How to Compensate Victims of Terrorism

After each national tragedy, the American people ask: How can we help? But the answer changes each time. After the terrorist attacks in 2001, Congress set up a taxpayer-financed fund to compensate victims and their families – and to prevent lawsuits against the airlines. After the Newtown shootings in 2012, nonprofit groups distributed (or did not distribute) donations. After the Boston Marathon bombing last year, a single fund collected contributions, and its administrator decided how to divide them up.
Should the U.S. government compensate victims of mass violence like bombings and shooting sprees? Or should compensation come from other sources, like lawsuits and private donations?

The September 11 compensation fund was rushed into place to address only the victims of that day’s horrific attacks. We learned from that ad hoc process. Now that we are no longer in crisis mode but have the time for more deliberative decision-making, Congress should establish a permanent compensation fund to address victims of future terrorism.

The aftermath of an attack is a vulnerable time, as terrorists intend. But a consistent, established response would expedite the return to normalcy.

A permanent fund is a far more efficient and equitable way to address a problem that is expected to continue. Having a system in place to award and administer funds rather than reinventing a system after each attack should save a significant amount of resources and time. Further, the amount of individual awards and the choice of industries singled out for special protection from lawsuits would seem less arbitrary, more even-handed and more acceptable. A permanent fund would help depoliticize a government relief system that could easily be driven by politics. Kenneth Feinberg has been fair and equitable in overseeing victim compensation after 9/11, but we cannot assume such a brilliant mediator will be available each time. We need a system that does not rely on the discretion of an individual decision-maker. By providing clear guidelines and standards, a permanent fund would create a sense of fairness.

There would also be a significant psychological effect of having a permanent system. As terrorists clearly intend, these attacks heighten our sense of vulnerability. A permanent system would tend to the affected parties immediately, which would help alleviate this sense of vulnerability as citizens look to the government for support and order. It would expedite the return to normalcy. It would be understood as an official response to those who commit terrorism and signal the resolve of the United States that it will not allow its citizens to be permanently injured by such acts.

Neither compensation through the tort system nor government safety-net programs and charities bring these benefits. The tort system is no answer because – apart from its slow pace and technical limitations on recovery – the primary perpetrators of terrorism can rarely be hauled into court. And charitable solutions or safety-net programs might allow for victims to subsist but are unlikely to significantly repair individual loss.

For these very reasons, Britain, Israel and other countries have created permanent compensation systems for victims of terrorism, and American lawmakers have done so in other contexts. We can build on that experience to enact a balanced and fair fund for future victims of terrorism.