The predictability of court-adjudicated compensation for pain and suffering damages within the criminal proceedings and the role of victim labels: A case study on victims of sexual crime in the Netherlands
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2026
The predictability of court-adjudicated compensation for pain and suffering damages within the criminal proceedings and the role of victim labels: A case study on victims of sexual crime in the Netherlands
Compensation for pain and suffering damages has been a focal point within legal academic debate. The difficulty of placing a monetary value on such damages and the lack of well-defined guidelines have been claimed to result in widely varying compensatory awards, making them random and unpredictable. Variability may arise from victim labels depicting who is deserving, and who is not. In this study, regression analysis is employed to assess whether compensation can be predicted, and what role victim labels play in the judicial decision-making. The empirical strategy is informed by notion of the ideal victim. Results show that compensation for pain and suffering damages can be predicted, and that by including victim labels the prediction significantly improves. Although they are not the predominant predictors, victim labels of blamelessness play a role in awarded compensation. The main driver in judges’ decision is the claim put forward by the victim.
AbelR (2006) General damages are incoherent, incalculable, incommensurable, and inegalitarian (but otherwise a great idea). DePaul Law Review55: 253–329.
2.
AntonsdóttirHF (2020) Compensation as a means to justice? Sexual violence survivors’ views on the tort law option in Iceland. Feminist Legal Studies28(3): 277–300.
3.
AugusteijnFBijleveldCCJHPembertonA (2022) De praktijk van slachtofferrechten: de perceptie van professionals. Een exploratief onderzoek naar de naleving van slachtofferrechten. PROCES2022: 35–53.
4.
AvrahamR (2003) Pain-and-suffering damages in tort law: Revisiting the theoretical framework and the empirical evidence (Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009. 11). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_archive/art11
5.
AvrahamR (2006) Putting a price on pain-and-suffering damages: A critique of the current approaches and a preliminary proposal for change. Northwestern University Law Review100(1): 87–120.
6.
AvrahamR (2017) Estimating pain and suffering damages-paths are many, loss is one. In: ParisiF (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics, Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 96–119.
7.
BavliHJ (2017) The logic of comparable-case guidance in the determination of awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages. University of Cincinnati Law Review85(1): 1–32.
8.
BavliHJMozerR (2019) The effects of comparable-case guidance on awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages: Evidence from randomized controlled trial. Yale Law & Policy Review37(2): 405–458.
9.
BosmaAK (2023) Applying articulated though in simulated situations methodology to research emotion work in the courtroom. Field Methods. Epub ahead of print 22February. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X231158892.
10.
BosmaAKMulderEPembertonA (2018) The ideal victim through other (s’) eyes. In: DugganM (ed.) Revisiting the ‘Ideal Victim’. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 27–42.
11.
BouxHJDaumCW (2015) At the intersection of social media and rape culture: How Facebook postings, texting and other personal communications challenge the ‘real’ rape myth in the criminal justice system. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology, & Policy1: 149–186.
12.
BovbjergRRSloanFABlumsteinJF (1989) Valuing life and limb in tort: Scheduling pain and suffering. Northwestern University Law Review83: 908.
13.
BowsH (2018) The ‘ideal’ rape victim and the elderly woman: A contradiction in terms? In: DugganM (ed.) Revisiting the ‘Ideal Victim’. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 229–241.
14.
BowsHWestmarlandN (2017) Rape of older people in the United Kingdom: Challenging the ‘real-rape’ stereotype. British Journal of Criminology57(1): p1–17.
15.
BrisonS (2002) Aftermath: Violence and the Remaking of a Self. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
CarrollCP (2023) Reinvestigating the sexual violence ‘justice gap’ in the Swedish criminal justice system: Victim-centered alternatives to the criminal trial. Feminist Criminology18(1): 45–64.
17.
ChangYCEisenbergTHoHW, et al. (2015) Pain and suffering damages in wrongful death cases: An empirical study. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies12(1): 128–160.
18.
ChristieN (1986) The ideal victim. In: FattahE (ed.) From Crime Policy to Victim Policy: Reorienting the Justice System. London: Macmillan, pp. 17–30.
19.
CohenMAMillerTR (2003) Willingness to award nonmonetary damages and the implied value of life from jury awards. International Review of Law and Economics23(2): 165–181.
20.
CorbettV (2020) Does the ‘cap’ fit? Review of developments in the law on general damages. Tort Law and Litigation Review2(1): 1–22.
21.
DaftaryT (2006) An examination of the roles of outcome severity, monetary anchors, and counterfactual thinking in determination of punitive damage awards. Graduate Theses and Dissertations 2202. Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/graduate_theses/2202
22.
DalyK (2014) Reconceptualizing sexual victimisation and justice. In: VanfraechemIPembertonAMukwiza NdahindaF (eds) Justice for Victims: Perspectives on Rights, Transition and Reconciliation. New York: Routledge, pp. 378–395.
23.
DalyKDavisJ (2021) Money justice. Journal of Criminology54(1): 60–75.
24.
DalyKHolderRL (2019) State payments to victims of violent crime: Discretion and bias in awards for sexual offences. The British Journal of Criminology59(5): 1099–1118.
25.
DaviesMRogersP (2006) Perceptions of male victims in depicted sexual assaults: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior11(4): 367–377.
26.
DaviesMRogersPBatesJA (2008) Blame toward male rape victims in a hypothetical sexual assault as a function of victim sexuality and degree of resistance. Journal of Homosexuality55(3): 533–544.
27.
DiamondSSSaksMJLandsmanS (1998) Juror judgements about liability and damages: Sources of variability and ways to increase consistency. DePaul Law Review48: 301–326.
28.
DongenJDM. vanHeblyMRLindenberghSD (2013) ‘Je hebt geluk als je van een pauw mag plukken’: Ervaringen van slachtoffers van strafbare feiten met het verhalen van hun schade. Den Haag: WODC.
29.
DugganM (2018) Revisiting the ‘Ideal Victim’: Developments in Critical Victimology. Bristol: Policy Press.
30.
DunnJL (2008) Accounting for victimisation: Social constructionist perspectives. Sociology Compass2(5): 1601–1620.
31.
EdwardsC (2014) Pathologising the victim: Law and the construction of people with disabilities as victims of crime in Ireland. Disability & Society29(5): 685–698.
EllisonLMunroVE (2013) Better the devil you know? ‘Real rape’ stereotypes and the relevance of a previous relationship in (mock) juror deliberations. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof17(4): 299–322.
34.
European Commission (2023) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the council amending Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0424
35.
FeldthusenBHankivskyOGreavesL (2000) Therapeutic consequences of civil actions for damages and compensation claims by victims of sexual abuse. Canadian Journal of Women and Law12: 66–116.
36.
FiskeAPTetlockPE (1997) Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Political Psychology18(2): 255–297.
37.
Flatscher-ThöniMLeiterAMWinnerH (2013) Pricing damages for pain and suffering in court: The impact of the valuation method. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies10(1): 104–119.
38.
Flatscher-ThöniMLeiterAMWinnerH (2019) Are pain and suffering awards (un-)predictable? Evidence from Germany. DANUBE10(3): 199–219.
39.
GeistfeldMA (1995) Placing a price on pain and suffering: A method for helping juries determine tort damages for nonmonetary injuries. California Law Review83: 773–852.
40.
GeistfeldMA (2006) Due process and the determination of pain and suffering tort damages. DePaul Law Review55: 331–358.
41.
GoddenN (2012) Tort claims for rape more trials fewer tribulations? In: RichardsonJRackleyE (eds) Feminist Perspectives on Tort Law. London: Routledge, pp. 163–178.
42.
GrubbATurnerE (2012) Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior17(5): 443–452.
43.
HeblyMRLindenberghSDVisscherL, et al. (2020) Compensatie en verhaal van schade door strafbare feiten. The Hague: WODC.
44.
HeblyMRVan DongenJDMLindenberghSD (2014) Crime victims’ experiences with seeking compensation: A qualitative exploration. Utrecht Law Review10(3): 27–36.
45.
HermanJL (1992) Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. New York: Basic Books.
HolderRLDalyK (2018) Recognition, reconnection, and renewal: The meaning of money to sexual assault survivors. International Review of Victimology24(1): 25–46.
48.
KingJ (2004) Pain and suffering, noneconomic damages, and the goals of tort law. SMU Law Review57(1): p163–210.
49.
KirchengastT (2016) Victims and the Criminal Trial. London: Springer.
50.
KoolRSBBackersPWEmausJM, et al. (2016) Civiel schadeverhaal via het strafproces: Een verkenning van de rechtspraktijk en regelgeving betreffende de voeging benadeelde partij. The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.
51.
LevinFS (1989) Pain and suffering guidelines: Cure for damages measurement anomie. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform22(2): 303–332.
52.
LiebermanJD (2002) Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32(12): 2526–2553.
53.
LindenberghSD (2014) De letselschadevordering in het strafproces, dat moet beter kunnen (NJB 2014/1959, afl. 39, pp. 2696–2702). Available at: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/77150/Metis_203057.pdf
54.
McCafferyEJKahnemanDJSpitzerML (1995) Framing the jury: Cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards. Virginia Law Review81(5): 1341–1420.
55.
McGlynnCWestmarlandN (2019) Kaleidoscopic justice: Sexual violence and victim-survivors’ perceptions of justice. Social & Legal Studies28(2): 179–201.
56.
MeijerRFMoolenaarDEGChoenniR, et al. (2022) Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving 2021. The Hague: WODC.
57.
MiersD (1990) Positivist victimology – A critique part 2: Critical victimology. International Review of Victimology1(3): 219–230.
58.
MiersD (2014) Offender and state compensation for victims of crime: Two decades of development and change. International Review of Victimology20(1): 145–168.
59.
MiersD (2019) Victims, criminal justice and state compensation. Societies9(2): 29–41.
60.
MulderEBosmaAK (2022) Filling in the (gendered) gaps: How observers frame claims of sexual assault. International Review of Victimology28(2): p215–234.
61.
NiemeyerPV (2004) Awards for pain and suffering: The irrational centerpiece of our tort system. Virginia Law Review90: 1401–1421.
ParrattKAPinaA (2017) From ‘real rape’ to real justice: A systematic review of police officers' rape myth beliefs. Aggression and Violent Behavior34: 68–83.
64.
QuinneyR (1972) Who is the victim?Criminology10: 309–329.
65.
RabinRL (2006) Pain and suffering and beyond: Some thoughts on recovery for intangible loss. DePaul Law Review55(2): 359–378.
66.
RadinM (1993) Compensation and commensurability. Duke Law Journal43(1): 56–86.
67.
RandallM (2010) Sexual assault law, credibility, and ‘ideal victims’: Consent, resistance, and victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law22(2): 397–433.
68.
ReedRAPamlanyeJTTruexHR, et al. (2020) Higher rates of unacknowledged rape among men: The role of rape myth acceptance. Psychology of Men & Masculinities21(1): 162–167.
69.
SchramaWMGeurtsT (2012) Civiel schadeverhaal door slachtoffers van strafbare feiten. The Hague: WODC.
70.
ShawJCampbellRCainD, et al. (2017) Beyond surveys and scales: How rape myths manifest in sexual assault police records. Psychology of Violence7(4): 602–614.
71.
ShenFX (2013) Rape, money, and the psychology of taboo. Journal of Applied Social Psychology43(5): 1015–1028.
72.
SleathEWoodhamsJ (2014) Expectations about victim and offender behaviour during stranger rape. Psychology, Crime & Law20(8): 798–820.
73.
SmithCL (1985) Victim compensation: Hard questions and suggested remarks. Rutgers Law Journal17(1): 51–94.
74.
SmithOGaleyJ (2018) Supporting rape survivors through the criminal injuries compensation scheme: An exploration of English and Welsh independent sexual violence advisors’ experiences. Violence Against Women24(9): 1091–1109.
75.
St. GeorgeS (2022) Perceptions of common rape: how rape myth acceptance, victim gender, and victim resistance affect victim and perpetrator blame attributions in party rape and date rape. Violence Against Women28(14): 3505–3529.
76.
StevensonK (2000) Unequivocal victims: The historical roots of the mystification of the female complainant in rape cases. Feminist Legal Studies8: 343–366.
77.
SuarezEGadallaTM (2010) Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence25(11): 2010–2035.
78.
SugarmanSD (2006) A Comparative Law Look at Pain and Suffering Awards. DePaul Law Review55: 399–434.
79.
SunsteinCR (1994) Incommensurability and valuation in law. Michigan Law Review92: 779–861.
80.
TetlockPEKristelOVElsonSB, et al. (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology78(5): 853–870.
81.
TurchikJAEdwardsKM (2012) Myths about male rape: A literature review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity13(2): 211–226.
82.
UbelPALoewensteinG (2008) Pain and suffering awards: They shouldn’t be (just) about pain and suffering. The Journal of Legal Studies 37(S2): S195–S216.
Van der BruggenMGrubbA (2014) A review of the literature relating to rape victim blaming: An analysis of the impact of observer and victim characteristics on attribution of blame in rape cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior19(5): 523–531.
85.
VidmarNGrossFRoseM (1998) Jury awards for medical malpractice and post-verdict adjustments of those awards. DePaul Law Review48: 265–300.
86.
ViscusiWK (1988) Pain and suffering in product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious awards?International Review of Law and Economics8(2): 203–220.
87.
ViscusiWK (1996) Pain and Suffering Damages: In search of a sounder rationale. Michigan Law & Policy Review1: 141–177.
88.
ViscusiWK (2007) The flawed hedonic damages measure of compensation for wrongful death and personal injury. Journal of Forensic Economics20(2): 113–135.
WeinribEJ (2002) Corrective justice in a nutshell. The University of Toronto Law Journal52(4): 349–356.
91.
WestmarlandNGrahamL (2010) The promotion and resistance of rape myths in an internet discussion forum. Journal of Social Criminology1(2): 80–104.
92.
ZhouJ (2010) Determinants of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice settlements and litigations: Evidence from Texas since 1988 (No. 348, SFB/TR 15 Discussion Paper. Available at: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13206/1/348.pdf
93.
ZviL (2022) Police perceptions of sex-worker rape victims and their offenders: A vignette study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence37(15–16): NP14189–NP14214.
