Abstract

Principles of compensatory justice are commonly applied to examples of injustice which are relatively recent, have a clear victim and victimizer, and span a short amount of time. Examples of injustice which do not meet this paradigm are sometimes judged to be uncompensable because of the difficulties associated with assigning blame and/or responsibility, and deciding upon the kind and amount of compensation due. "Secondary injuries" also arise when one takes into account the problems of "bystanders," those persons innocently embroiled in situations of injustice through, for example, the purchase of stolen land. When the compensatory policy is enacted and the stolen land is returned to its rightful owner, these "bystanders" may have to relinquish property which they thought they had legally acquired. Thus there is a need for a principle of compensatory justice which could adjudicate both paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic cases of injustice while being equitable to victims, bystanders, and even victimizers. ;Through the use of a modified Rawlsian original position, several compensatory principles are considered, with one, the Compromise Rule, satisfying the prudential criteria relevant to a Rawlsian hypothetical contractor. According to this Compromise Rule, injuries which involve psychological or physical injury are compensable only to the primary victim; injuries which involve loss or damage to real or personal property or assets are compensable as long as gain from the injury persists. Bystanders who have been unknowingly involved in the injury are also owed redress from the victimizer if the compensatory package calls for a return of stolen property or assets which the bystanders innocently acquired. ;In later chapters the Compromise Rule is also examined for its moral and intuitive implications, and subsequently applied to two situations of actual injury: one involving the enslavement of Africans in this country and the Jim Crow practices imposed upon African Americans, and the other involving three Maine Indian tribes and a two hundred year old breach of contract with the United States government. In both cases the Compromise Rule is helpful in deciding whether and to whom compensation should be awarded