I was vaguely aware of some controversy regarding the Carnival of the Vanities, but I don’t often have time to read the actual Carnivals, and I didn’t really get a firm grasp on what the controversy was until Kevin Baker wrote about it. (If you’re interested in the Carnival, Jay at Accidental Verbosity points out a “reform edition” at This Blog is Full of Crap. I’d recommend that one, instead.)

Apparently, this week’s host had taken some rather anti-American stances in his descriptions of the posts, including a post by Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum. The host, “Dr. Zen”, wrote:

Not satisfied with being shot when they venture overseas, Americans like to shoot each other. Zendo Deb at TFS Magnum sure likes the notion. She is angry that those filthy liberals think the law is something to be respected. Apparently, this old geezer was arrested for concealing a weapon, which he used to shoot and kill an assailant. Deb asks what the old man should have done. Well, Deb, he should have just given the kids his money and rung the coppers. So he loses his wallet. Never mind. Get the criminal compensation board to pay him back what he lost. Don’t have one? You would if you were a liberal. Human lives will never be worth as little as the contents of your wallet, Deb, not in any place Dr Zen has even the smallest say. I don’t care who does the shooting, you or the mugger. The old guy should get life for murder, pure and simple, and idiots like you should cool your boots and learn what really has value in this life.

Obviously, Dr. Zeb missed the point completely, because the old man wasn’t saying “My wallet is worth your life.” The robbers attacked a 64-year-old man. They had a gun. As far as he knew, they were telling him that his wallet was worth his life. They were telling him his life was worth less to them than his wallet, and as soon as the threat (on his life, not his wallet) was there, he had every right to send each and every one of them to the hospital or the grave.

Kevin put some emphasis on the assertion that the old guy should get life for murder; the part that caught my eye was the fact that the old man should’ve just given up his money and gotten his money back from the “Criminal Compensation Board.” My initial response? “The what?!”

The context seemed to imply that it was a governmental organization that would pay citizens for the losses they suffer due to crime, but that seemed simply ludicrous. I mean, it’s bad enough that honest people have to work to earn money to support those people who won’t work for their money (and we all know that the welfare system has more than its share of deadbeats; it doesn’t just help those who’re in dire straits due to some tragic event and just need a small boost to get back on their feet), but to support people who commit crimes for a living?! If the government encourages Mr. X to give his money to the criminals without protest, and the government refunds Mr. X, then the government is merely using Mr. X as a courier to pay the criminals! I knew there was no such thing here (yet), but surely no other country was that insane, right?

Still, lots of people believe some absurd things, so I figured I’d check up on it. (Google, as Kevin points out in another post, is a wonderful thing.)

Turns out, the Criminal Compensation Board is a government organization that provides victims with money. The perpetrator has to pay, which makes sense. That sounds good, doesn’t it? “If you have been a victim of crime then you are likely to suffer trauma, confusion and distress, at least in the immediate aftermath of the incident. However, it is also important to remember that you have rights and may be eligible for compensation from the perpetrator of the crime…” Unfortunately, the sentence doesn’t end there. “…or from the government.”

More:

You can also apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for compensation, although this option is only available to victims of crimes of violence. The CICA came into existence as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in 1964, taking on its present form in 1996. It handles about 80,000 cases and pays out about £200 million in compensation annually.

200 million pounds! 200 million pounds extorted from law-abiding citizens to make up for the fact that other people committed violent crimes! At the very best, all this does is distribute individual’s losses due to crime to everyone else — it doesn’t solve anything

Of course, that makes a little more sense if the government was responsible for your protection, but it isn’t, and indeed, it can’t be. The fact of the matter is, the old man in Zendo Deb’s story did something more important than protect his own wallet. He did something more important, in my mind, than saving his own life. He helped to protect society. Every time the government in England tells its people to lie down and take it, it encourages them to become victims. This old man and those like him who are willing to defend themselves are, by contrast, helping to make our society a more stable one by discouraging violence. I don’t know about you, but I’m a hell of a lot less likely to try robbing someone if he might fight back.

We don’t have a “Criminal Compensation Board” here, but that’s because we don’t need it. Our government doesn’t yet find itself in a position where it must either admit that its policies that were intended to reduce crime are actually encouraging it or pay off the victims so they don’t look too closely at the system. We may be moving toward that place, as the Wisconsin case shows, but we’re not there yet.