As I understand it... The victim's insurance company was billed through the hospital and, if convicted, the costs were recouped from the perpetrator. It would be similar, I suppose, to filing a claim with your homeowner's insurance for goods that were stolen and then the ins. co [and possibly you] suing the perpetrator for reimbursement of those costs at a later date. The city/state/whoever doesn't cover the costs of goods lost anywhere, afaik. The same? No, of course not, but a similar MONETARY principle [I'm not talking about the emotional etc., but ONLY the monetary aspect].
That said, I believe it's a City Council decision how to handle those things and not a mayoral one. Part of the separation of powers bit. So just because she was mayor doesn't mean that SHE was making victims or alleged victims pay for them.
Perhaps someone else - RL? - has more info on how this works, but that's my understanding of how those things work.
Carol
