasury, because it is an object of public good. The restitution of
crime victims was also discussed at each of the five International Prison Congresses
held during the latter part of that century. Almost all eminent criminologists hailed
various forms of restitution as desirable, generally in the form of direct payment
from the criminal to his victim, either immediately or through prison wages.
Garofalo noted that "a fund of this sort existed in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies as
well as in the Duchy of Tuscany, but it never appears to have been of much service
to claimants, as the treasury always put it under contribution to defray the expenses
of the courts.61
The emergence of the 'new' police especially after 1856 when forces were
beginning to be established throughout the countries saw the demise of pro victim
associations. This resulted ultimately in a fundamental change in the relationship of
the victim to the criminal justice process. The introduction of the 'new' police,
conversely had the effect of increasingly removing the victims from that process.
The police forces not only took on the role of searching for and apprehending
offenders but also took over the victim's role in prosecution.
By the beginning of the twentieth century, it can be seen therefore that the
status of victim in the criminal justice process was minimal. Victims played a role
obviously in reporting crime to the police and there was some minimal legislative
provision for compensation. They did not however have a right to compensation,
neither were they implicated in the process of prosecution.
60
Jeremy Bentham : 1748-1832 English jurist and philosopher; expounded doctrine that morality of
actions is determined by utility, that the object of all conduct and legislation is "the greatest happiness
of the greatest number."
61
Raffaele Garofalo : "Criminology" (1958), p. 434.
77
In modern societies, the state has assumed the responsibility to
protect its citizens from crime and has taken over the exclusive rights, in
the collective interest of the community, to punish offenders. However, the state
accepts no responsibility for injury to victim. Though retribution occupies a
subordinate position in the present day administration of criminal justice, its
importance is undeniable. The emotion of retributive indignation is even now the
mainspring of criminal law. Solan rightly replied when asked how men might most
effectively be restrained from committing injustice: "If those who are not injured
feel as much indignation as those who are."
Separation of civil and penal function is a serious defect in the system of
fines, which go only to the state, while the injured victim suffers all the hardships of
the civil process. However, except for sporadic efforts, there is still a tendency to
move the question of compensation or restitution more and more out of criminal
procedure, probably in the desire to keep the victim from being involved in it. The
argument clearly indicates that the victim is not accepted as an important role player
in crime. History suggest that growing interest in the reformation of a criminal is
matched by decreasing care for an interest in the victim.
And the victim is continuing to lose ground; if one examines the legal systems
of different countries, one rarely finds an instance in which the victim of a crime can
be certain to expect full restitution.
Similarly, hardly any legal system, takes fully into consideration the
victim's contribution to a crime, in those rare cases where there is state
compensation, the system either is not fully effective or does not work at all. Where
there is no system of state compensation, civil procedure and civil execution
generally offer the victim insufficient compensation. While the punishment of crime
is regarded as the concern of the state, the injurious result of the crime-that is to say,
the wrong or damage to the victim — is regarded almost as a private matter. It
recalls the lonely man of the early days of social development, who by himself had
to find compensation, and who by himself had to take revenge against those who
harmed or otherwise wronged him. Today's victim cannot seek satisfaction on his
own, since State forbids him to take the law into his own hands.
78
The answer to the situation may be attributed in part to changed
socioeconomic conditions. Despite being an era of great innovations and change in
criminal law, the nineteenth century was dominated by policies of laissez-faire
which made governments reluctant to implement social welfare programs, including
those effecting victims of crime. The situation has changed gradually and restitution
and compensation programs as a social welfare measure now predominate in the
legislative platforms of governments in most advanced nations where partial or total
responsibility for social casualties is now accepted.
Advocates of restitution and defenders of the victim's role in the judgement
of crime did not look on with folded arms; they could got accept the deterioration of
the victim's position.
For legal historians and comparative lawyers this "rags to riches" story
provides some absorbing questions for study: why, for instance, have schemes to
compensate innocent victims of crime flourished in present decades of 20th century
after failing to flower in earlier periods of criminal law reforms.62
But, it is note worthy the victim of crime, after occupying a position of
almost complete obscurity for centuries, has now emerged and has been accepted as
a person worthy of attention in nations across the world.
*******
62
Duncan Chappel : "The Emergence of Australian Scheme to Compensate Victims of Crime",
Southern California Law Review, Vol. 43, p. 69.
79