See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372330467

IMPACTS OF VICTIMIZATION AND RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME Godsend

konofa korosha

Article · September 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 130

1 author:

Godsend Korosha
Oxford Brookes University
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Godsend Korosha on 13 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 42

IMPACTS OF VICTIMIZATION AND RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIME

Godsend konofa korosha & Dr.Pradeep Sharma

Abstract
This article summarizes impacts of victimization and rights of victim who suffered by the hand of criminal.
The consequences of crime have lasting impact on mind, body and social relationship of the victim. Any legal system
which endeavours to maintain peace and order of a society by punishing criminal will be incomplete unless it
adequately addresses the plight of victims of crime.International standards such asDeclaration of Basic Principles
of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November
1985 requires states to take steps to ease the trauma of victims.

Key words: Crime, Impact, Rights, State, Victimization, Victims

I. Introduction
Crime causes physical, psychological, social & financial impacts on the victim. In todays civilized world,
even criminals have number of constitutional and legal rights. In democratic system, society is feeding, lodging,
educating and rehabilitating criminals by their tax money so that the criminal could be able to live decent life after
finishing his/her sentence. It is rational to assume that if the society through state as its representative duty bound to
take care of criminals, it also be duty bound to protect the rights of victims of crime. If a criminal has right at all,
there must be better right for the victims suffered damage by the hand of criminal.
In this study, impacts of victimization will be highlighted to make real sense of the misery and agony of the
victims of crime. Rights of victims of crime include right to recognition, right to access to justice, right to assistance
and information, right to restitution and compensation, right to participate in criminal justice system, right to
protection from the accused, right to civil action for damage and right to use alternative dispute resolution
mechanism. For the protection of these rights of victims of crime, there must be effective adjudicating method,
which is also part of the discussion. Different theories related with justification for state sponsored compensation
will be discussed.. d, which is also part of the discussion.
II. Impacts of Victimization
It is not difficult to expect that the victim of crime will suffer a lot of pain, humiliation and loss. Then, what
are exactly the pains, humiliation and loses a victim goes through? The effects of crime can be physical, financial or
psychological. Such effects are discussed by dividing in to four major parts as follows:
1. Physical Impact
The victim of crime is likely to suffer a lot of physical pulses of crime to which he has happened to be
unfortunate prey. These may include increased heart beats, hyper-tension, numbness, sadness, grief etc. During the
time of crime being committed he might be compelled to opt between fight back and run away, that is either to
defend himself from the criminal and offer resistance or the surrender and meekly fall a prey for a criminal act. In
many cases, the physical reaction may not occur until the danger or threat has gone away and the victim may suffer
mental trauma at a later stage when his memory comes back and he may suffer the distress or shock even throughout
his life.1
Another significant physical impact of crime on the victim is body injury which may be apparent and
immediate or may be realised by the victim at later a stage. The hurts caused by sharp weapons or fire arms are
usually fatal and more damaging. There may be some physical injuries which have permanent effect whereas some
may be of a temporary nature i.e. healable in short times or by course of time.
2. Financial Impact
The financial effect of crime on the unfortunate victim may be one or more of the following types:-
1. Costs and expenses incurred in medical treatment for physical injuries;
2. Damage or loss of property and articles in possession;
3. Litigation expenses incurred in battling against the crime and offender i.e. criminal;


Lecturer, Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe, Ethiopia, Po box:247 Email: konofagodsend@gmail.com

Associate Professor, School of Law , Bule Hora University, Ethiopia , pradeep_mkp@rediffmail.com
1
. N.V. Pranjape, Criminology, Penology Victimology773 (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 7thedn., 2017).
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 43

4. Employment loss or unemployment or financial suffering due to loss of earnings;

5. Funeral or burial expenses if the victim dies
In some times, the victim may be forced to move or shift elsewhere for security or other reasons. In such
case, he has to bear additional costs of shifting and expenditure for resetting himself or his family elsewhere. 1
3. Social Impact
In addition the physical and financial impact of victimization, the marital, family and other relationship of
victims of crime are also probable to be severely affected, which may result in fatal consequences and even
destabilise his settled family life. This generally happens when in case of women who are victims of rape or any
other sexual offence. The offences such as assault, torture, rape, robbery, murder, etc. have a long lasting effect of
insecurity, fear, helplessness, anger etc., not only on the victim of crime but also on the community as a whole
which also might feel victimized and insecure. Researchers on victimology has indicated that the effect of
victimization is particularly too serious on poor, disabled and socially neglected people. 2In many cases it so happens
that once a victim has fallen a prey to a crime, he is likely to subsequent victimization by the same crime or other
form of crime. This is often true in case of victims of rape. These “repeat victims” find it difficult to get out of the
clutches of the perpetrator of the crime for a variety of reasons.
4. Psychological Impact
Where the victim is confronted with the crime perpetrator, his immediate reaction will be anger or fear
depending on his physical strength and capacity to face the misfortune. Shock and mental trauma follow
subsequently after the crime has committed and the victim regains sense and is able to reiterate as to how he has
been victimized. He gets so much distress that he loses his self-confidence and self-esteem and life seems to have no
meaning to him.3
The psychological impact of victimization is clearly reflected in the behavioural responses of victim of
crime, which may include increasing alcoholism, excessive use of drugs, segregation of social relationship, and
avoidance of people‟s contact or social withdrawal and so on.4 There may however, be some victims who are able
to shed aside their distress and shock and return to normal life in course of time. The abilities of victims to deal with
the effects of crime varies depending on his mental frame. While some victims may develop a serious post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), others may not be so affected. PTSD assumes a more serious form when victim finds that
she/he is not believed or people do not want to share their horrible experience and attribute their victimization by
their own fault or carelessness.5This is more real in case of rape victim when people blame her for having walked
alone or dressed attractively.
III. Rights of Victims of Crime
1. Right to Recognition: Victims are Persons, not States
The first inalienable right of victims of crime is obvious, but legal implementation and criminal justice
administration have neglected such right for more than centuries which have resulted grave injury and indignation
to victims of crime.6 Clearly as it may sound, crime causes pain, risk, and injury to person—to crime victims, who
must be acknowledged, not undermined or neglected or exploited.7 This right acknowledges that crimes are not
merely transgression of criminal laws, but are transgression against individuals.
As criminal justice practices evolved, the states overwhelmingly took over the prosecution of criminals in
order to alleviate victims of that commitment. However, the mechanisms that governments employed for such
purpose ended up excluding victims from attention in many different ways.8 Nowadays, most mechanisms of
criminal justice are in reality, systems of law enforcement for the government rather than protection, justice, and
assistance for the victims of crime.9Article 6 of United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
1948, “everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”10According to the International
covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, article 16 implies that every person have inalienable right to be

1
. Ibid.
2
. Id. at 774.
3
. Ibid.
4
. Ibid.
5
. Ibid.
6
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).
7
. Ibid.
8
. Ibid.
9
. Ibid.
10
. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, art.6 available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf (last visited on April 18, 2018).
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 44

identified or treated or recognized as a person before the law, irrespective situations, time and place. 1 Even though,
the lawmakers and public prosecutors may pretend that they are prosecuting or punishing the criminal in the name of
victims, the truth is that they are doing it on behalf of the state (symbolic victim), with little concern and
unfortunately, with a lot of disregard for victims of crime.2
2. Right to Access to Justice
The function and purpose of law according to most famous jurists, Aquinas and Salmond was achieving
justice.3 Naturally, man is by fighting creature and power is ultima ratio not of sovereign (king or queen) alone but
also for all human beings.4 In the absence of a common power to keep them all in fear, it is impossible for men to
cohere in civilized manner but most backward forms of society. 5 Without common power for which society adheres,
adheres, civilization is unachievable, injustice will never corrected and evil will triumph and the life of human, as
the author of Leviathan tells us “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.6
Under Article 8 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, it is declared that all human beings are
entitled to proper remedy by the appropriate national tribunals for wrongs violating the basic rights granted to him
by the constitution or by law. In the same token, Article 2(3) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1966, has pointed out the right to access to justice as follows:
2 (3). Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an
effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent
judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal
system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Judicial and administrative systems should be formed and strengthened to enable victims of crime to have remedy
through strict or flexible procedures that are efficient, just, inexpensive and convenient.7
3. Right to Assistance and Information
Victims of crime need to be informed about a lot of issues as pointed out by Irvin Waller in his book, which
includes awareness about available services and know how the law enforcement and criminal justice system works,
so that they will be able to decide whether or how and when to take part to protect their interest. 8 Sadly, the law
enforcement is also in a distinct position to contribute to further victimization if it fails to give information or
attention to the victims as officers go about their enforcement jobs. Right to assistance and information is clearly
stated from paragraph 14 to 17 of Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of
Power, 1985, as mentioned below:
14. Victims should receive the necessary material, medical, psychological and social assistance through
governmental, voluntary, community-based and indigenous means.
15. Victims should be informed of the availability of health and social services and other relevant
assistance and be readily afforded access to them.
16. Police, justice, health, social service and other personnel concerned should receive training to sensitize
them to the needs of victims, and guidelines to ensure proper and prompt aid.
17. In providing services and assistance to victims, attention should be given to those who have special
needs because of the nature of the harm inflicted or because of factors such as those mentioned in paragraph 3
above.
Victims should also be treated with sympathy, due regard for their dignity and the process of judicial and
administrative system to the necessities of victims of a crime should be facilitated in the following ways:

1
. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, art.16 available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ccpr.pdf (last visited on April 18, 2018).
2
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).
3
. F.J Fitzgerald (ed.) Salmond on Jurisprudence 88 (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 12 thedn.,
2012).
4
. Ibid.
5
. Ibid.
6
. Ibid.
7
. Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, available at:
http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocitycrimes/Doc.29_declaration%20victims%20crime%20and
%20abuse%20of%20power.pdf (last visited on April 18, 2018).
8
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).at 39.
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 45

 Briefing victims of their role and the limit, time and stage of the proceedings and of the
decisions of their cases, particularly where grievous crimes are concerned and where they have
demanded such information
 Permitting the opinions and priorities of victims to be heard and considered at proper phase of
the proceedings where their individual interests are injured, without bias to the accused and in
line with the relevant national criminal justice system
 Giving proper help to victims within the entire legal process
 Expeditiously disposing the cases and enforcing orders or decrees allowing awards to the
victims of crime.
 Allowing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, arbitration or
customary justice where it is proper to facilitate conciliation and redress for victims of crime.
4. Right to Restitution and Compensation
Offenders or third parties who are responsible for causing injury to the victim of crime, where appropriate,
make just compensation to victims, their close relatives or dependants and which may include return of property or
payment for the damage or loss resulted, reimbursement of costs incurred as consequence of the victimization, the
supply of services and the redress of rights.1
Where public officials or authorities or agents involving in an official or quasi-official capacity have
committed a crime, the victims should be awarded compensation from the State whose officials or agents were
culpable for the harm resulted.2 It is also pointed out that the succeeding State or Government should award
compensation to the victims in cases where the culpable Government under whose authority the crime has been
committed is no longer in power.The State is also responsible to pay compensation where the offender is unable to
fully compensate the victim or where there is no other sources to provide financial compensation to: 3
 Victims who have suffered significant bodily harm or impairment of physical or mental health as a result
of grievous crimes
 The family, in particular dependants of persons who have died or become physically or mentally disable
as a result of such victimization.
Thus, the obligation transfers to the State up on inability or otherwise of the accused to carry out such
obligation of compensating the victim.
5. Right to be Protected from the Accused: Essential Safety
The victims of crime need to be protected from further aggression or intimidation or violence from the
accused, this is particularly important in cases involving domestic violence against the partner or the child.
4
Protection must be cautiously understood that it does not necessarily mean to incarcerate or punish the accused
though there are instances where incarceration guarantee a protection to victims from violent criminals who are
likely to offend again, and therefore is necessary to meet the victims‟ needs for this reason. 5 This means, based on
the behaviour (dangerousness), capability and his relationship with the victim, the accused may be treated as much
as required by either through incarceration or punishment to avoid further violence against the victim. States should
take measures to reduce inconvenience to victims, preserve their privacy, where necessary, and guarantee their
security, as well as that of their relatives and witnesses on their behalf, from threat and revenge. 6
6. Right to Participate in the Criminal Justice System
Contemporary Criminal justice system proceeds on the premise that a criminal act is a wrong perpetrated
against society, while injury to an individual victim triggers the criminal justice machine.7 This conclusion however,
however, logically sounds odd even though the wrong committed by the accused perceived as a wrong against
society, and criminal justice administration agencies investigate the crime, arrest the accused, institute formal
proceedings for determining accused‟s criminal liability, and fixing appropriate punishment and implementing it. 8
The victim is not formal party to a criminal proceeding as in a civil proceedings. 9 Because the victim is not a formal

1
. Ibid.
2
. Ibid.
3
. Ibid.
4
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).at 40.
5
. Ibid.
6
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).at 39.
7
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).8.
8
. James Stark and Howard W. Goldestien, The Rights of Crime Victims 20 (Bantam Books, 1985).
9
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).at 39.
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 46

party to the criminal proceeding, he cannot compel the public prosecutor to take decisions advocated by the victim
or stop him from taking steps objected by the victim. However, crime victims fall within the ambit of definition of
persons with standing, because they suffer the pain in reality and the laws that they seek to enforce, that is criminal
Acts intended to deter certain injuries to individuals, make their claims arguably in the zone of interest for which the
statute was enacted.1
Victims of crime should be allowed to present their opinions in the appropriate stages of criminal
proceeding and the courts should consider their concern and needs when disposing a case.2
7. Right to bring Civil Actions for Damages against the Criminal and Third Parties
In addition to redress from state compensation and restitution ordered by the court hearing criminal
proceeding, victims are allowed to bring civil actions in civil courts claiming damages sustained by the crime. Based
on the types of the crime and the surrounding circumstances, the victims of crime may be entitled to recover
damages from anyone who committed the offence; accessories and anyone who conspired, abetted, or helped the
criminal and third parties who did not intentionally take part in the crime but whose negligence resulted the crime.3
8. Right to use Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism
In many cases criminal or civil court adjudication may not be the best options to protect the interests of the
victim.4Because there are a number of draw backs related with court adjudication, which may include:
 Civil or Criminal cases tend to delay longer. It often takes years to finally dispose in many courts
 It is costly due to legal fees, lost wages resulting from meeting of attorneys and court attendance
 Where the victim and offender have familial, marital or on-going business relationship, there are also
strong pressure not to start lawsuit and that may take years to resolve or result in a criminal record. One
study in USA, shows that 87 percent of all criminal cases involving prior relationship were dropped due to
the victim‟s decision not to continue cooperating with prosecution but in the other hand, dismissal for lack
of victim cooperation happened in only 29 percent of cases involving strangers.
IV. Justification for State Compensation to the Victims of Crime
It is a settled principle that one who caused damage for another person must make it good. Under this topic
the researcher will not waste time by discussing the justifications given to make the offender liable for the victim,
because they are so obvious and not controversial at all. Therefore, the justifications to be offered here under are
related with state responsibility for the victims of crime. There are several justifications (theories) for state
responsibility to compensate the victims of crime. Some of major theories proposed to justify state compensation to
victims of crime are discussed as follows:
1. Social Contract Theory
A claim of compensation by victims of crime from the state may be justified in the context of social
contract theory. The primary obligation of a state according to the social contract theory are protection the life, body
and property of the citizens.5Imposing punishment on a criminal by the agencies of state is justified based on the fact
fact that the criminal, by transgressing the socially recognized code of conduct specified in the criminal law, has
transgressed the contract. By the same premise, it can be argued that a State, by assuming the contractual duty, is
bound to repair a victim of crime for the injury suffered or risk occurred by the conduct of the criminal. Therefore,
the state is bound by a legal obligation to repair a victim of crime as it, contrary to its promise given to the citizens,
has failed to ensure protection of life, body, or property. 6The legal justification of why the states are obliged to
award compensation to the victim of crime, in theoretical and practical correlation between State and citizens
explained under social contract theory.7Citizens are the legal subjects that have the rights that needs to be
recognized, facilitated, respected, protected, and, fulfilled by the State. And every citizen also have duty to the State
which in turn also rights of the state to be recognized, respected and complied by every citizen. This correlation has
started as a result of the consensus, contract or covenant as the giving the birth of state as explained by the social
contract theory.8

1
. Ibid.
2
. Irvin Waller, Rights for Victims of Crime: Rebalancing Justice 38 (Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2011).
3
. Ibid.
4
. Id. at 301.
5
. K.I. Vibhute, “Compensating Victims of Crime in Ethiopia: A Reflective Analysis of Legislative Paradigm and Spirit”
17 IRV 327-328 (2010).
6
. Ibid.
7
. NurAzisa, M. SyukriAkub, et.al. “Compensation and Restitution for Victim of Crime as the Implementation of Justice
Principle” 3 JRHSS 4 (2015).
8
. Ibid.
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 47

Modern States have assumed the role of parenthood to the country known as „parenspatriae‟ (parent of the
country). Hence, it is duty of the state to maintain law and order in the society. The state achieve its goal through
legislation and ensures obedience to such law by the exercise of power. Power is a capacity to achieve intended goal,
if the intended goal cannot be brought in respect of any legislation, the state must assume responsibility for the
harm, pain or damage caused to any law abiding citizen by a criminal. The assumption of power by the state implies
the automatic end of the citizen of his private vengeance or personal retributive action. In return for that deprivation
the citizen gets the protection of the state. In case in which the state fails in its obligation to protect the individual, it
has broken its agreement, and should be responsible for the damages caused to the victims of crime. 1 Such a
rationale will argue for the most liberal type of compensation programme, as all citizens, regardless of economic
difference, or amount or type of loss, as a rule have equal right to bring a claim against the state for its failure to
protect them.
2. Welfare Theory
Another significant justification for compensation to victims of crime from state is the welfare theory
arising from the premise that the government is created and serves the people. 2This approach proposes that, just as
state has a humanitarian duty to the poor, sick, jobless, underprivileged, disabled veteran, handicapped and so on. 3In
on.3In the same token, it has duty towards the victims of crime also. However, according to this theory, such duty is
not based on any contractual obligation on the part of the state, but on the social consciences or morality of its rules
and citizenry. Compensation by a state to a victims of crime can be justified on moral, humanitarian and
compassionate grounds, as the victim of crime has been a victimized and unfortunate recipient of some pain or
injury.4 Hardly any state legislation approves this proposition. However, such provisions as financial need
requirements or minimum loss requirements are clearly based on the theory of welfare state.
3. The Mercy of Government Theory
Related to the welfare theory is the mercy of the government theory. Under this justification of
compensation to the victims of crime from state, it is argued that the state has authority to deal mercifully with
certain individuals. Thus, it may by legislative grace can grant compensation to individuals who have been
unfortunate to become victims of specified criminal violence. The mercy of the government theory also does not
claim that the state has any legal or contractual obligation to compensate victims of crime. Rather, it claims that
compensation by the state to the victims of crime arise from the good will of the state. The mercy of government
theory is specific and inclusive when compared with the social welfare theory. 5
4. Shared Risk Theory
Another justification proposed for compensation to the victims of crime is shared risk argument. In
perspectives of this theory, the state can be seen as an entrepreneur or an employer who incorporates the cost of the
risk service he provides to the consumer in the price of the product or service. Thus every consumer contributes
towards the compensation made to those few individuals who will be indemnified for damages. The taxes paid by
every citizens can be seen as payment of premium to cover the insurance against risk of crime victimization which
every citizen shares with one another and compensation to the victims of crime as the payment given to any
unfortunate, injured individuals or deceased individual‟s descendants or next of kin, or dependants under the
insurance scheme.6Under this theory, it is argued that risk of suffering damage as a result of crime should be
distributed over the whole community and particular individuals should not be burdened to recover the entire
expense.7
5. Restorative and Reparative Theories
These are not theories of punishment, in a sense that their proposition is that sentences should move away
from focusing on only punishment of the criminals towards restitution and reparation, purported at restoring the
damage caused and measured accordingly. Restorative theory is, therefore, victim centred, although in some context
it includes the notion of reparation to the society for the consequences of crime. It conceive less resort to prison,
with onerous social based punishments requiring criminal to work so that to compensate the victim of crime and also
providing assistance and counselling for criminals to reintegrate them in to the society. Such theory, therefore,

1
. V.N. Rajan, Victimology in India: Perspective Beyond Frontiers 7-8 (Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, 1995).
2
. Ibid.
3
. Ibid.
4
. NurAzisa, M. SyukriAkub, et.al. “Compensation and Restitution for Victim of Crime as the Implementation of Justice
Principle” 3 JRHSS 4 (2015).
5
. V.N. Rajan, Victimology in India: Perspective Beyond Frontiers 7-8 (Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi, 1995).
6
. Gurpreet Singh Randhawa, Victimology and Compensatory Jurisprudence 171 (Central Law Publication, Allahabad,
2011).
7
. James Stark and Howard W. Goldestien, The Rights of Crime Victims 20 (Bantam Books, 1985).at 104.
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 48

resorts to on a behavioural premise the same to rehabilitation. However, their political argument is that
compensation to the victim of crime should be approved as more important than notions of just punishment on the
behalf of the state.
Currently, legal systems established on a restorative justification are rare, but the increasing inclination to
incorporate a victim centred measures such as compensation orders in to sentencing systems structured to impose
punishment provides a fine. As quoted by K.I. Vibhute in his article on Compensating Victims of Crime in Ethiopia-
-A reflective Analysis of Legislative Paradigm and sprite:
If victims are involved in their case at all, it will likely be as witnesses; if the state does not need them as
witnesses, they will not be part of their own case. The offender has taken power from them and now, instead of
returning power to them, the criminal law system also denies them power.
In reaction to such problems of the traditional criminal justice system and with an aim to correct them,
restorative justice is being proposed as an alternative method of dealing with victim, crime and justice. In other
terms, the rationale behind for the development and proposition of restorative justice is to fill the gap, but in no
means to totally discard, the traditional criminal justice administration, so as to rectify its weaknesses. 1
6. Other Justifications for Compensation
A number of practical justification for the compensation of victims of crime by state have been suggested
including:2
 Improving citizens cooperation with law enforcement which is prerequisite for most compensation awards
 Increasing publicity concerning the costs of crime
 Increasing incentives for society as a whole to reduce crime or prevent crime
The payment of compensation to the victims of crime by the state may be justified by the principle of „equitable
justice‟ between the criminal and his victim.3 Sometimes crime occurs as a result of certain phenomena of modern
civilization. Absence of job, sordidness, want of affection, wrong treatment during young age, lack of equal
opportunities, low education, and so on. Therefore, it can be argued that the society itself is culpable for any
criminal victimization. In the same reasoning, it is simple to argue that society is responsible, and that it is the state
which ought to award the victim of crime for the damage caused to him. But, how this theory relates to another type
of criminality which become more complicated with the dynamics of modern civilization is a debatable point as
pointed out by Gurpreet Singh Randhawa in his book as follows:
Socio economic offences, white collar crime, and gilded crimes which are mostly endured for long, as
smuggling, black marketing, food adulteration, racketeering in drugs and narcotics, tax evasion, misuse of position
by public servants (including corruption, and nepotism), trafficking in licenses and permit, under invoicing and over
invoicing and crimes by transnational corporations and other offences which comes in waves, such as passport
racketeering, cheating in overseas jobs and theft of cultural property do not arise from conventional motives. 4
Therefore, victimology has yet to pay its attention on this type of criminality for the whole community, the whole
country, is the victim, though its consequences in terms of hardship falls on the economically weaker portions of the
population.
V. Awarding Compensation to Victims of Crime either through Order of Criminal Court or from State
Fund and its Advantage over Civil Action
Compensation to victims of crime from offender through order of court seems universally acceptable legal
principle.5As far as compensation to victims of crime from the offender concerned, there is no such controversy
triggering debate. However, there is difference regarding how and by which court procedure will the victim recover
compensation from the offender? Most importantly, in a country where there is no system of compensating victims
of crime from state fund, it is totally impossible even to take civil actions against the offender in a case the offender
is unknown to the victim. Since claim of damage cannot brought against unknown offender in any legal system. The
advantage of compensating victims through order of criminal court or state fund over civil action lies on the
convenient of procedures, time and cost advantages to the victims of crime. The following are some of most

1
. EndalewLijalemEnyew, “The Space for Restorative Justice in the Ethiopian Criminal Justice System” 2 BJCLCJ 218-
219 (2014).
2
. James Stark and Howard W. Goldestien, The Rights of Crime Victims 20 (Bantam Books, 1985).at 104.
3
. NurAzisa, M. SyukriAkub, et.al. “Compensation and Restitution for Victim of Crime as the Implementation of Justice
Principle” 3 JRHSS 4 (2015).
4
. EndalewLijalemEnyew, “The Space for Restorative Justice in the Ethiopian Criminal Justice System” 2 BJCLCJ 218-
219 (2014).
5
. Guru Prasanna Singh (ed.), Ratanlal and Dbirajlal’s The Law of torts 20 (Wadhwa& Company, Nagpur, 23thedn.,
1997).
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 49

important advantages of compensating victims of crime through criminal or from state fund over civil action to be
instituted by victim:
 Cost advantage to the victims of crime: Victims are not required to actively involve in a criminal case. State
takes the lion share of investigation, prosecution, proof, and costs connected with such proceeding. By
contrast, in the civil action, the victim is expected to pay court fees, attorney charge, evidence charge, and
his time, which is in many cases unaffordable to the victims of crime.1
 Burden of proof: In case of criminal proceeding, the burden proof goes to state. Although standard proof is
very high compared to civil action, the state has every resource to meet such requirement such as
sophisticated investigation institutions, up to date technology, financial muscle, highly trained experts and
lawyers which puts it unequivocally in stronger position than the accused. Victims are not obliged in any
way to proof the culpability of the accused. However in a civil action, the victim is at obligation to prove
that the conduct of defendant has caused such damage to get any order of compensation in his favour from
the civil court.
 When offender is unknown, or not prosecuted, or acquitted: At least in the countries where compensation
from state fund to the victims of crime is adopted, the victim will have opportunity of claiming
compensation from the state though he does not know the offender who caused damage to him. By contrast,
unfortunate victim, particularly belong to a country where there is no compensation from state fund will
have no chance to recover from his injury. At the same time, he cannot take any civil action to the civil
court when the offender is unknown.2
 When the offender lacks means to compensate the victim: In case where criminal lacks enough resource to
compensate the victim of crime, there is no any way that the victim of crime will receive any payment
under civil action. By contrast where there is a system of established state compensation scheme, victims
will be awarded compensation from sate fund. Their chance of receiving compensation is not dependent to
the economic situation of the criminal.
 Period of limitation: Civil actions are significantly affected by period of limitations than criminal charges,
which can wait comparatively longer period of time without being affected by period of limitation
commonly extinctive prescription.
 Emotional trauma: when the plaintiff takes civil action and faces his perpetrator as his adversary, there will
be emotional trauma, anger and distress. Sometimes the victim may feel victimized, insecurity, anger or
fear especially when he meets the perpetrator.3By the contrast, in the criminal proceeding, the victim has
less contact the offender and less threatened, or distressed by seeing him. Most of the times, the only
instance victim of crime may be required to appear in a criminal case is as a witness even though it is not
fair enough to deny the willing victim to be heard in case he is the ultimate victim.
 Representation by lawyer: In criminal proceeding the victim of crime is represented by the state. The state
always represented by well-educated lawyers. Which puts the victim of on stronger position than his
opponent. However, in the case of civil action the victim represents himself by lawyer only if he has
enough means to pay for a lawyer, which is in most cases unlikely and unaffordable to the victims of
crime.4
VI. Conclusion
Victims of crime suffer horrific pain extending from financial loss to loss of one‟s precious life. To rectify
and ease the plights of victims as much as possible the state and society have obligation. The major rights of victim
include right to compensation from the offender or from the state where the offender is not in position to compensate
the victim, assistance and support as well as right to share his view before court in the criminal case.Principles of
natural justice, constitutional law, and international instruments in general in addition to the local laws of each of
countries put states at obligation to extend protection for victims of crime. Crime causes To reCompensation from
the offender in most cases do not satisfy the immediate needs of the victim since the criminal trial or civil suit takes
significant time to pass final decision. In addition to that when the offender could not traced, charged or even if
convicted, the offender does not have economic means to compensate the victims of crime, compensation is not
obtainable and the interest of the victim is at stake. This reality compelled to take look at other way around, which is

1
. Available at: https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/differences-between-civil-and-criminal-cases (last visited on
February 22, 2018).
2
. Available at: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Civil_Law_vs_Criminal_Law (last visited on February 22, 2018).
3
. N.V. Pranjape, Criminology, Penology Victimology773 (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 7thedn., 2017).
4
. K.I. Vibhute, “Compensating Victims of Crime in Ethiopia: A Reflective Analysis of Legislative Paradigm and Spirit”
17 IRV 327-328 (2010).
 AD VALOREM- Journal of Law: Volume 6: Issue III: Part-I: July-September 2019: ISSN : 2348-5485 50

state. Basically state came to protect life, liberty and property of individuals according to social contract theory of
state. Therefore, it is justified to claim compensation from state for its failure to protect individuals from criminals,
which is indeed the ultimate purpose of having state. There are also other theories which justifies compensation to
the victim of crime from state fund. These include the welfare theory, mercy of state theory and others. The major
advantage of state sponsored compensation to the victims of crime is that the victim should not wait until the final
resolution of lengthy civil or criminal court proceeding to meet his or her urgent financial, medical and other needs
as consequence of due to crime. Under state sponsored compensation, the victims of crime will be able to get
compensation even if the offender is unknown or not found guilty. Therefore, a real justice to the victims of crime
can be done only if the state has assumes its responsibility to compensate the victims of crime.
VII. Recommendation
 States should look at plights of victims with more sympathy and ensure rehabilitation of victims through
means of restorative justice.
 States should take responsibility with regard to compensation of victims of crime and should not avoid their
responsibility in pretext of economic constraint.
 From investigation to conviction, the criminal justice system should operate in a way which does not
further traumatize victims or aggravate their emotional pain.
 States should enact clear laws which at least meets the minimumrequirements and standards provided
under Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by
General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985

View publication stats