P000249
Monday, January 28, 2002 6:37 PM
Victim Compensation
I want to voice my support for a compensation plan that subtracts life
insurance benefits from the overall compensation provided. The purpose of
the money should not be to compensate people for their loss, but rather to
mitigate the need created by their loss. If the victims want to be
compensated directly for their loss, they should go after the same people
that victims of drive-by shootings and drunk drivers go after - the people
who actually perpetrated the crime.
It has never been the responsibility or purpose of the U.S. government to
compensate individuals for the harm they suffer at the hands of other
individuals or at the hands of mother nature. Already, the fact that the
U.S. government is doing this for the bombing victims of the World Trade
Center is suggesting that their victimhood is somehow more important than
the victimhood of others (including all the families of Kenyans and
Tanzinians in the African embassy bombings who didn't get a dime).
The amount of compensation for each victim should be done along principles
similar to those used by FEMA to help people out after a natural disaster -
what was the actual loss that wasn't covered by insurance.
Individual Comment