Arrested on suspicion..

[harvey19]

Has he been punished? He hasn't been sentenced yet. And he has apparently transferred all his assets into his wife's name.

 

Yes you are quite right but I am sure he will be sentenced to a form of punishment after pleading guilty to several offences.

Yes it does appear that he is attempting to reduce his assets.

But on what grounds are his victims considering suing him when his punishment is that which will be awarded by the court.

[Chris_Sleeps]

But on what grounds are his victims considering suing him

On the grounds that they are his victims.

 

Do you think that victims should have no access to recompense? That simply seeing him punished should be enough?

[harvey19]

On the grounds that they are his victims.

 

Do you think that victims should have no access to recompense? That simply seeing him punished should be enough?

 

So every victim of every crime(whatever the crime is) should be able to sue the person proved guilty of committing it ?

From what I have read the main reason of investigating these historic crimes is to bring the guilty to justice and punish them whilst giving the victim a sense of closure and seeing justice done.

This has quite rightly been done by our legal system and I wonder what are the grounds for suing.

[quisquose]

An excellent piece here by Suzanne Moore which not only sums up my views and feelings but addresses all the issues raised on this thread.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/03/stuart-hall-savile-victims-voices

 

That is indeed an excellent article which sums up the views I've held ever since the news about Savile first broke.

 

Remember how you, I and others were insulted for holding those views on those Savile threads that were pulled? Some posters must be relieved that their comments have vanished now.

[Chris_Sleeps]

So every victim of every crime(whatever the crime is) should be able to sue the person proved guilty of committing it ?

No, I don't agree with that; although I think it should at least be an option. It should be something that victims could consider.

 

Your turn now; do you think that victims should have no access to recompense? That simply seeing him punished should be enough?

[harvey19]

No, I don't agree with that; although I think it should at least be an option. It should be something that victims could consider.

 

Your turn now; do you think that victims should have no access to recompense? That simply seeing him punished should be enough?

 

My view is irrelevant, I am trying to clarify a point in this case.

Your first sentence illustrates my point.

[Chris_Sleeps]

My view is irrelevant

I don't agree with that.

[harvey19]

I don't agree with that.

I'm sure many do !!!!!!!!

[Suffragette1]

That is indeed an excellent article which sums up the views I've held ever since the news about Savile first broke.

 

Remember how you, I and others were insulted for holding those views on those Savile threads that were pulled? Some posters must be relieved that their comments have vanished now.

 

Indeed I do, I remember them well. Those money grabbing gold digging liars eh, who dared to smear a man no longer here to defend himself?!

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2013 at 17:17 ----------

 

So every victim of every crime(whatever the crime is) should be able to sue the person proved guilty of committing it ?

From what I have read the main reason of investigating these historic crimes is to bring the guilty to justice and punish them whilst giving the victim a sense of closure and seeing justice done.

This has quite rightly been done by our legal system and I wonder what are the grounds for suing.

 

Child abuse can and often does have long term and in even life long effects. It can result in a range of mental health issues, eating disorders, self harm, poor self-esteem, self-loathing, guilt, blame, dysfunctional relationships and suicide. If you could see the effects that some survivors have to live with, to the extent that they cannot work and are on benefits, you would not be asking this question.

[Eater Sundae]

So every victim of every crime(whatever the crime is) should be able to sue the person proved guilty of committing it ?

From what I have read the main reason of investigating these historic crimes is to bring the guilty to justice and punish them whilst giving the victim a sense of closure and seeing justice done.

This has quite rightly been done by our legal system and I wonder what are the grounds for suing.

 

Probably. I don't know if it should apply to EVERY crime, but off the top of my head, I cannot think of a crime where the victim could not or should not be able to sue.

 

Edit. As I see it, the criminal is punished because he/she has acted outside the acceptable norms of scoiety. It has nothing to do with the victim. The victim should therefore be able to sue as a form of recompense for his/her loss. They are two separate issues. Some losses can be easily measured in monetary terms, but most cannot, but as its the only way we can quantify recompense, then we make do with it.

 

Of course, many criminals have very little money, so there's no point in suing them. However, if the criminal has some money, then why not sue? It's not that the suers (is that a word?) are special and/or money centred because they decided to sue, it's just the only method available to them to record (in public) the damage that has been done to them. It's not that they are different from those who do not sue, it is that the criminal is different in that they are wealthy enough to be sued.

 

btw, in the case of Stuart Hall: IF it is true that he has transferred ownership of his house soon after being charged (while at the time claiming his innocence, and therefore still denying the claims of those he had wronged), and only admitted his guilt after completing the transfer. Then he stinks even more, if that is possible.