dojW000089.xml

dojW000089.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-06

Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:39 PM
My ideas

One consideration could be to use a victims wages and benefit amounts as a basis for compensation. Continue paying the survivors or those who would be heirs, the amount that is now no longer being earned by the victim (victim could also mean those that did not die but were harmed by this event). In addition, expenses that have been incurred due to this tragedy i.e. funeral, medical, etc. should be paid from the fund directly since the intent of giving the money is to help cover such expenses. Future earnings potential over their normal life expectancy would be factored in. Using this method would keep the balance that would have existed had there been no tragedy. This tragedy should not be a means for people to receive a windfall nor should it be a means to have to live on less than you would have had. Any extra compensation should be in the form of paid tuition, paid health care, etc. but not necessarily only in cash except for the "pain and anguish" portion of the settlements. People should still have the right to make decisions affecting their lives without actually receiving cash that may not be used in the spirit in which it is given. This would not eliminate, but could reduce the friction caused because some family members may not agree on how the money should be spent, split, etc. I realize there are so many aspects that need to be considered and I don't envy those making the final decisions. Everyone won't be happy. However, this could be a core method from which to work and I believe it is justifiable to the public. I do favor that charitable donations should be taken into consideration when receiving compensation from the governments fund. However, if the charitable awards do not reduce the amount received from the government fund I would be less unhappy if the above formula were used.

Individual Comment

2001-11-06