Sueing 7 years after an attempted rape

Argh..it isn't punishment, it's compensation. Big difference!

If someone crashes into your car, and their insurance company has to pay out for repairs, is that 'punishment' for the insurance company or are the increased premiums 'punishment' for the person driving?

He won't have to pay any sums as punitive damages, he will only have to pay what the courts deem reasonable compensation for the distress that she was caused.
 
atpbx said:
Dont back out of the question.
Click to expand...

what question?:confused:

The money is meant to cover counselling, loss of earning etc, not to add a second punishment.

If she stood up in court and said "I am suing because i want to punish him" Then the judge would have had to say no.
 
atpbx said:
DO you have a partner?

Male or female?

And if they were raped you could live with the perpetrator being given an 18 month sentance and living down the road from you and your partner again?
You wouldn't want to do anything to him either before or after the court had had the chance to pass judgment?
Click to expand...

So it's ok to take the law into your own hands?
 
I think this is wrong. Sure, I have no sympathy for his crime, but he’s been convicted, sentenced etc. If someone commits a crime, a caught, due process applied, serves their sentence – that should be the end of it. One should have to worry about you victim of many years or even decades ago coming after you for whatever money you have been able to make subsequently.

Would this be any different if the rapist had served his time, gone on to be to totally law obeying citizen, started a company, 20 years later was a self made millionaire? Would be victim still be allowed access to his money? No way I’d say. The fact that he won it makes no difference.
 
The judge/Law Lords will use S33 of the limitation act in this case which allows them discretion to "ignore" the 6 years limiation for this offence. And no doubt when the judgement comes they will say something about looking at it in a case by case bases so it doesn't mean every case with these offence from now on will get a free go at suing the defendant.
 
He's been convicted and she's got £ signs in her eyes.

If you ask me she's out to rape him of his cash :p
 
atpbx said:
DO you have a partner?

Male or female?

And if they were raped you could live with the perpetrator being given an 18 month sentance and living down the road from you and your partner again?
You wouldn't want to do anything to him either before or after the court had had the chance to pass judgment?

Someone hits you dont fight back?
Someone steals your car you dont give the guy a good hiding if you catch him first?
Click to expand...

I can't quite see your point.

I probably would feel anger and frustration yes - but that's got nothing to do with what we're discussing.
 
The woman wants compensation for the damage he did, there is also no doubt that she wants him to "pay" in some way for what he has done to her, whether that is him being run over by a steam roller or being made to give her shed loads of cash.
Seeing as she cant push for steamrollering she will sue for compensation.
 
atpbx said:
Thats what I'm asking.

Again you have not answered the questions asked.
Click to expand...

i have. i said its not about punishments but just covering costs incurred.

and as for taking law in to your own hands? NO a massive big fat NO, because, then you would basically just have gang war, you kill/steal something a group of that guys friends will come and beat you and burn your house down, you and your friends will go out and kill them and so on and so on.

We have laws and a justice system for a reason.
 
clv101 said:
I think this is wrong. Sure, I have no sympathy for his crime, but he’s been convicted, sentenced etc. If someone commits a crime, a caught, due process applied, serves their sentence – that should be the end of it. One should have to worry about you victim of many years or even decades ago coming after you for whatever money you have been able to make subsequently.

Would this be any different if the rapist had served his time, gone on to be to totally law obeying citizen, started a company, 20 years later was a self made millionaire? Would be victim still be allowed access to his money? No way I’d say. The fact that he won it makes no difference.
Click to expand...


Your first paragraph is about punishment which is handled by the courts, and has nothing to do with a civil action which is what this is. The civil action is purely about damages, not about punishing someone, In the US you can get punitive damages when you win a civil action, which is basically a "fine", such as the billions against large co-operation such as the tobacco industry. The punitive damages is usually much bigger than the general damages which is the amount award for the pain and suffering caused by the defendant. In this country there are no punitive damages award by the courts and its trial by a judge, not jury as in the case of the US.
 
Morba said:
I agree. If she wanted compensation it should have been at the point of conviction.
Click to expand...
Sure, she could have done so, but what would have been the point?

She would have spent a lot of money on legal fees with no prospect of getting damages or costs in return, she might have got a Court Order so she could wave a bit of paper around saying he owed her £x, but if he's got no money he isn't going to be able to pay - unless you are willing to throw away a whole bundle of cash on a principle then there's no point in suing someone with no money - you still have to pay your lawyer's fees.
 
Rich_L said:
Sure, she could have done so, but what would have been the point?

She would have spent a lot of money on legal fees with no prospect of getting damages or costs in return, she might have got a Court Order so she could wave a bit of paper around saying he owed her £x, but if he's got no money he isn't going to be able to pay - unless you are willing to throw away a whole bundle of cash on a principle then there's no point in suing someone with no money - you still have to pay your lawyer's fees.
Click to expand...

Then you are waiving the chance to get anything regardless of how small.
You should not be able to wait for such a long time for a potential person to come into money then decide to have a go at getting some.

The only reason she is doing this is for money.
 
andyp said:
I can't quite see your point.

I probably would feel anger and frustration yes - but that's got nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Click to expand...


It has, I'm trying to get you to see from something you have an understanding of and apply it here.

You are saying that you are quite happy in this poor cows case, that she should be happy with the 5k given to her by the court as compo when it happened and that she should shut up go back to her destroyed life and be done with it.

I'm saying that YOU wouldnt just sit there and be happy with a judgment like that, why should she? No matter what any of you say, in the same position and given the same chance you would do the same.

Goddammit the whole board tried to screw argos over some mispriced cameras a while ago and were more than happy to screw them for a £50 saving over the mispriced item and were willing to get soliciters involved just for £50, half the board even advocates theft of items that are delivered in error even at the risk of costing some poor guy his job.
You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that if you or your family had been wronged like this woman was that given the chance to sue the filth that did it, that you would not do so.
 
Rich_L said:
Sure, she could have done so, but what would have been the point?

She would have spent a lot of money on legal fees with no prospect of getting damages or costs in return, she might have got a Court Order so she could wave a bit of paper around saying he owed her £x, but if he's got no money he isn't going to be able to pay - unless you are willing to throw away a whole bundle of cash on a principle then there's no point in suing someone with no money - you still have to pay your lawyer's fees.
Click to expand...

The way round that is obviously the no win no fee and you would sue for costs in the case as well. Or you can take out an insurance policy that if you do lose, the insurance will pay costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom