Should rapists be able to win the lottery?

[Blackadar]

It was in the UK, but...

------------------------------------------------
Outrage over rapist's lottery win
Thursday, August 12, 2004 Posted: 8:53 AM EDT (1253 GMT)


LONDON, England (AP) -- British Home Secretary David Blunkett said Thursday he plans to bar convicted felons from benefiting from financial windfalls while behind bars after a jailed rapist won £7 million ($12.6 million) on the national lottery.

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.

His comments follow public outrage in Britain over the lottery win of convicted rapist Iorworth Hoare, who was on day release from his low-security prison when he bought the winning ticket on Saturday.

"There's no justice in a convicted rapist winning the lottery while his victims still suffer from what he did to them," Blunkett wrote in The Sun newspaper.

"We can't stop a prisoner or their family from buying a ticket, but we can look closely at making sure they don't benefit from a single penny while in prison," he added.

Hoare was jailed between 1973 and 1987 for a series of sex attacks on women. He was returned to prison in 1989 for attempting to rape a 60-year-old woman in a park.

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

Neil Sugarman, a lawyer specializing in personal injury and compensation claims, said some of Hoare's victims may be able to claim a share of his newfound wealth.

"The biggest difficulty any claimant will face is the limitation periods, and generally speaking ... you are looking at three years," Sugarman 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."
------------------------------------------------------

My take? He shouldn't have gotten out of jail. But he bought the ticket and he won. And since he did, the money is his and the victims from 15-25 years ago have no claim.

What I don't like is this - "We can't stop a prisoner or their family from buying a ticket, but we can look closely at making sure they don't benefit from a single penny while in prison,". If you're going to release him and let him walk the streets - and let him buy a ticket - then don't complain if he wins.

[albionmoonlight]

How often will this really be a problem?

[gstelmack]

Wouldn't it now be worth the victim's while to sue for damages in civil court?

[andy m]

that this happened is further proof that god gave up giving a shit years ago.

[Blackadar]

Wouldn't it now be worth the victim's while to sue for damages in civil court?

Why should they be able to now? It's been 15 years since he committed the crime and convicted.

[rkmsuf]

It sucks to win 12 million and be in jail. Kind of takes the fun out of it.

[ISiddiqui]

Just saw it. What an utterly ridiculous country... getting all caught up because a con won the lottery? SO WHAT?! The lottery doesn't give money to only good people, it's a crap shoot. Give the guy his money (of course he can't use it now) and spare this BS.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Let's see here ... if you attach his future earnings to go to a victim's compensatory fund (as I believe is done in at least some U.S. states), then I'd say you've solved some of this problem.

In the absence of anything like that, looks like this really bad guy had some really good luck.

No idea about the legalities in the U.K., but I'm having a tough time picturing some sort of "you can play but you can't win" rule/law passing muster in the U.S. Seems like the more obvious solution to the U.K. situation is to bar them from playing altogether.

[Yossarian]

A couple of points.

its illegal for prisoners on any kind of 'temporary release' to play the pools or gamble in the UK. But it is legal to play lottery.

Therefore, its consistant for the government to update the law to ban the lotto too.

Seperately from that. We have a judicial system. Ignoring for the moment whatever weaknesses are in that system, the way it works is: if you are convicted then you are sentanced with a punishment supposidly correspondant to your crime.

Surely the sentance is your ENTIRE punishment for the crime? If this is the case then they shouldnt 'stop' him getting his 7 mill. because although he's clearly a complete fuckhead, the judge decided what his punishment was, and he is now paying for his crime.

Taking the money off him would be an additional punishment to the crime and surely punishments are decided by the judge at point of conviction?

[Yossarian]

What an utterly ridiculous country... getting all caught up because a con won the lottery

Heh, at least in the uk a burgler can't break into your house, cut himself on a knife you left on the floor then sue you....
:-p

[QuikSand]

Seems like the more obvious solution to the U.K. situation is to bar them from playing altogether.

I don't know how lottery tickets are distributed in the UK - but I imagine there's a practical concern here. Do you want to force every ticket vendor across the country to do a backgroudn check on every person requesting a lottery ticket? That sounds like an unreasonable burden on private enterprise ... the sort of thing that I'd expectyou to oppose.

In practical effect, nobody really cares if a felon buys a losing ticket, really. It's a lot easier to police on the collection side, isn't it?

[Yossarian]

Yeah... if they do make it illegal it will probably be one of those things that only gets used retrospecively "it was illegal for Joe Bastard to buy this so all the money goes to: charity/rollover/etc"

[Peregrine]

We just don't understand the problems $12 million come wit'. ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't know how lottery tickets are distributed in the UK - but I imagine there's a practical concern here. Do you want to force every ticket vendor across the country to do a backgroudn check on every person requesting a lottery ticket? That sounds like an unreasonable burden on private enterprise ... the sort of thing that I'd expectyou to oppose.

In practical effect, nobody really cares if a felon buys a losing ticket, really. It's a lot easier to police on the collection side, isn't it?

Sorry, I didn't word that very well I'm afraid.

The angle I was looking at was something like:
It might be difficult (depending upon the courts) to make a rule that says
"You can play but you can't win) whereas making one that says "You can't play. Period" pretty much automatically invalidates their ticket even if they illegally bought one.

[Butter]

I'll take The Rapists for $12.6 million, Alex.

[duckman]

Why should they be able to now? It's been 15 years since he committed the crime and convicted.
I'm in agreement with Blackie. He's serving a prison term for his conviction of rape. Isn't this punishment enough? After that he should be able to prosper like any other citizen. He has a right to get his life back on track when he is released from prison. You never know, he may get his life in order because of the money. Wierder things have happened.

The family(s) didn't sue for any damages because he wasn't worth anything. I'm sure there was a window to sue for damages. That window is closed. Sorry, they lost out at any of these winnings. They're not entitled to any of the winnings. It's not like he made money off of his crime then I would think differently. Then he should have to pay the victim's family(s) with any money he gains from that endeavor.

[Super Ugly]

Life's fucked up at times. I think that there's a certain amount of greed on the part of those who want to get a slice of this guy's winnings. He may be a bad person, but he didn't do anything wrong when he bought the ticket.

For the record, I'd just like to say that David Blunkett is a complete prick who panders to every hysterical outburst that comes from the tabloids. You people think that John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld are bad? Heh ...

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

I don't know how lottery tickets are distributed in the UK - but I imagine there's a practical concern here. Do you want to force every ticket vendor across the country to do a backgroudn check on every person requesting a lottery ticket? That sounds like an unreasonable burden on private enterprise ... the sort of thing that I'd expectyou to oppose.

In practical effect, nobody really cares if a felon buys a losing ticket, really. It's a lot easier to police on the collection side, isn't it?

Is a background check run on every person that enters a casino or racetrack? No, if it were illegal for them to play lotto and won they would merely forfeit their winnings when trying to collect (since a background check would be done then).

[Yossarian]

For the record, I'd just like to say that David Blunkett is a complete prick who panders to every hysterical outburst that comes from the tabloids.

That he is.

But then, there are a LOT of guys on both sides like that.

[QuikSand]

Is a background check run on every person that enters a casino or racetrack? No, if it were illegal for them to play lotto and won they would merely forfeit their winnings when trying to collect (since a background check would be done then).

You are agreeing with me, if you read carefully. Well, if you read at all, even not so carefully.

I'll understand if you want to go back and edit.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

You are agreeing with me, if you read carefully. Well, if you read at all, even not so carefully.

I'll understand if you want to go back and edit.
Wow, I can do that too!

I must have missed where I said I was disagreeing with you...

I was pointing out that your "practical concern" is really no concern at all as that's not how similar situations are handled.

If you want to go back and edit, I'll understand.

[Schmidty]

Shit happens

[Honolulu Blue]

Is a background check run on every person that enters a casino or racetrack? No, if it were illegal for them to play lotto and won they would merely forfeit their winnings when trying to collect (since a background check would be done then).

Actually I disagree with both you and QS. Inserting head in guilloutine in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

In Michigan, small winnings are paid out by the lottery agents, and I would imagine that they would make a HUGE stink about how large the burden would be to have to check the background of every $2 winner. Not to mention the burden on the lottery players themselves who have to whip out their drivers' license and wait for a background check just to get their $2. In my opinion, this dog won't hunt.

"Well," you say. "We won't burden the liquor stores and kwik-e-marts, but if those guys try to cash for the big amounts, they need ID, and we'll get them then." I don't think that dog is going to hunt either. I think any court would find that paying the little amounts and not paying the big amounts is an illegal form of discrimination, and they'd have to pay up.

It's far better to ban all ex-convicts from buying lottery tickets to prevent future embarassments like this. But because the government gets half of each lottery ticket (on average), they're a little reluctant to do this.

[rkmsuf]

Actually I disagree with both you and QS. Inserting head in guilloutine in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

In Michigan, small winnings are paid out by the lottery agents, and I would imagine that they would make a HUGE stink about how large the burden would be to have to check the background of every $2 winner. Not to mention the burden on the lottery players themselves who have to whip out their drivers' license and wait for a background check just to get their $2. In my opinion, this dog won't hunt.

"Well," you say. "We won't burden the liquor stores and kwik-e-marts, but if those guys try to cash for the big amounts, they need ID, and we'll get them then." I don't think that dog is going to hunt either. I think any court would find that paying the little amounts and not paying the big amounts is an illegal form of discrimination, and they'd have to pay up.

It's far better to ban all ex-convicts from buying lottery tickets to prevent future embarassments like this. But because the government gets half of each lottery ticket (on average), they're a little reluctant to do this.

We should also ban ex-convicts from eating, driving, working and swimming. Oh and no way they should be allowed to have a dog.

What difference does it make who wins? I have no more faith that the person that has served time and is out is anymore wholesome than some shmoe who keeps his little bo peep outfit collection in his basement.

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

Actually I disagree with both you and QS. Inserting head in guilloutine in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

In Michigan, small winnings are paid out by the lottery agents, and I would imagine that they would make a HUGE stink about how large the burden would be to have to check the background of every $2 winner. Not to mention the burden on the lottery players themselves who have to whip out their drivers' license and wait for a background check just to get their $2. In my opinion, this dog won't hunt.

"Well," you say. "We won't burden the liquor stores and kwik-e-marts, but if those guys try to cash for the big amounts, they need ID, and we'll get them then." I don't think that dog is going to hunt either. I think any court would find that paying the little amounts and not paying the big amounts is an illegal form of discrimination, and they'd have to pay up.

It's far better to ban all ex-convicts from buying lottery tickets to prevent future embarassments like this. But because the government gets half of each lottery ticket (on average), they're a little reluctant to do this.


I'll use my casino example again, a convicted felon can go in the Senaca Niagara casino and play some blackjack, slots, poker, etc... win some money and leave without a problem. If he hits a jackpot on those slots or makes a killing on high limit however, that's where he gets in trouble. He would never see the jackpot $ because they'd do a background check on him and see he's a felon.

Nobody would have raised a stink if that guy in England had bought a scratch off ticket and won $20, it's only in the case of the big $ that it's an issue and yes, the law would prob have to say "no gambling of any sort is allowed and forfeiture of winnings if you do win" or something like that but cops pick and choose who they apply certain laws to all the time such as speeding.

[Honolulu Blue]

Nobody would have raised a stink if that guy in England had bought a scratch off ticket and won $20, it's only in the case of the big $ that it's an issue and yes, the law would prob have to say "no gambling of any sort is allowed and forfeiture of winnings if you do win" or something like that but cops pick and choose who they apply certain laws to all the time such as speeding.

I bolded the most important part of your statement. My position is, the guy in this case bought the ticket legally; therefore, the winnings are his. It's wrong to deny him the right to his money by merely claiming that he was a criminal.

I'd encourage his victims to try to collect from that, if the statute of limitations hasn't run out for them. And I certainly wouldn't oppose any law that limited the right of ex-cons to buy lottery tickets or gamble.

[rkmsuf]

why should ex cons not be allowed to gamble?

[Yossarian]

I think the 'official word' is that it doesn't help in the 'rehabilitation process'

[rkmsuf]

I think the 'official word' is that it doesn't help in the 'rehabilitation process'

uh, ok...

[duckman]

I think the 'official word' is that it doesn't help in the 'rehabilitation process'
That's bullshit. They're worried about the public outcry if a felon actually were "well off" after being out of jail. Last time I check a person has the right to prosper despite what he did in the past. They want to continue the punishment well after he left prison.

[Yossarian]

Undoubtedly.

But thats what some govt official said in a BBC News interview.

[duckman]

Undoubtedly.

But thats what some govt official said in a BBC News interview.
I wasn't singling you out. I was reacting to the "offical word" from the government.

:)

[mattwakeman]

Looks like the kneejerk government appeasement to the tabloid press looks like it may be a little more difficult than it would like:

The Home Office has played down a suggestion that the government could stop a convicted rapist receiving his £7m lottery win.

Iorworth Hoare, nearing the end of a life term for attempted rape, bought his winning ticket on day release.

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell had seemed to suggest the government might intervene in Hoare's case to make sure his money went to victims.

But the Home Office has now insisted that cannot be done.

"We recognise that we cannot act retrospectively in relation to this individual," a Home Office statement said.

"Tessa Jowell is merely expressing what the home secretary himself has said in relation to this case - it is clearly unpalettable that he should have won the lottery," it said.

Ms Jowell had told BBC Radio Four's World at One programme the government was considering intervening "in a very specific case like this" to ensure the winnings went to the benefit of victims.

Compensation

Writing in Thursday's Sun newspaper, the Home Secretary David Blunkett said: "We can't stop a prisoner or their family from buying a ticket, but we can look closely at making sure they don't benefit from a single penny while in prison.

"We thought of this in a consultation paper we published in the New Year.

"We announced we would take action so we could recover compensation if an offender won the lottery. I have legislation before Parliament to do just that."

Offenders would also be forced to contribute to a compensation fund for victims of crime, he said.

Home Office minister Hazel Blears denied Mr Blunkett's proposal for a new law was a knee-jerk reaction or that he was trying to be populist.

Ms Blears told BBC Radio 4's Today programme she hoped "somebody somewhere is thinking about the possibility of civil proceedings for damages".

Most people would be "absolutely outraged" by Hoare's win, she added.

Hoare, 52, and originally from Leeds, is serving life after being convicted of attempted rape in 1989. He was also jailed several times for a string of sex attacks, including rape, during the 1970s and 1980s.


Lottery machine

Prison lottery rules in spotlight
Lottery winner's rape record

He was one of three winners to share Saturday's £21m Lotto Extra jackpot.

Hoare was on release from Leyhill open prison, in Gloucestershire, when he bought his winning ticket.

He was understood to have been staying at a bail hostel in Middlesbrough.

Prize claim

Under Home Office guidelines, prisoners on temporary release from jail are allowed to play the lottery and can claim a winning prize.

But the Home Office said Hoare's access to the money would be restricted while he was in custody.

Legal experts say Hoare could be forced to pay compensation to people he attacked, while support groups say the money should go to rape victims.

The first police officer to arrest Hoare backed those calls.

"I can't think of a less deserving person to win £7 million," said retired detective chief inspector Mick Grubb, who arrested Hoare for sex offences in 1966.

"If he does get the money, I don't think he should get all of it. He should put some towards compensation for his victims."

Hoare's estranged wife Irene told the Sun she would fight for a share of his jackpot and use the money to help his victims.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3557372.stm

[The Un-Ghosted Chubby]

I bolded the most important part of your statement. My position is, the guy in this case bought the ticket legally; therefore, the winnings are his. It's wrong to deny him the right to his money by merely claiming that he was a criminal.

I'd encourage his victims to try to collect from that, if the statute of limitations hasn't run out for them. And I certainly wouldn't oppose any law that limited the right of ex-cons to buy lottery tickets or gamble.


In this case yeah, I totally agree with you. The way the law is now there's no reason to hold his winnings.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

I guess karma isn't a bitch.

[CAsterling]

Why should they be able to now? It's been 15 years since he committed the crime and convicted.

I believe that the limit for being able to sue in civil court is 6 years after conviction in England, so they can't sue even if they wanted to.

[SunDancer]

I believe that the limit for being able to sue in civil court is 6 years after conviction in England, so they can't sue even if they wanted to.

Kinda funny how greedy everyone becomes when someone who has money later in life.

Even if a new law passes, his earnings would still be his, because the law would be passed after he won.

[Easy Mac]

Iorworth Hoare, nearing the end of a life term for attempted rape, bought his winning ticket on day release.
I just like this quote from the article. So is he dying or something? What happened to life term meaning life? Just deny the fucker parole, how will he spend the money in jail?

But good for him, he beat all the odds.

[Ben E Lou]

Just deny the fucker parole, how will he spend the money in jail?Ummm....on bribing a guard or two to help him escape?

[Anthony]

i guess i should ask (let's pretend that he wasn't a felon) - under British law if he got divorced and paid out alimony for his wife as dictated by the court - and many years later he wound up winning the lottery...would his alimony then be adjusted to reflect his new earnings?

i would assume no. it would be his wife's tough luck, right?

so then why sould the victims be granted a claim to his money after double the amount of the statute of limitation says they have a right to?

the only question i see here is whether or not he should be entitled to keep his money (i believe he should). i don't think the issue should be should it go to the victims.

what the victims/courts are trying to do are two things at once: set the precedent that would allow crimials to gamble+keep their winnings. the 2nd part is using those winnings to go to a victim's fund. right now i can tell you those greedy victims (and i really hate to use that term - people did get hurt by this man) are hoping that he gets to keep his winnings, because that's the first step - he has to be able to be a millionaire in order for them to get rich.

from where i stand it just looks like too much ex post facto for my book. too much retroactive distortion of the law.

[Ben E Lou]

too much retroactive distortion of the law....and not to mention a big, fat waste of time. The first response in this thread (albion's) makes the most sense to me.