Sueing 7 years after an attempted rape

[Foghorn Leghorn]

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.

Listening perfectly fine thanks. It is legal, she's sueing.

Agreed on next point, was what I was getting at.

No point sueing a guy with no money.

ditto.

Fog

 

[Indy500]

Interesting that the other cases are against institutions or councils.

 

[Rich_L]

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?

As I think I mentioned earlier, I'd also be interested to see what her actual claim for damages is.

I.e. if her claim was for £10,000 damages from the guys £7 million fortune, would so many people begrudge her the compensation?

It seems like there's a bit of a clash here between the loathing of compensation culture and the idea that criminals should be civilly liable for their criminal actions.

I wonder if it was the case that the guy had raped 5 kids and was being sued by them for compensation whether there would be as much sympathy - not an outrageous idea as this case seems to apply to 'abuse' victims. Do people agree that, say, children who have been sexually abused in Catholic schools should not be due any compensation from the church because an arbitrary time of 6 years has passed.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Do people agree that, say, children who have been sexually abused in Catholic schools should not be due any compensation from the church because an arbitrary time of 6 years has passed.

Just an aside, but with sexual abuse of children, the limit is 6 years from attaining majority (i.e. 18 years old) so that gives you a lot of time to decide to sue.

 

[jackthezipper]

A kid knows far less than an adult woman. You can't compare the both fairly.

 

[.Kencs]

I say sue him......He hasn't been punished enough...

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

Well, we do technically call ourselves a civilised country so we cannot/will not always visit an exact reversal of their crime upon a criminal (if you like the Old Testament style of justice) so sometimes a different approach such as monetary recompense is used as a very rough approximation. It doesn't necessarily assuage the suffering, nor are the sums involved always fair and justifiable but it is the best we currently have in compensating victims.

Why does the victim not 'deserve' a form of recompense for being assaulted in some way?

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

From what I read of the article it doesn't state exactly what was involved (and we can probably be thankful for that) but why should the trauma be (that much) less just because it was attempted rather than actual? I've no direct experience of the situation but I'd have thought that the feelings of powerlessness and violation would be much the same - that is what I'd suspect to be the worst part.

 

[.Kencs]

But if you think about it, Would she consider sueing if he DIDN'T win £7,000,000?
In 1 way, she can be seen as a money grabber, but in another he deserves what he gets to be honest...

 

[semi-pro waster]

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.

As Rich_L has pointed out before - why bother suing someone with no money? It is very well stating that it is a matter of principle but what about pragmatism here? If you have the certainty that you will get nothing at the end of a long legal process but will probably have a lot of painful memories brought up then it is a rather different situation to having the possibility of taking money from your attacker even with bringing up the same painful memories.

This may be legalised revenge but the principles for it have been in place for centuries, the judges have merely extended the arbitrary time limit in this case alone.

 

[AshFU]

A girl I used to goto school with was raped, seven years later she took her own life leaving a letter to her mother apologizing for what she had put her though, I guess her demons never went away

unless you know someone who has been rapped or have been yourself, I doubt you have a clue to the mess that leaves peoples lifes in