Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

[steve threlfall]

I read about this yesterday in the paper. Should a crminal such as the one attempting to sue Tony Martin be allowed to 'turn the tables' and sue the victim?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
I read about this yesterday in the paper. Should a crminal such as the one attempting to sue Tony Martin be allowed to 'turn the tables' and sue the victim?

Nope, they should be told to f**k off. They should also have to pay for their crime, not just do a little bit of time in the slammer at the tax payers expense.

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
Nope, they should be told to f**k off. They should also have to pay for their crime, not just do a little bit of time in the slammer at the tax payers expense.

Well i agree with that. Maybe its a breach of their right to ban them from suing but then they wouldnt have that problem if they were not commiting a crime would they

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
Well i agree with that. Maybe its a breach of their right to ban them from suing but then they wouldnt have that problem if they were not commiting a crime would they

Exactly. I would like to go as far as saying, 'we could introduce their rectums to hot pokers' for being so cheeky to ask to sue, but that's wrong!

[spikegifted]

I think the answer is a big fat no!

[Slick]

Yes they should! If someone in a pub punched me I would be the victim of abh. If I then grabbed a bottle, broke it and started stabbing him with it you're saying he's got no right to sue me? Weather he was right or not in the first place is one matter but the fact that he could sue me suggests that I broke the law as well so we are both "victims".

[DaBeeeenster]

I think it depends on the relative severity of the crimes. As Slick said, if someone does something minor (say they crash into your car while speeding). Does this give you the authority to chop their hands off? If you did, should the person be able to sue because they then have no hands?

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
I think it depends on the relative severity of the crimes. As Slick said, if someone does something minor (say they crash into your car while speeding). Does this give you the authority to chop their hands off? If you did, should the person be able to sue because they then have no hands?

That's a good point, the argument still stands, should you be able to shoot someone for breaking into your house? (the argument at stake) I kind of think 'YES'. This crime has the penalty of this punishment if you are caught by the owner inb their house.

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by Slick
Yes they should! If someone in a pub punched me I would be the victim of abh. If I then grabbed a bottle, broke it and started stabbing him with it you're saying he's got no right to sue me? Weather he was right or not in the first place is one matter but the fact that he could sue me suggests that I broke the law as well so we are both "victims".

err no thats completely different. You would have just commited a crime and therefore the attacker is now also a genuine victim

[Slick]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
err no thats completely different. You would have just commited a crime and therefore the attacker is now also a genuine victim

But you must have commited a crime for the person to sue you?!? I don't understand your point, they wouldn't be able to sue you if you hadn't commited a crime against them.

[TiG]

Personally i think it depends on the first crime committed. Violent crimes against a person that reacts imo should not be able to be taken to damage suits.

I'm sure i can think of a few that my violent crimes can be countered but it works fairly well from my point of view.

TiG

[Slick]

TBH I think everyone should have the right to sue, if it was in retaliation to another crime the court should take that into account and if it was just a minor retaliation they would hopefully not take any action. If you take away someone's right to sue, you're taking away their human rights and we're all criminals to some extent.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Slick
TBH I think everyone should have the right to sue, if it was in retaliation to another crime the court should take that into account and if it was just a minor retaliation they would hopefully not take any action. If you take away someone's right to sue, you're taking away their human rights and we're all criminals to some extent.

Yeah, the question is meant to be, should the criminal be allowed to get compensation from the victim? The right to sue is fundamental. The right of the court to tell a criminal suing his victim to piss off should also be fundamental. I understand that this is needed for ambiguous cases.

[TiG]

heh - slick i think the system is already filled up with enough court cases, we don't need all criminals sueing for damages.

Plus if someone is the innocent victim and was just trying to protect themselves etc and they got sued, that would but a lot of stress and emotional pressure on them.

Hardly think thats fair. Criminals by nature are taking away other peoples human rights by committing the acts they are doing. Surely that means that they are not entitled to the same such treatment.

E.g geneva covention, wwII - japan didn't sign up to it and massacred our POW's, by the end of WWII the allies didn't want to take POW's so large sections of japanese soliders surrendering were shot to avoid them blowing themselves up while surrendering. Extreme example i know but highlights the point i'm trying to make

TiG

[Big RICHARD]

The point we're missing is that suing someone is not winning the case and getting the money. Suing is taking to court the request for compensation. The courts should tell the criminal suing to get lost though and I think the majority here agree.

[Zathras]

I think it should be each case on its merits. Blanket banning suing for damage sustained after committing an illegal act would be an over-reaction, and Slick has posted a quite reasonable and imaginable scenario where the person bottled should be able to sue.