Rapist Wins Big-Time!

Iorworth Hoare was on day release when he bought a lotary ticket that ended up winning him alot of money. $12.6 million to be exact! Shoud Hoare get to keep the money, or should he have to give it to the family of the victims? Obviously, Hoare should not benifit from the money while he is still is prision, but the odds were against him, he won it, and was one heck of lucky guy.


I don't think that he should have to give the money to the victims that he raped. It has absolutely nothing to do with them, he won it by himself. He did not buy the ticket illegally, and won it fair and square.

Blunkett said that proposed legislation before parliament would force offenders who won the lottery or other wealthy criminals to contribute to a compensation fund for victims of crime.

If you got wealthy off the crime, well then, sure! You should have to give the money back, but if it was totally unrelated, then it has nothing to do with the crime!

The next question is limitation periods.

If you rape someone, serve your time, and then 15 years down the road you make it big in your own business, can they still claim the money against you?

"The biggest difficulty any claimant will face is the limitation periods, and generally speaking ... you are looking at three years," Sugarman (a lawyer specializing in personal injury and compensation claims) said.

"But someone assaulted before that period may be able to say they didn't take any action at the time because the offender had no money."

Prison officials said Hoare has been moved to a closed prison following his lottery win for his safety.

Looks like he is already getting treated better...

Related News Links:
edition.cnn.com

[edit on 8-12-2004 by Valhall]

The family could sue him for damages in a civil case.

The government should also seize an amount equal to whatever it costs to feed, shelter, and guard his worthless rapist behind.

But why?

They wouldn't do that if he didn't have the money, why should they do it because he has the money?

Originally posted by MacKiller
But why?

They wouldn't do that if he didn't have the money, why should they do it because he has the money?

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to, so I'll provide for either:

I don't understand the premise of your question. If a bum throws a brick through a store window, he doesn't have to pay. If a rich guy does it, he does have to pay if the store owner successfully sues. That's how society works. This situation isn't different. If you're asking why society works that way: charging people for being destructive is a good deterrent and compensates victims of destructive acts. If the criminal has no money, he arguably should still have to pay for the damage in some form, but practically it is inefficient in many cases to force him to do so. That doesn't mean that, in the blind pursuit of some twisted ideal of fairness, no one should have to pay for the damage they cause. If the bum doesn't have to pay, that's his gain, not the loss of the rich guy who does have to pay.

If I kill someone and commit suicide, they won't imprison me. If I don't commit suicide, they will. Is that unfair? No...

It also reminds me of market segmentation.

The government should also seize an amount equal to whatever it costs to feed, shelter, and guard his worthless rapist behind.

They don't do that to people who are not as well off... Why would they turn around and say, "Ah, you have money, lets take advantage of you"?

He is in jail right now serving time for his crime, and he was serving time before this. Okay, so they take a couple million away from him, are they going to give him the time spent in jail back to him in return? NO!

The fact that he won money has nothing to do with his crime.

Originally posted by MacKiller
They don't do that to people who are not as well off... Why would they turn around and say, "Ah, you have money, lets take advantage of you"?

I believe I already answered this.

1) They don't do that to people who are not as well off - why not? because it is inefficient to extract payment from those people. We could sell off their organs, or sell their services as medical experiment lab rats, but that would go against their rights. We could force them to do labour to pay the bill (and in some cases we do), but some argue that that also goes against their rights. So if there's an inconsistency, then you should take that up with the folks who prevent poor prisoners from being forced to pay their dues (through labour or whatever).

2)"Ah, you have money, lets take advantage of you" No one is taking advantage of anyone. The person who acted destructively is paying his due.

Originally posted by MacKiller
They don't do that to people who are not as well off... Why would they turn around and say, "Ah, you have money, lets take advantage of you"?

No not really. The point is is he getting taken advantage of? He was not sued before because he in all likelyhood did not have enuf assests to cover the legal costs of the plaintifs. Now he does. SHe should get as much as the jury will give her.

If he has any money left, he should pay for his prison costs.

2)"Ah, you have money, lets take advantage of you" No one is taking advantage of anyone. The person who acted destructively is paying his due.

He already paid his due by spending his time in jail. He's not going to get that time back. His due was what he was sentenced too, and maybe a personal appology, nothing more.

I don't know...

yeah, the money probably should be his... but the family could, probably should file a civil suit against him, but how long would that take and he could "spend - hide " the money... how could you prove that he still has it... ohhhh who knows...

it's a mess, and of course a tradgedy for victim and the family...

tough one...

Originally posted by MacKiller
He is in jail right now serving time for his crime, and he was serving time before this. Okay, so they take a couple million away from him, are they going to give him the time spent in jail back to him in return? NO!

He doesn't deserve that time back no matter what. He is being imprisoned because of his crime. If there were a zero-cost method of doing that, then fine. Otherwise society is paying money for the criminal's actions. The criminal therefore has a debt to society. Not all criminals are forced to pay for this debt -- society makes a decision based on how efficient and humane it is to extract payment. That is a favour to those who have no resources with which to pay, not an offense against those who do.

The fact that he won money has nothing to do with his crime.

The fact that he won money directly impacts on how feasible it is for society to extract money from him to pay for the debt that he owes due to his own actions.

That means he was still serving his time for the rape. I personnelly dont think he should turn it over to the families though... I think he should have to turn it over to the state where he is serving his time and be made to pay for his stay in jail, pay for his food, clothing,etc,,,,,As far as the question of if u served your time,reformed,got out, and made a contribution to society by opening a business and got wealthy from it NO you shouldn't have to turn over your money! He is still serving his sentence out and has not paid his dues for his crime. Personelly I think criminals have it too cushy in jail. It's like a vacation that we pay for!!! If u want the right to play and win the lottery don't break the law!!! What about the ppl he raped letting him buy a ticket and keep his winnings is a slap in the face to them! They don't deserve his money though the state does to pay for his expenses!!!

If he has any money left, he should pay for his prison costs.

I don't see why... I am from Canada, so I am not sure, does the government pay for prison costs down there?

If so, then he should not have to pay them at all.

They should have taken the money, waved it in the guys face, and said "there's nothing you can do about it so shut up and sit down"! This goes for any other rapist as well. Rape is a terrible crime and should be right up there with murder, etc. I feel that these people deserve what they get and should be treated as just as they are...dirty animals!

Originally posted by MacKiller
I don't see why... I am from Canada, so I am not sure, does the government pay for prison costs down there?
If so, then he should not have to pay them at all.

Most areas the government picks up the tab. However, in some areas this is starting to change. If they have money, why not pay for thier housing costs, food costs etc. The point is they chose to violate the laws of the country. They surrendered thier rights to the protection that society allows. After compensating his victem, then the state can recover some of its incured costs (my tax dollars). Obviously if he does not have any moeny then there is nothing to recover.

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Rape is a terrible crime and should be right up there with murder, etc. I feel that these people deserve what they get and should be treated as just as they are...dirty animals!

I am not arguing that one Jazzerman, rape is horrible. I do not think that the crime matters in this case though, it is more of the fact that he won, while serving time.

He spent his money on the ticket, not the victims. He spent his time buying the ticket, not the victims. It is his right to keep what he has won.

Originally posted by MacKiller
It is his right to keep what he has won.

No one has the right to keep their money when they have outstanding obligations. People and business can dodge obligations by declaring bankruptcy. I don't see any reason to prevent him from doing so, all he has to do is hand over the cash. Why should this rapist be treated differently than anyone else in society? The rules are pretty clear.

Originally posted by MacKiller

Originally posted by Jazzerman
Rape is a terrible crime and should be right up there with murder, etc. I feel that these people deserve what they get and should be treated as just as they are...dirty animals!

I am not arguing that one Jazzerman, rape is horrible. I do not think that the crime matters in this case though, it is more of the fact that he won, while serving time.

He spent his money on the ticket, not the victims. He spent his time buying the ticket, not the victims. It is his right to keep what he has won.

Yea but what about the money we are spending on him? don't we have a right to get that back if he bought this ticket in jail? I'm tired of paying for low down scumbags that rape and murder!!!!! I am a rape victim!!! What about the victim..what about what this says to her? Rape in a violent and mental crime!!! If my rapist was in jail I would be outraged if he won the lottery and got to keep it!! He is a ward of the state therefore its the states money!!!!!

No one has the right to keep their money when they have outstanding obligations.

These obligations are not manditory, they came up when he won the money. He already paid his due. Tell me where it says that if you win a lotto while in jail, you can't have the money. Tell me where it says that if you win a lotto in jail, you have to pay for you visit to jail.

Originally posted by MacKiller
These obligations are not manditory, they came up when he won the money. He already paid his due. Tell me where it says that if you win a lotto while in jail, you can't have the money. Tell me where it says that if you win a lotto in jail, you have to pay for you visit to jail.

If they are not mandatory, then that is a flaw in the legal system that needs to be corrected. Then this particular rapist would have a case (it being society's fault for having stupid laws). However, if as DragonFly5 said the prisoner is a ward of the state, then maybe even under the current legal system he doesn't own the money.

But as far as what should be the case:

To say that the obligations only came up when he won the money is false. The obligation is always there, but the payment would not occur unless there is money to make the payment. I encourage you to read my previous posts.