Ms. Kahn’s class is having a lively debate about the compensation fund for the families of victims after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Ms. Kahn explains that government compensation is meant to replace victims’ income and help families recover financially.

“In a system like that,” says Ms. Kahn, “not everyone gets the same financial compensation. Part of the goal is to replace the future income of the person who was killed or disabled. Therefore, the families of lower earners get smaller sums than the families of higher earners.”

“That’s not fair,” says Alyssa. “Rich people and poor people are worth the same.”

Many of her classmates agree, but Daylen says, “It’s not about what people are worth as human beings, it’s just about replacing the future income that families have lost. And that lost income isn’t necessarily equal.”

“The amount of compensation doesn’t just vary based on someone’s past income,” Ms. Kahn adds. “The government also compensates victims of different types of crimes, including crimes where the victim was not killed. Victims, or their families, are likely to receive different compensation based on the various expenses involved with different types of crimes. Let’s look at some data available online about how much money the national victim compensation fund has given for different types of crimes.”

What word in the table indicates that victims of the same type of crime did not necessarily receive the same amount of money?

Based on these data, Alyssa concludes that victims of terrorism always received more compensation than victims of robbery. Is she correct? Explain.

Discussion Questions:

Why do you think Ms. Kahn thought it was important to share this information with her students?

Why might more money be given to victims of certain types of crimes than others?