Victim Policy

Page 1 of 5

Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman

University of Cincinnati

INTRODUCTION

During the early period of the criminal justice system, crime victims were responsible for bringing their

cases before the court for prosecution. Eventually, prosecutors’ offices were created and became

responsible for representing the state during court proceedings. Prosecutor’s offices were developed for

three reasons: (1) it demonstrated that crimes are committed against all of society and not just the

victim, (2) it removed the value of vengeance from criminal justice process, and (3) it meant that

specially trained professionals are responsible for the legal process in which in return ensures fair and

effective prosecutions take place. After the development of modern prosecutors’ offices, victims

essentially became excluded from the criminal justice process [1]. The Victims’ Rights Movement sought

to change that. In the remainder of this lecture we will discuss the Victims’ Rights Movement, the

policies that resulted from it, and the impacts of those policies on criminal justice outcomes.

THE VICTIMS’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT

The Victims’ Rights Movement (VRM) began in the 1970s. Young and Stein suggest the VRM was

jumpstarted due to: (1) an increase in criminological research on victimology, (2) the introduction of the

idea that states should supply victims with financial compensation after victimization, (3) women’s rights

movements, (4) the rise of crime throughout the 1960s (and on) and the perception that the criminal

justice system was ineffective, and (5) the growth of activism and the founding of activity groups by

crime victims (e.g., Parents of Murdered Children or Mothers Against Drunk Driving). First, researchers

began to question why some people became victims of crime or failed to report crimes to the police.

Second, after some states began to copy programs in other countries that supplied compensation to

crime victims, the seed was planted for thinking about what could be done to assist crime victims. Third,

women’s rights activist began to question the lack of attention that was paid to sexual assault crimes

and domestic violence. Fourth, after crime rates began to rise throughout the 1960s, many people

questioned the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and particularly the fact that many

prosecutions failed because victims refused to move forward in the cases. Fifth, a number of crime

victims started advocacy and support groups for crime victims, and those groups began to lobby

legislatures for support for crime victims. With the help of federal funding, most states had adopted at

least some victims’ services programs by the end of the 1970s that focused on crisis intervention,

counseling, support during the criminal justice process, victim compensation, and victim restitution [2].

The VRM continued in the 1980s. In 1984, the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) was passed. VOCA

established the National Crime Fund which collects money from criminal fines, forfeitures, or special

assessments from the federal criminal justice system and gifts or donations and then distributes those

funds to the states to run programs that support victims of crime [3]. Additionally, “Bills or Rights were

Page 2 of 5

adopted in every state by 1990; at present 32 states have adopted constitutional amendments, and

there are more than 32,000 statutes that define and protect victims’ rights nationwide [2].”

Work in the 1990s solidified the VRM and many efforts were made to produce research and programs to

provide additional assistance to victims. Efforts to assist victims have expanded to victims of child abuse,

child sexual abuse, domestic violence, stalking, identify theft, and other cybercrimes. For example, the

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 and provided federal funds to provide training

for criminal justice personnel to understand crimes against women, created the National Domestic

Violence Hotline, as well as assisted states with other programs. VAWA also strengthened federal

penalties for rape and repeat sex crimes, established that victims’ past sexual activity could not be used

against them in court, established rape exams would not be the cost of the victim, and established

protection orders would be extended across all states and territories in the US, among other provisions

[3]. In 2004, the Crime Victims Act was passed and guaranteed the following rights to victims in the

federal criminal justice system:

1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.

2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any

parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.,

3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after

receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be

materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.

4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release,

plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.

7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.

To date, many advocates and advocacy agencies continue to work towards increasing victims’ rights.

Nonetheless, many policies are in place and we can review their effectiveness.

VICTIM-FOCUSED POLICIES

Walker notes that crime victims’ policies can be evaluated on three criteria:

1. Impact on Crime Victims: What impact does the policy have on victims? Does it help them?

2. Impact on the Criminal Justice System: How does the policy impact the criminal justice

process? Does it make case processing longer or shorter, more or less efficient, etc.?

3. Crime Reduction: Does the policy have any measurable impact on overall crime levels?

Victim Notification Victim notifications programs notify victims when the case for the crime in which were victimized

moves through the different stages of the criminal justice process: bail setting, preliminary hearing,

plea bargaining, trial, sentencing, post-conviction appeals, and parole hearings. Walker argues there is

absolutely no reason why victims should not be informed of their case, but points out two flaws of the

policy. First, it creates a substantial resource burden on local criminal justice agencies to adopt and

Page 3 of 5

operate a victim notification program (impact on the criminal justice system). Second, some victims do

not want to be notified and there is no evidence to suggest that victim notifications make offenders less

fearful (impact on the victim) [1].

Victim/Witness Assistance Programs Victim/witness assistance (VWA) programs can vary across jurisdictions. Walker suggests that nearly all

VWA programs help the victim understand his/her role as a witness in the criminal justice system, such

as educating the person about criminal justice processing, notifying them of court dates, helping them

get to and from court, and making their day at court go smoother (i.e., escorting them through the

courthouse or providing childcare) as well as provide support services to the victim. Additionally, most

programs provide counseling and many programs help with emergency services (shelter, financial

services, etc.) and insurance claims forms or restitution. Nonetheless, Walker suggests that most

programs operate for the benefit of the local criminal justice system by ensuring the victim follows

through with their duties as a witness (impact on the criminal justice system) and rarely meets the

needs of the victim (impact on the victim) [1].

Protecting Victims from Harm Many victims may fear their assailants will victimize them again if they go through with prosecution.

These victimizations may occur at the court proceedings or another setting. Some jurisdictions have

created secure waiting rooms for victims, ensure victims’ home addresses are not released in court

documents, withhold victims or witnesses identities from the public, and even allow the victim to

confidentially request the offender take an HIV test. If offenders would victimize the victim or

witnesses, then these programs may have an impact on crime. The size of that impact, however, will

depend on how often offenders target their previous victims or witnesses [1].

Victim Voice Many jurisdictions also have policies that allow victims to speak at bail hearings, plea bargains,

sentencing, and parole hearings. These policies are rationalized based on the idea that allowing victims

to participate will reduce their feelings of isolation and alienation which has been argued to increase

peoples’ perceptions of and satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Additionally, it is argued that

victims can act as a check on the criminal justice system and ensure offenders receive harsh sentences

as they are likely to object to sentences they deem to lenient. On the other hand, opponents of victim

voice policies suggest they introduce vengeance into the criminal justice system (rather than justice).

Research on victim voice policies makes a number of key points. First, not all victims are contacted by

the criminal justice system to participate. Second, of the victims contacted, victims are more likely to

participate at the sentencing stage with very few victims participating at bail and parole hearings.

Additionally, victims are most likely to participate in serious (violent) crimes. Third, a majority victims

who do participate at the sentencing stage ask for the offender to be incarcerated; however, there is no

evidence prison reduces recidivism so it is unlikely these polices have substantial impacts on crime [1].

Victim Compensation Finally, every state operates victim compensation programs that provide financial support to victims to

compensate them for the losses they suffered due to victimization. After the passage of the 1984

Victims of Crime Act, these funds are provided to the states from the federal government (National

Crime Fund). While the idea of compensating victims is not a bad idea, it is difficult to achieve in

Page 4 of 5

practice. Often times victims’ requests for compensation are turned down because they fail to provide

proper documentation. Nonetheless, there is really no reason to believe these programs have any

impact on crime [1].

The Overall Impact of Victim-Focused Policies So what does the evidence say about the victim-focused policies we discussed above?

Walker concludes:

Some of the crime victim laws and programs are good ideas, providing valuable

assistance to people who have been harmed by crime. Some others, however, are bad

ideas that promise to help crime victims and reduce crime but in fact do neither. Some

may reduce crime, but there is no persuasive evidence that they do.

SUMMARY

The Victims’ Right Movement began in the early 1970s. Numerous factors converged to demonstrate

that victims were the forgotten part of the criminal justice system. Many individual and advocacy groups

pushed for legislation that improves victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system. The federal and

state governments responded by passing laws that would lead to various victims’ rights policies. These

policies included: (1) victim notification policies, (2) victim/witness assistance policies, (3) protecting

victims from harm policies, (4) victim voice policies, and (5) victim compensation policies. Undoubtedly

these programs are important on the grounds of improving victims’ experiences with the criminal justice

system. We will learn in Module 7 that peoples’ positives experiences with the criminal justice system

can go a long way in improving their perceptions of and satisfaction with the criminal justice system.

Nonetheless, at this point, there is very little evidence to suggest these policies have had a substantial

impact on overall crime levels.

Page 5 of 5

REFERENCES

1. Walker, S., Sense and Nonsense About Crime, Drugs, and Communities: A Policy Guide, 8th Edition2015, Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

2. Young, M. and J. Stein, The history of the Crime Victims' Movement in the United States, Office for Victims of Crime, Editor 2004, Office of Justice Programs U.S. Department of Justice,: Washington, DC.

3. Office for Victims of Crime. Crime Victims’ Rights Laws. 2014 01/01/2015]; Available from: http://www.ovc.gov/rights/legislation.html.