Sex Offender wins $10M Lottery

[Cosmo]

How's this (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/15264847/detail.html) for good things happening to bad people? Is there no justice in this world? :rolleyes:

[Bob Klase]

How's this (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/15264847/detail.html) for good things happening to bad people? Is there no justice in this world? :rolleyes:

Perhaps his lawyer is a good person. His lawyer is probably going to end up with a good chuck of the money.

[Skeptosaurus Rex]

They should give all of it to his victim(s)! :confused:

[Seismosaurus]

They should give all of it to his victim(s)! :confused:

Under what law? I don't think it's illegal for criminals to be lucky.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Under what law? I don't think it's illegal for criminals to be lucky.

There was a recent decision in England where a victim was granted permission to start a civil damages case beyond the normal time limits because the man who raped her won a substantial amount of cash on the national lottery.

She did not sue at the time because he had no assets. May be a similar situation here.

[Autolite]

Consider also that the term "sex offender" could encompass quite a variety of people. I was reading a "Crime Library" article that talked about female school teachers having sex with students (teachers with students is automatic statutory rape in certain states regardless of age). One case cited a 22 year old female school teacher who had sex with a 19 year old male student. She was charged and the guy wasn't even one of her students ...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/female_offenders/1_index.html

[Nogbad]

I think the clue is in the name "lottery". There is no natural justice - good people die and bad people prosper - and vice versa. It is just your Donald Duck - as people are wont to say.

[Rasmus]

There was a recent decision in England where a victim was granted permission to start a civil damages case beyond the normal time limits because the man who raped her won a substantial amount of cash on the national lottery.

She did not sue at the time because he had no assets. May be a similar situation here.

I generally dislike if there are exceptions to laws made. Granted, I don't know the details about these cases - but as such I think "we didn't bother at the time, deadline is over but now he's rich" doesn't seem like a good reason to me. (Especially if one could have sued for money he didn't have at the time.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I generally dislike if there are exceptions to laws made. Granted, I don't know the details about these cases - but as such I think "we didn't bother at the time, deadline is over but now he's rich" doesn't seem like a good reason to me. (Especially if one could have sued for money he didn't have at the time.)

I apologise as may have misrepresented what happened. Her case, along with four others, were taken to the Law Lords for a ruling on whether or not the lower courts had discretion to disapply the time limit of six years. They concluded they did and therefore all of those cases have been sent back to those courts for them to decide if they will.

(At least that is my reading of it, but IANAL).

Is it reasonable to use the fact that she did not sue at the time as a factor? If he had no cash, what did she possibly have to gain by suing him?

[Rasmus]

Is it reasonable to use the fact that she did not sue at the time as a factor?

If there is a law that says you only have a specific period in which to sue - yes, of course. I think it is very reasonable to apply laws as they are written.

If he had no cash, what did she possibly have to gain by suing him?

A verdict saying that if he should ever get any money, she'd be entitled to it?

[fuelair]

I generally dislike if there are exceptions to laws made. Granted, I don't know the details about these cases - but as such I think "we didn't bother at the time, deadline is over but now he's rich" doesn't seem like a good reason to me. (Especially if one could have sued for money he didn't have at the time.)
My problem is not having the time limit automatically put into law as going through the death of the victim (or the assailant) for that.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If there is a law that says you only have a specific period in which to sue - yes, of course. I think it is very reasonable to apply laws as they are written.

A verdict saying that if he should ever get any money, she'd be entitled to it?

I think I get what you are saying. She should have sued him (in time) for future income?

Not sure if that is even possible (any lawyers have a view?), but if it is and had she won he would undoubtedly have declared bankruptcy while in jail, meaning she had no prospect of actually collecting any money.

So it comes down to this:

He has money when he did it, she gets it.
He gets money within six years of when he did it, she gets it.
He gets money one day later, he keeps it.

These cases have me divided - I can see the benefit of time limits (avoiding miscarriages due to age of evidence, allowing rehabilitation of offenders etc) but also the "natural justice" of letting her sue.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

My problem is not having the time limit automatically put into law as going through the death of the victim (or the assailant) for that.

I don't understand - could you clarify?

[sophia8]

Here's the story about the "Lottery Rapist". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7217251.stm)
His victim received £5000 compensation at the time, but now wants to sue her rapist for damages for the trauma she suffered. She's now 80, so I do wonder what influence her family is exercising.
And its a dangerous precedent, in more ways than one. Anybody who was injured by a criminal, however long ago, can now attempt to sue for damages; that includes people who claim they were sexually abused decades ago, a crime that is usually impossible for the defendant to disprove.
The only redeeming feature of the judgement is that the actual decision to go ahead in each individual case is now to be left to circuit judges

[sophia8]

Here's the story about the "Lottery Rapist". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7217251.stm)
His victim received £5000 compensation at the time, but now wants to sue her rapist for damages for the trauma she suffered. She's now 80, so I do wonder what influence her family is exercising.
And its a dangerous precedent, in more ways than one. Anybody who was injured by a criminal, however long ago, can now attempt to sue for damages; that includes people who claim they were sexually abused decades ago, a crime that is usually impossible for the defendant to disprove.
The only redeeming feature of the judgement is that the actual decision to go ahead in each individual case is now to be left to circuit judges

[bokonon]

Is it reasonable to use the fact that she did not sue at the time as a factor? If he had no cash, what did she possibly have to gain by suing him?
Possibly, she could have gained a legitimate claim to his lottery winnings many years later.

As distasteful as it may be for the victim to suffer the pain of seeing her victimizer rewarded, I don't think I'm in favor of ignoring statutes of limitation based on special circumstances such as this. There's a reason for them -- memories fade, witnesses die, evidence (both incriminating and exculpatory) disappears.

In my state, a judgment is good for ten years, and can be renewed every decade in perpetuity until the parties to the judgment die (and probably beyond).

So yes, I'd say it's reasonable to dismiss her suit now if she didn't file one before the statute of limitations expired.