Compensation for crime-related harm is ordinarily owed by the offender or another person legally liable. Yet an unidentified offender, insolvency, or ineffective enforcement may leave some of the victim’s loss uncompensated. This article asks whether an independent public duty to compensate certain losses can be justified beyond state tort liability and statutory cases of payment from the public treasury. Using doctrinal analysis and a normative approach, it examines selected Imami legal maxims, Iranian legislation, and Supreme Court Unification Judgment No. 790. It concludes that the maxims and the state’s public role may support a policy rationale, but do not by themselves create a general, judicially enforceable monetary entitlement against the state. Iranian law provides for public payment in defined circumstances, including specified blood-money cases and compensation for unlawful or unjustified detention; these provisions cannot automatically be extended to every crime-related loss. The article therefore argues for considering legislation establishing a limited, transparent, and reviewable compensation scheme, with explicit eligibility criteria, covered losses, decision-making procedures, funding, recovery rights, and safeguards against double recovery.