Double Compensation Essay

Decent Essays
The death of all primary wrongdoers and victims of the historical injustice by definition involves persons who are not directly responsible or related to the crime creating a ‘double decoupling’ (Posner and Vermeule. 2003) of wrongdoer/payer and victim/claimant. This double decoupling introduces concerns with considerations to the possible rationalisations of both entitlements to ‘setback’ compensation and/or restitution as well as the issue of who should bear the economic burden of financing such programs. The descendants of wrongdoers do not inherit the burden of the wrong itself, and are thus not accountable for the consequential affect of setbacks in welfare. So who should pay? Ordinarily the state would seem a viable alternative (Gaus.…show more content…
Demanding non-wrongdoers to finance the compensation of descendants who sustain a livelihood above the specific level of livelihood is unjustifiable, as considerations for distributive justice may take precedent over retributive justice (Perez. 2012). Even still, should the victims of descendants be living below a specific welfare level, the circumstance must be unaffected by third party influence. They must have exasperated all means for raising their situation above the specific welfare line and the reasoning for the entrapment must solely be ascribable to the historical injustice itself, or the failure by perpetrators and consequential descendants to redress the wrong. The claim for setback compensation is unconvincing if the setbacks in attributed to irresponsible life choices, such as a failure to achieve the minimum requirement level of state education, involvement in crime or addiction to drugs and alcohol. Examples such as these qualify as external influences, unassociated with the original wrong in question and therefore, compensation is not
Get Access