Developing a legal framework for state compensation of crime victims in Nigeria
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria provides expressly for the safety and protection of the rights of citizens in general terms, including other provisions which guarantee the safety of the Nigerian people; however, the Constitution places priority on the rights of criminals over and above the rights and interests of crime victims. This position and situation has engendered public dissatisfaction with the Nigerian criminal justice systems in general and the Constitution in particular. \nThis study has analysed the means and mechanisms available in the Nigerian legal system for crime victims’ compensation and restitution for criminal acts committed against them, and it has found that those means are different to what are obtained in other jurisdictions. The study further found that state-funded compensation for crime victims is practiced to various degrees in places like New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Germany, Finland, Colombia and the Philippines to mention but a few. \nThe study discovered that, as it stands presently in Nigeria, there are no public compensation schemes for crime victims and that the compensation mechanisms that exist in the country which the courts award are grossly inadequate. The study also found that the Nigerian government does not see the need to establish state-funded compensation schemes for crime victims on the premise that crime victims should exercise their rights to claim compensation from the criminal offenders in delictual or tort claims. This study, therefore, argues that the extant legal frameworks in Nigeria are manifestly inadequate to provide for the needs of crime victims effectively in the aftermath of victimization and recommends the development of a system for state-funded compensation for crime victims in Nigeria building on comparative best practices and international guidelines such as the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power and the Commonwealth Guidelines for the Treatment of Victims of Crime.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it