Easing Crime's Pain

Speaking from her wheelchair, Pat Hemenway, 46, quietly described to Washington State legislators what had happened to her. While she was walking near the University of Washington campus one day in 1972, two young muggers accosted her. For no apparent reason, one suddenly shot her in the neck, grabbed her purse and left her bleeding--and permanently paralyzed. Obviously moved by her story, the lawmakers voted to pass a new kind of law that would provide state funds to ease the plight of Mrs. Hemenway and hundreds of others like her.

Before she could receive any payments, Mrs. Hemenway died of pneumonia, which had been complicated by her paralysis. Her husband will receive at least $19,000 to cover her hospital bills and other costs, but her larger legacy is Washington's law, which went into effect this summer and will aid victims of violent crime. Since California began the trend in 1965, 12 more states have enacted similar statutes, and Congress is now considering a federal crime-victims' compensation bill.

The idea dates back to the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi that provided public recompense for citizens who had been robbed. That practice did not flourish in the Anglo-Saxon system as governments came to adopt the view that crime is an offense against society; efforts to control it concentrated on punishing the criminal. Now that approach has begun to change. Says Saul Wexler, who handles compensation cases for the Illinois attorney general's office: "The innocent victim often suffers more than the assailant who is sent to prison."

Typically the new laws provide only for medical costs and income loss resulting from an injury. Almost any crime-related injury is included. When a gun-toting bank robber in California ordered everyone to "Move!" Customer Linnia Victorine slipped on a carpet and badly sprained her neck; she was awarded $5,000. Payments have ranged from a few dollars to $350,000 for a series of operations on a four-year-old New York boy; acid had been thrown in the child's face by a deranged neighbor.

Low Turnout. Not covered are pain and suffering or the value of items stolen. Nor will claims be honored unless the victim is "innocent"--that is, in no way the cause of the assailant's action.

Assaults by family members or lovers are generally excluded, as are injuries in the usual barroom brawl. Other sorts of provocation or involvement by a victim can also lead to disqualification. The New York review board recently turned down a man who had been stabbed by the pimp of a prostitute he was visiting.

Any payment from a victim's own insurance is deducted first. Many states also have a maximum benefit; in California that figure just rose from $5,000 to $23,000. Various other limitations --New York even requires that need be proved--may have held down the number of those applying for grants. In the past seven years, for example, California has had only about 5,000 claims. Officials believe that the main reason for the low turnout is that relatively few people know about the benefits. As a result, California, Illinois and Washington are getting police to distribute forms and information to victims.

That practice could have an important side effect--helping to catch and prosecute violent criminals. "The act was designed to assist those persons most suspicious of the law-enforcement process," says Chicago's Wexler. "It may be worth a thousand Officer Friendlies." Indeed, compensation in some states depends on the victims' complete cooperation with police and prosecutors. Thus the growing use of compensation laws will provide financial incentives to offset the reluctance of victims to become complainants and witnesses in the long, frustrating judicial process.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.