Money justice—defined as money offered and paid to victims in the aftermath of wrongs—permeates society and everyday life. Current mechanisms of money justice are civil justice awards or out-of-court settlements for personal or cultural injury; redress programs or schemes for mass atrocities, political repression, historical injustice, and institutional abuse; and payments for war-related wrongs, terrorism, violent common crime, and contaminated blood products, among many others. In this article, we elucidate the concept of money justice, sketch the relationship of revenge and recompense in human history, distil relevant research, and put forward the money justice matrix, which provides a systematic way to analyse money payments (or lack of payments) in varied contexts of victimisation and with different justice mechanisms. Money justice is a new concept that analyses diverse wrongs studied in criminology, socio-legal studies, other social sciences, transitional justice, and historical injustice. Its contribution to new knowledge is two-fold. First, it will map and compare payments to survivors for diverse wrongs, investigate why payments differ, and assess inequalities in payments. Second, it will critically examine the money justice paradox. If, as victims say, money cannot recompense a wrong, why is money sought by victims and offered as justice? More generally, what does money achieve (or not achieve) as justice and for victims?
AbelR. (2006).
General damages are incoherent, incalculable, incommensurable, and inegalitarian (but otherwise a great idea). DePaul Law Review,
55(2), 253–330.
2.
AmighettiS.NutiA. (2015).
David Miller’s theory of redress and the complexity of colonial injustice. Ethics & Global Politics,
8(1), 1–13.
3.
BakerT. (2001).
Blood money, new money, and the moral economy of tort law in action. Law & Society Review,
35(2), 275–319.
4.
BalboniJ. M. (2011). Clergy sexual abuse litigation: Survivors seeking justice.
FirstForumPress.
5.
BarkanE. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices.
Norton.
6.
BrooksR. L. (1999). When sorry isn’t enough: The controversy over apologies and reparations for human injustice.
New York University Press.
7.
CarruthersB. G.EspelandW. N. (1998).
Money, meaning, and morality. American Behavioral Scientist,
41(10), 1384–1408.
8.
ChamallasM. (2005).
Civil rights in ordinary tort cases: Race, gender, and the calculation of economic loss. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review,
38(3), 1435–1468.
9.
DalyK. (2014). Redressing institutional abuse of children.
Palgrave MacmillanUK.
10.
DalyK.DavisJ. (2021a). Civil justice and redress scheme outcomes for child sexual abuse by the Catholic Church. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/10345329.2021.1895467.
11.
DalyK.DavisJ. (2021b). Data tables, international redress project.
Griffith University.
12.
DalyK.HolderR. L. (2019).
State payments to victims of violent crime: Discretion and bias in awards for sexual offences. British Journal of Criminology,
59(5), 1099–1118.
13.
DarityW. A.MullenA. K. (2020). From here to equality: Reparations for Black Americans in the twenty-first century.
The University of North Carolina Press.
14.
de GreiffP. (Ed.). (2006). The handbook of reparations.
Oxford University Press.
15.
EstrichS. (1987). Real rape.
Harvard University Press.
16.
FeinbergK. R. (2005). What is life worth? The unprecedented effort to compensate victims of 9/11.
Public Affairs.
17.
GeistfeldM. A. (2016).
Hidden in plain sight: The normative source of modern tort law. New York University Law Review,
91, 1517–1594.
18.
GilbertE. (2005).
Common cents: Situating money in time and place. Economy and Society,
34(3), 357–388.
19.
GoldingF. (2010). Submission 102, cited in Australian Senate (2010, p. 32), Review of government compensation payments. Legal and Constitutional References Committee. Senate Printing Unit.
20.
GoodmanL. D. (2017).
For what it’s worth: The role of race and gender-based data in civil damage awards. Vanderbilt Law Review,
70, 1353–1391.
21.
HadfieldG. K. (2008).
Framing the choice between cash and the courthouse: Experiences with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Law & Society Review,
42(3), 645–685.
22.
HamptonJ. (1998).
Punishment, feminism, and political identity: A case study in the expressive meaning of law. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence,
11(1), 23–45.
23.
HaynerP. B. (2011). Unspeakable truths: Transitional justice and the challenge of truth commissions (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
24.
HenslerD. R. (2003).
Money talks: Searching for justice through compensation for personal injury and death. DePaul Law Review,
53, 417–455.
25.
HolderR. L.DalyK. (2018).
Recognition, reconnection, and renewal: The meaning of money to sexual assault survivors. International Review of Victimology,
24(1), 25–46.
26.
LeeJ. Y. (2017).
Money norms. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal,
49, 57–115.
27.
MacCormackG. (1973).
Revenge and compensation in early law. The American Journal of Comparative Law,
21(1), 69–85.
28.
MaurerB. (2006).
The anthropology of money. Annual Review of Anthropology,
35, 15–36.
29.
MiersD. (1990).
Positivist victimology: A critique, part 2. International Review of Victimology,
1(3), 219–230.
30.
MiersD. (2014). State compensation for victims of violent crime. In VanfraechemI.PembertonA.NdahindaF. (Eds), Justice for victims: Perspectives on rights, transition and reconciliation (pp. 105–139).
Routledge.
31.
MiersD. (2019).
Victims, criminal justice and state compensation. Societies,
9(29), 1–13.
32.
MillerW. I. (2006). Eye for an eye.
Cambridge University Press.
33.
O’MalleyP. (2009). The currency of justice: Fines and damages in consumer societies.
Routledge-Cavendish.
34.
O’MalleyP. (2010).
Fines, risks and damages: Money sanctions and justice in control societies. Current Issues in Criminal Justice,
21(3), 365–381.
35.
RadinM. (1993).
Compensation and commensurability. Duke Law Journal,
43(1), 56–86.
36.
ReimerG.BombayA.EllsworthL.FryerS.LoganT. (2010). The Indian Residential Schools settlement agreement’s common experience payment and healing: A qualitative study exploring impact on recipients.
Aboriginal Healing Foundation.
37.
RelisT. (2007).
‘It’s not about the money!’: A theory on misconceptions of plaintiffs’ litigation aims. University of Pittsburgh Law Review,
68(3), 701–746.
38.
RenaudK. (2018).
Apples to oranges? Gendered damages in personal injury litigation: A focus on infant claims. Alberta Law Review,
56(1), 207–229.
39.
Rubio-MarínR.de GreiffP. (2007).
Women and reparations. The International Journal of Transitional Justice,
1(3), 318–337.
40.
ShoemakerN. (2015, October 1). A typology of colonialism. Perspectives on History. historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/October-2015/a-typology-of-colonialism
41.
SimmelG. (2004). In D. Frisby (Ed.), The philosophy of money. Routledge (Original work published 1900).
42.
SlyomovicsS. (2014). How to accept German reparations.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
43.
SungaS. (2002).
The meaning of compensation in institutional abuse programs. Journal of Law and Social Policy,
17, 39–61.
44.
SwanstonH.ParkinsonP.ShrimptonS.O’TooleB.OatesR. (2001).
Statutory compensation for victims of child sexual assault: Examining the efficacy of a discretionary system. International Review of Victimology,
8, 37–62.
45.
SwiftA. (2014). Political philosophy.
Polity Press.
46.
TorpeyJ. (2006a).
Modes of repair: Reparations and citizenship at the dawn of the new millennium. In DavisD. E. (Ed.), Political power and social theory (Vol. 18, pp. 207–226).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
47.
TorpeyJ. (2006b). Making whole what has been smashed: On reparations politics.
Harvard University Press.
48.
United Nations General Assembly. (2005–2006). Resolution 60/147. Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law (adopted 16 December 2005, finalised 21 March 2006).
49.
van DyckJ. (2009).
Free the victim: A critique of the western conception of victimhood. International Review of Victimology,
16, 1–33.
50.
VeraciniL. (2017). Introduction: Settler colonialism as a distinct mode of domination. In CavanaghE.VeraciniL. (Eds), The Routledge handbook of the history of settler colonialism (pp. 1–8).
Routledge.
51.
WhitmanJ. Q. (1995).
At the origins of law and the state: Supervision of violence, mutilation of bodies, or setting of prices?Chicago-Kent Law Review,
71(1), 41–84.
52.
WymanK. M. (2008).
Is there a moral justification for redressing historical injustices?. Vanderbilt Law Review,
61(1), 127–196.
53.
ZelizerV. A. (1994a). The social meaning of money.
BasicBooks.
54.
ZelizerV. A. (1994b). Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children.
Princeton University Press.
55.
ZelizerV. A. (2000).
The purchase of intimacy. Law & Social Inquiry,
25(3), 817–848.
