If a person destroys goods, property, vehicles, etc. in the committing of a crime for which they were found guilty then why aren't they or their family held responsible to pay back all the financial loss? Why is it incumbant upon the owners or tax payers? A reasonable mind would conclude that if the criminal is help responsible then there would be less crime. I always wondered why that isn't the case and on what basis it isn't justified to hold people responsible for their actions.
2007-07-27 16:06:36 · 8 answers · asked by Jamar 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'm refering to actual demage of property such as structural on buildings and vehicles--not psychological or loss of income demage.
2007-07-27 16:11:02 · update #1
I'm not sure where you got your information, but criminals upon conviction are assigned court ordered restitution...and until restitution is paid in full, an offender cannot get off parole/probation. Their wages can be garnished after they get out of jail or prison, and they will have liens put against current and future property. The amount of restitution against the victim, fines and court costs will appear on the criminals credit report also. The only time this will not happen is if you do not give damages, loss, and expenses to the prosecuting attorney on the case.
It may take a long long time to get repaid, but sooner or later it will either happen, or the criminal will become a career criminal and spend his or her life in prison...then you'll get nothing.
What bothers me about your question is your reference to family paying off the debt....all I can say is WHAT? Unless it's a minor who is not old enough to work, I don't see how that can be fair. The family didn't commit the crime.
2007-07-27 16:19:14 · answer #1 · answered by Madre 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mostly they are supposed to be held responsible -- but they are delinquents who have no money to pay for these things.
Victims always have the right to file a civil claim against the criminal in an attempt to get them to pay - and a judgement will not be wiped out by bankruptcy.
However, making their family responsible doesn't happen because the family is not necessarily responsible for committing the crime.
I suppose that if the family had enough to make it worthwhile, and you could find enough evidence that the family was the cause of the crime, you could get a suit through --- but good luck.
2007-07-27 16:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by mj69catz 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because it would never pan out anyway. I mean, if they had money then they probably would not be a criminal to begin with. However, any vehicles damaged by another party are usually held responsible.
2007-07-27 16:16:10 · answer #3 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
defendants are held responsible in Texas in the form of restitution, payments to crime stoppers, and payments to the crime victims' compensation fund. they can also be sued in civil court.
you can not legally demand payment from a defendant's family for anything the defendant has done.
2007-07-27 16:14:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They often are. Restitution is a part of many sentences, or a condition of probation or reduced jail time.
2007-07-27 16:11:44 · answer #5 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Criminal Records Search Database : http://www.SearchVerifyInfos.com/Help
2015-10-21 21:57:17 · answer #6 · answered by Kori 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because inmates are given to many rights. I agree that they should be held liable for their actions.
2007-07-27 16:10:43 · answer #7 · answered by Glen B 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Courts can order restitution.
2007-07-27 16:10:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋