Sueing 7 years after an attempted rape

[Vix]

It got me thinking, if I found out the guy who raped me had won the lottery, would I want a cut of the money? This happened 11 years ago now so I'd probably not be in with a chance anyway (and I think he is dead too, good riddance). But after thinking about it, no sum of money could help stop the nightmares, or could make up for the trauma I suffered with relationships afterwards.

I don't think I'd have bothered. I'd be very peed off that he'd come into money when he certainly didn't deserve it, but I wouldn't want any of it.

I suppose everyone feels different though, and she might not be as traumatised by it, being only attempted.

 

[Raumarik]

She has to live with what he did or even tried to do, he's been able to put that behind him - that's utterly wrong.

Should be allowed to sue indefinately once someone is found guilty or admits to it.

 

[peetee]

I have to say I completely agree with that. You commit a crime like that and you deserve to have nothing left.

in theory thats great, but people can be a bit crazy, they can be rehabilitated, aswell as this rape is currently a bit dodgey, in the sense not many convictions are succesful, as its literally word against word, if the defendant had even more to lose it would become even harder.
If decent amount of money was at stake also i could imagine that some woman would cry wolf.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Looks like a proper rapist as well, to be honest.

Rather than just the attempted sort?

Exactly the same goes for this case: no amount of money can make the victim feel at ease after rape, so money should not come into it. Even if money could compensate for it, how could you possibly work out how much money is 'required' for the victim to feel at ease again? Indeed, incidents like these simply don't translate into money, and cannot be righted by simply by transferring money from perpetrator to victim.

No, money won't ease the pain for most, however compensation can pay for the counselling etc that can help with coping and it also means that if the victim is mentally unfit to work again they do not need to attempt to do so and risk further trauma.

You can work out the sums due for loss of limbs and loss of children, while suffering may be all relative it isn't exactly that much of a leap to think it can be applied wholesale for any injury done.

Compensation has no place in the law.

You'd be arguing against a very well established principle of law there though, compensation has existed for centuries, possibly millenia. Sometimes damages could be issued against as a punishment, sometimes to allow reparations to be made to the victim, sometimes to their families to compensate for the loss of a loved one as a tithe/tax on the one who killed them.

 

[Vonhelmet]

She has to live with what he did or even tried to do, he's been able to put that behind him - that's utterly wrong.

Should be allowed to sue indefinately once someone is found guilty or admits to it.

That's ridiculous. She had her chance to sue for 6 years. Why should she be allowed to see just when he happens to get rich?

She's just out to grab money. She's not interested in justice.

 

[Rich_L]

That's ridiculous. She had her chance to sue for 6 years. Why should she be allowed to see just when he happens to get rich?

She's just out to grab money. She's not interested in justice.

As I've said many times in this thread, what was the point in her suing before? So she could get spend thousands of pounds to get a piece of paper saying the guy owes her £x amount of compensation? Why should he be able to avoid having to pay her compensation because he came into money after the limitation act expired? If he had won the money beforehand he would have had to pay compensation after all.

 

[Inquisitor]

No, money won't ease the pain for most, however compensation can pay for the counselling etc that can help with coping and it also means that if the victim is mentally unfit to work again they do not need to attempt to do so and risk further trauma.

I agree with you there, but it should go no further than to cover costs incurred by whatever happened, which is what I said in the first place. Awarding money to the victim simply because he or she 'deserves' it for being the victim is ridiculous.

You'd be arguing against a very well established principle of law there though, compensation has existed for centuries, possibly millenia. Sometimes damages could be issued against as a punishment, sometimes to allow reparations to be made to the victim, sometimes to their families to compensate for the loss of a loved one as a tithe/tax on the one who killed them.

When I say compensation, I mean it in its modern sense, i.e. the transfer of money from the guilty party to the victim with for no particular reason other than that the victim 'deserves' it.

 

[Vonhelmet]

As I've said many times in this thread, what was the point in her suing before? So she could get spend thousands of pounds to get a piece of paper saying the guy owes her £x amount of compensation? Why should he be able to avoid having to pay her compensation because he came into money after the limitation act expired? If he had won the money beforehand he would have had to pay compensation after all.

Yes, he would, but he didn't have the money then, and there was no guarantee that he ever would.

She had her opportunity to sue and make her point, but she didn't take it. If she wants to do it now, it's because she's out for money, pure and simple.

Attempted rape didn't deprive her of money, and money won't take away any pain that she still feels. Call me heartless if you want, but it's the truth.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

And a sum of money can fix this?

Potentially it could help a great deal, professional help, possibly moving away from the area allowing the victim to start afresh, I should imagine it would help in many ways...

Personally I think he is fair game, good luck to her. He should never have been allowed to keep the money in the first place as he was still serving his sentence (which was too short). If he had won it after leaving prison then that is a different matter.

Fog

 

[Inquisitor]

Potentially it could help a great deal, professional help, possibly moving away from the area allowing the victim to start afresh, I should imagine it would help in many ways...

Read my above post(s).

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I did.

As we've no idea how the attempted rape affected the victim then I can't see how you can say she doesn't deserve anything.
For all we know she might have been deeply affected, scared to leave the house, unable to work for fear of being attacked. Everyone is different and will react to events in their lives differently.

If she has been deeply affected then I think she has every right to sue him. Let the courts decide whether she is deserving or not.

Fog

 

[Vonhelmet]

I did.

As we've no idea how the attempted rape affected the victim then I can't see how you can say she doesn't deserve anything.
For all we know she might have been deeply affected, scared to leave the house, unable to work for fear of being attacked. Everyone is different and will react to events in their lives differently.

If she has been deeply affected then I think she has every right to sue him. Let the courts decide whether she is deserving or not.

Fog

1) If she "can't leave her home" and can't work etc, then the payout should be equivalent to her lost earnings. If she needs counselling, the payout should cover that.
2) She had her chance to sue him. She let it pass. He wins the lottery, she wants to sue. HMMMM.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

1) If she "can't leave her home" and can't work etc, then the payout should be equivalent to her lost earnings. If she needs counselling, the payout should cover that.
2) She had her chance to sue him. She let it pass. He wins the lottery, she wants to sue. HMMMM.

1) Yup, my point exactly
2) And? So what? Do you think he has any remorse over the several attempted rapes? Hit him wher it will hurt most. Try not turning the victim into the criminal.


Fog

 

[Vonhelmet]

1) Yup, my point exactly
2) And? So what? Do you think he has any remorse over the several attempted rapes? Hit him wher it will hurt most. Try not turning the victim into the criminal.


Fog

You're not listening. She had the option to sue. It's now no longer legal for her to sue. Hence she can't sue and there's no good reason why she should be allowed to.

Also, my point with the first thing was that the payout should be limited lost earnings or whatever, but you can bet she's after millions.

It's convenient that she suddenly wants to sue now that he has money coming out of his ears. She coped for 6 years, but now she wants to sue? She's gold-digging.

Hell, now that I read the article in full, her claim is outrageous. The attack took place in 1988 and he was jailed in 1989. Under the limitation act, she could sue until 1995 but didn't. He wins the lottery in 2004 and then she decides to sue? Give over.

 

[Inquisitor]

I did.

As we've no idea how the attempted rape affected the victim then I can't see how you can say she doesn't deserve anything.
For all we know she might have been deeply affected, scared to leave the house, unable to work for fear of being attacked. Everyone is different and will react to events in their lives differently.

If she has been deeply affected then I think she has every right to sue him. Let the courts decide whether she is deserving or not.

Fog

No one deserves any monetary compensation purely for being the victim of a crime. What they might deserve compensation for are the expenses that they incur due to the crime.

However, she wasn't actually raped, was she? I'm a bit sceptical about whether she was really affected that much.

 

[Vonhelmet]

No one deserves any monetary compensation purely for being the victim of a crime. What they might deserve compensation for are the expenses that they incur due to the crime.

However, she wasn't actually raped, was she? I'm a bit sceptical about whether she was really affected that much.

You cynic! She was deeply affected*.

* 15 years after the event, when the perpetrator won the lottery.

 

[Raymond Lin]

You're not listening. She had the option to sue. It's now no longer legal for her to sue. Hence she can't sue and there's no good reason why she should be allowed to.

Also, my point with the first thing was that the payout should be limited lost earnings or whatever, but you can bet she's after millions.

It's convenient that she suddenly wants to sue now that he has money coming out of her ears. She coped for 6 years, but now she wants to sue? She's gold-digging.

Under S.33 of the Limitation Act the courts do have the discretion to overlook the limitation period and that was what would the lawyer's argument be in court. The Judges are there to interpret the law (statute) and the legislation allow them to do that. Case law thus far however have stuck to the limitation period and only cases that are so serious will be considered with S.33.

Just because this case has been allowed passed its 6 years limitation period, doesn't mean every case now can, it'll be looked at a case by case basis.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Under S.33 of the Limitation Act the courts do have the discretion to overlook the limitation period and that was what would the lawyer's argument be in court. The Judges are there to interpret the law (statute) and the legislation allow them to do that. Case law thus far however have stuck to the limitation period and only cases that are so serious will be considered with S.33.

Just because this case has been allowed passed its 6 years limitation period, doesn't mean every case now can, it'll be looked at a case by case basis.

Aye, I read that bit in the article too, that there is a provision for the limit to be extended on a discretionary basis, so it's not "illegal" as such for her to sue - it would just require a judge's consent, as it were. Should probably go back and edit my post in respect of that...

Still, I think any judge would have to be smoking crack to allow the extension just because the perpetrator won the lottery 9 years after the standard limit expired.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

No one deserves any monetary compensation purely for being the victim of a crime. What they might deserve compensation for are the expenses that they incur due to the crime.

However, she wasn't actually raped, was she? I'm a bit sceptical about whether she was really affected that much.

Yup, thats what I said, If she's been affected enough to prevent her from working etc than thats what she should get.

Right, one way to be sure, I'll send big Bubba round one night to play hide the sausage. Tell us how you feel afterwards ok?

I have no idea how she'd feel either, but as i said, different people handle events in their lives differently. I just try to keep an open mind about it thats all.


Fog

 

[Raymond Lin]

Aye, I read that bit in the article too, that there is a provision for the limit to be extended on a discretionary basis, so it's not "illegal" as such for her to sue - it would just require a judge's consent, as it were. Should probably go back and edit my post in respect of that...

Still, I think any judge would have to be smoking crack to allow the extension just because the perpetrator won the lottery 9 years after the standard limit expired.

I do wonder what would people's reaction be if say the defendant is now a reformed man, made his own millions from his own work and not lottery win and would they still support her claim for damages?