Good idea or unfair?
Mr Clarke also announced a clampdown on convicted criminals being able to claim compensation for injuries and psychological damage, saying it was "perverse" they were able to do so.
Over the past decade, 20,000 people with criminal records have been paid more than £75m, including a and a person convicted of two killings, while more than 3,000 prisoners and ex-prisoners have made claims in the last year alone.
People on remand should be protected from harm. Once in the system the old adage "if you can't do the time - - - " applies. Criminal actions are a choice.
Can somebody explain quite who and what is being clamped down? Lots of clamping goin on lately aint there?
There's always been provision within the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme for the withholding of compensation, either in part or in its entirety, where the claimant has unspent convictions. That would apply for anything up to a 7 or 10 year period following an imprisonable offence. Kenneth Clarke is saying he wants to tighten that up so that those with unspent convictions are by default ineligible, except in special circumstances, or where those convictions are for relatively petty offences, so I'm not sure how much is actually being changed? The same kind of discretion as has previously existed will continue to exist. It seems only to be different in degree?
In any event the Govt is saying the cuts will save around £35-45m, an additional sum of £50m to be raised from a levy on offenders, but that £35-45m saving includes payments to the perfectly innocent, without convictions, spent or otherwise whose max available compensation payments for some really quite serious injuries, including brain damage and permanent disability will be substantially reduced. The actual amount saved by limiting eligibility for those with unspent convictions is predicted to be around according to the Ministry of Justice's own figures.
I'll leave everyone to draw their own conclusions as to how much could be said to be really under review re: criminal claims if it results only in the saving of so trifling a sum as It looks like they're trying to disguise a massive cut in payments to perfectly innocent, law-abiding victims by spinning it as tightening of rules re: criminals?
more smoke more mirrors then.
Yes its a big number.
Its not relatively big.
Our only option appears to be a clamp down.
I am just happy that at last we have a government that has clamps and knows how to down them.
Mebbe they will work their way up and do something rather than hosing us down with their weasel words.
The thing is a lot of people are abusing the system in prison, there are long term people in there who will advise other prisoners on what they can claim for and in many cases the claims are quite ridiculous.
Examples
A laptop was lost containg in lots of personal information about people on benefits
COMPENSATION PAID to victims = £NOTHING
A laptop was lost by MOD containing lots of personal information about HM Forces personel
COMPENSATION PAID to victims = £NOTHING
A laptop was lost by a prison Admin Officer containing lots of information about Prisoners
COMPENSATION PAID = £MILLIONS
hundreds of thousands of pounds of compensation was paid to prisoners at one prison because on one particular day it was deemed to dangerous to go outside for daily excercise due to freak weather conditions
The slightest injury even self inflicted is being claimed for
To me if you do not live within the laws of society you cannot call upon those same laws to protect you and compensate you, for the most part we will ensure they are treated reasonably but I believe they gave up thier right to demand that when they stepped outside the law.
