sign in sign up
<<
Home , Constitution, Justice, State crime

NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of R T A I P C E E D

B

O J C S Office of Justice Programs F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f Jeremy Travis, Director December 1998 Issues and Findings The of Victims—Does Discussed in this Brief: The impact of legal protection on crime victims’ Legal Protection Make a Difference? rights. This survey of more than 1,300 crime victims, the largest of its kind, by Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan Smith Howley was conducted by the National Cen- ter for Victims of Crime to find out The President’s Task Force on Victims of the latter issue is important is that vic- whether constitutional amend- Crime concluded in its 1982 Final Re- tims who view the system ments and other legal measures de- port that there was a serious imbalance unfavorably are likely to share that opin- signed to protect crime victims’ rights between the rights of criminal defendants ion with others, thereby undermining have been effective. The researchers and the rights of crime victims. This im- confidence in the system. The current sought the views of victims in two balance was viewed as so great that the debate in the U.S. Congress over a pro- States representative of those in task force proposed an to the posed crime victims’ rights constitutional which legal protection of victims’ U.S. to provide crime vic- amendment highlights the relevance of rights is strong and two States repre- tims with “the right to be present and to victims’ rights and the for sentative of those in which such pro- be heard at all critical stages of judicial research in this area. tection is weak, testing whether proceedings.”1 The recommended victims from the “strong-protection amendment has not been enacted by This research project, conducted by the 4 States” had better experiences with Congress, but the report led to a prolif- National Center for Victims of Crime, the justice system. eration of victims’ rights legislation at the was designed to test the hypothesis that State level. the strength of legal protection for crime Key issues: All States have some victims’ rights has a measurable impact form of statutory protection of vic- By the early 1990s, every State had en- on how victims are treated by the crimi- tims’ rights, and more than half have acted statutory rights for crime victims, nal justice system and on their percep- constitutional protect- and many had adopted constitutional tions of the system. A related hypothesis ing these rights. Until this study, amendments protecting victims’ rights. was that victims from States with strong little research had been directed Today, all 50 States have passed some legal protection would have more favor- at whether these legal guarantees form of a statutory crime victims’ of able experiences and greater satisfaction mean crime victims are kept in- rights, and 29 have amended their con- with the system than those from States formed of the events in their cases stitutions to include rights for crime vic- where legal protection is weak. and of their rights as victims, tims.2 At the Federal level, the Victim’s whether they are adequately notified Rights and Protection Act of 1990, and Overall, the research revealed that strong of services, and whether they are several subsequent , gave victims legal protection makes a difference, but satisfied with the criminal justice of Federal crime many of the rights it also revealed that even in States where system’s handling of their cases. accorded at the State level. legal protection is strong, some victims are not afforded their rights. In other Key findings: Strong victims’ rights Despite the widespread adoption of legal words, enactment of State and State laws make a difference, but in protection, the implementation of such constitutional amendments alone appears many instances, even where there protection and its impact on victims have to be insufficient to guarantee the full is strong legal protection, victims’ not been widely studied, nor has much provision of victims’ rights in practice. are not fully met. In the research been directed at how this legis- The likely reason is that a host of other lation has influenced victims’ views of factors mediates the laws’ effects. Thus, continued… the criminal justice system.3 One reason although the disparities between strong R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings and weak victims’ rights laws indicate ability to participate in the system be- continued… the need to strengthen legal protection, cause victims cannot participate unless additional steps may be necessary to ad- they are informed of their rights and of two States studied where legal dress the other, intervening factors, to the time and place of the relevant crimi- protection is strong, victims were better ensure that the laws have their nal justice proceedings in which they more likely than in the two selected intended effects. may exercise those rights. Victims weak-protection States to be af- clearly attested to the importance of their forded their rights, to be involved, rights to attend and be heard at proceed- and to feel the system is responsive. Assessing the implementation of victims’ rights ings (see “The Importance of Victims’ They were more likely: Rights to Victims Themselves” on page 4), but unless they receive notice of pro- ● To be notified of events in their The experiences of crime victims in the ceedings and of their rights, cannot exer- cases. two States studied where legal protection of victims’ rights is strong were compared cise those rights. ● To be informed of their rights with those in the two States studied At most points in the criminal justice as crime victims and of services where protection is weak. In each group, process, from arrest through the parole available. the victims were asked whether they were afforded their rights in several hearing, victims in strong-protection ● To exercise their rights (though areas. Were they kept informed of case States were much more likely to receive not at all stages of the criminal proceedings and their rights as victims? advance notification than those in weak- justice process). Did they exercise those rights? Did they protection States. (See exhibit 1.) At cer- receive adequate notification of available tain other points in the process, however, ● To give high ratings to the crimi- victim services?5 Did they receive resti- the difference between the two groups nal justice system and its various tution for the crime committed against was not significant. For example, the agents, such as the . them? They also were asked what losses proportions of victims who were not in- formed of plea negotiations were nearly Legal protection is not sufficient, they suffered as a result of the crime, and they rated their satisfaction with the the same in strong- as in weak-protec- however, to guarantee victims’ tion States, despite the fact that both rights. More than one in four victims criminal justice process and its various representatives. strong-protection States—but neither from the two strong-protection weak-protection State—had a requir- States were very dissatisfied with the Representatives of the criminal justice ing that victims be informed of such ne- criminal justice system. Nearly half of system are the implementors of laws that gotiations. In other words, the relative them were not notified of the sen- provide victims access to and strength, and even the existence, of laws tence hearing, and they were as facilitate victims’ participation in the providing this right made no difference unlikely as those in weak-protection criminal justice process. For this reason, to the provision of the notice. States to be informed of plea nego- officials from various components of the tiations. Substantial proportions of system, as well as victim assistance pro- In other cases, while the strength of the victims in both the strong- and fessionals, were asked how much they legal protection for a victim’s right did weak-protection States were not were aware of victims’ rights and how appear to affect the rate at which the notified of other rights and services, well they believed these rights are imple- right was provided, it was not sufficient including the right to be informed mented in their . (For further to ensure that most victims in fact re- about protection and to discuss the details of the study’s , includ- ceived the right. For example, far more case with the . ing the definition of “strong-protection” victims in strong-protection than weak- and “weak-protection” States, see “Mea- protection States were notified of the Strong legal protection—either defendant’s pretrial release, but more through State constitutional suring the Effectiveness of Victims’ Rights Laws—the Study Design,” on page 3.) than 60 percent of victims in those amendments or other means— strong-protection States did not receive appears to be a necessary but not a such notice. (See exhibit 1.) Similarly, sufficient condition for ensuring the Notification of case events and nearly twice as many victims in strong- protection of crime victims’ rights, proceedings protection States as in weak-protection because a host of intervening fac- States were notified in advance of the tors, such as knowledge, funding, Perhaps the most fundamental right of a crime victim is the right to be kept in- sentencing hearing, but more than 40 and enforcement, mediates the percent of such victims were not notified. actual “delivery” of victims’ rights. formed by the criminal justice system. Notification plays a key role in a victim’s (See exhibit 1.) Lack of such advance Target audience: Victims’ rights , criminal justice offi- cials, and other officials at State and local levels. 2 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Measuring the effectiveness of victims’ rights laws—the study design T he first step in the study was iden- views were completed with 1,308 crime vic- cause-and-effect relationships. In this study, tifying States that were weak in protecting tims (83 percent of the victims who could be strong- and weak-protection States were victims’ rights and those that were strong. located and disclosed their victimization). not identical in certain factors that might Next, crime victims from two “weak” determine case outcomes or how victims States and two “strong” States were The sample consisted of victims of physical are treated; the differences may have af- asked about their experiences in the crimi- assault (25 percent), robbery (24 percent), fected the findings. Another limitation to nal justice process. Their experiences were sexual assault (11 percent), other generalizing the findings is that the victims compared and contrasted to find out (10 percent), and relatives of homicide vic- selected for this study were not a represen- c whether there is a measurable difference tims (30 percent). tative sample of all crime victims. That is be- in the two groups of States in victim pro- cause most crimes are not reported to the Interviews were conducted by phone, and tection. State and local level criminal jus- police and, if they are, do not be- information was obtained about the crime, tice professionals, policymakers, and victim yond the report stage. Because the cases in experiences with the criminal justice system, assistance professionals in both groups of this study progressed further, the victims satisfaction with treatment by the system, States were asked their opinions of victim surveyed were likely to be more satisfied and crime-related injuries and losses.d Inter- protection, and their responses were also than the average crime victim. In addition, views averaged 40.2 minutes and were con- compared and contrasted.a the legal analysis of State laws and State ducted between April and October 1995. constitutional amendments reflected the Selecting strong and weak States. To Views of government and victim assis- situation at a single point in time (January identify strong and weak States, a legal tance professionals. Criminal justice 1, 1992), and many changes in applicable analysis of victims’ rights laws in all 50 officials, other government officials, and pro- statutes and constitutional provisions have States was conducted. Criteria were devel- fessionals in victim assistance organizations been made since then. oped to rate statutory and State constitu- were asked their opinions, perceptions, and tional protection of victims’ rights on the a. Unless stated otherwise, chi-square analyses suggestions about the rights of crime victims basis of comprehensiveness, strength, and were used to test differences between the and crime victim services. These individuals, specificity. The criteria were then used to groups of States. In addition, unless otherwise 145 at the local level and 53 at the State indicated, all findings are significant at the 0.05 rate each State in four areas: (1) the right to level, fell into the following categories: level or less. Percentages were rounded to whole notification, (2) the right to be present, (3) numbers. Because not all victims progressed the right to be heard, and (4) the right to Local State equally far in the criminal justice process, per- . Applying these ratings, each centages are based on the number of victims State was ranked according to the strength * Agency directors who had each type of relevant experience. of its legal protection of victims’ rights. Legislators b. Failure of crime victims who have reported Groups of strong- and weak-protection crimes to the police to disclose the crime when Parole and probation Victim coalition States were identified, and two States from contacted by victimization survey interviewers officials directors each group were selected as sites for study. is consistent with the results of reverse records check studies (e.g., Reiss, A.J., Jr., and J.A. (Both strong States had constitutional Victim assistance Other government Roth, eds., Understanding and Preventing Vio- amendments covering victims’ rights, coordinators officials lence, Washington, D.C.: National Academy whereas neither weak State did.) Victim-witness staff Press, 1993: appendix B). Crime victims’ views. From the four attorneys c. Because the of types of crime States, adult (age 18 and older) crime vic- victims differed among the four States, inter- Police and sheriffs view data were weighted by State, using the tims’ names and locational information proportion of victims in the entire sample as *Judges constituted almost half the people were obtained from department of correc- case weights. Thus, the distribution of crime tions and victims’ compensation agencies. interviewed at the local level. types in strong and weak protection States was Of the 2,245 victims who could be lo- identical. The weighted number of crime vic- Can the findings be generalized? By their cated, 665 (29.6 percent of the contacted tims in the sample was 1,312. very nature, the findings of social science sample) denied that they or a family mem- d. All interviews were conducted by SRBI, a New b studies that are not true experiments can ber had been a recent victim of crime. Of York-based survey research firm, using a com- establish relationships among various factors; the remaining 1,580 respondents, inter- puter-assisted telephone interview procedure. more difficult is establishing definitive,

3 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

The importance of victims’ rights to victims themselves T he right to participate in the pro- ● Being informed about the date of the ear- ● Making a victim’s impact statement cess of justice, including the right to attend liest possible release from incarceration. before sentencing. criminal proceedings and to be heard at various points in the criminal justice pro- ● Being heard in decisions about the ● Being involved in the decision about cess, is important to crime victims. The defendant’s release on bond. what should be given. researchers reached this conclusion by pre- ● Discussing the case with the prosecutor’s On each item, more than three-fourths of senting victims with the following list of office. the victims rated the particular right as rights and asking them to rate the impor- “very important.” Topping the list was the tance of each one:a ● Discussing whether the defendant’s plea right to be informed about whether there to a lesser charge should be accepted. ● Being informed about whether anyone was an arrest, rated “very important” by more than 97 percent of the victims. The was arrested. ● Making a victim’s impact statement sole item rated “very important” by less during the defendant’s parole hearing. ● Being involved in the decision to drop than 80 percent was involvement in the the case. ● Being present during the grand hearing. decision about the sentence.

● Being informed about the defendant’s ● Being present during release hearings. a. The rights are listed in descending order of release on bond. their rating. ● Being informed about postponement of hearings.

notice would directly affect the ability of victims to exercise their rights to Exhibit 1. Notification of events in the case—percentage notified attend and/or be heard at such pro- ceedings. /Proceeding

Notification of their rights Arrest of perpetrator as victims Bond hearing Crime victims not only need to be noti- fied about events and proceedings in Pretrial release of defendant the criminal justice process, they also need to be informed of their legal scheduling rights. They need to know, for ex- ample, not only that the trial has been Sentencing hearing scheduled, but also that they have a right to discuss the case with the Parole hearings prosecutor. As expected, there were significant differences on this score Plea negotiations* between strong- and weak-protection States. It was much more common in Dismissal of charges* the strong-protection States for crime victims to be notified of their various 0 102030405060708090100 rights and of the availability of Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States services. (See exhibit 2.) For example, almost three-fourths of victims in strong-protection States were informed * Difference between groups is not statistically significant. of the availability of victim services,

4 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f while less than half in weak-protection of the rights to participate. Research- groups of States, who knew of the pro- States received such information. ers asked crime victims who indicated ceeding and of their legal rights, exer- they had received such information cised those rights. There were similar differences when it whether they had in fact exercised came to being informed of the right to their rights to attend, make statements While the strength of the legal protec- discuss the case with the prosecutor, at, or otherwise participate in the tions of victims’ rights to participate make a victim’s impact statement, and criminal justice process. The re- did appear to influence the numbers of make a statement at the parole hearing. sponses of victims in strong-protection victims who exercised some rights to Victims in the strong-protection States and weak-protection States were then participate, victims in both groups of fared better. But again, as with notifica- compared. States were more likely to exercise tion of case-processing events, even in some rights than others. For instance, the strong-protection States large pro- At some points in the criminal justice most victims in both strong- and weak- portions of crime victims were not process, among victims who had re- protection States who were notified of notified of their rights and of available ceived the prerequisite notice, victims the sentencing hearing and their rights services. Thus, almost 40 percent of in the strong-protection States were to participate attended sentencing victims in the strong-protection States more likely to exercise their rights hearings (72 percent) and made an im- were not informed they could make an than those in weak-protection States. pact statement at sentencing (93 per- impact statement at the parole hearing. They were more likely to make recom- cent). Relatively few victims in either mendations at bond hearings, to make group, even when they were aware of Exercising their rights recommendations about sentences, their rights and of the proceeding, and to make an impact statement at exercised their rights to make recom- Notifying crime victims in advance of the parole hearing. (See exhibit 3.) mendations at bond hearings or to at- events and proceedings in the criminal At other stages, such as making an tend parole hearings. (See exhibit 3.) justice process, and informing them of impact statement at sentencing, or their rights to participate in that pro- attending the parole hearings, similar Obtaining restitution cess, are prerequisites to the exercise percentages of victims from both Another important area of victims’ rights examined in this study was the right of victims to restitution–the Exhibit 2. Notification of services and rights—percentage notified orders a convicted defendant to repay the victim for crime-related economic Right losses. Contrary to the hypothesis that judges in strong-protection States Availability of would be more likely to order restitu- victim services tion whenever a victim had sustained economic losses, they were signifi- cantly less likely to do so (22 percent, Right to discuss case in contrast to 42 percent in the weak- with prosecutor protection States).6 In the cases in which restitution was ordered, there was no significant difference in the Right to make percentages of victims from strong- impact statement and weak-protection States who actu- ally received restitution (37 percent versus 43 percent). Overall, victims in Right to make impact strong-protection States who were eli- statement at parole hearing gible for restitution were significantly less likely than their counterparts in 0 102030405060708090100weak-protection States ever to receive any restitution (8 percent, in contrast Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States to 18 percent).

Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less.

5 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

opinions about the appropriateness of Exhibit 3. Exercising their rights as victims—percentage exercising ordering restitution. their right a Rating the criminal justice Right Exercised process and its agents Make recommendations at bond hearings Crime victims need to have confidence in the criminal justice process. To Testify in court measure their level of confidence, the Make recommendations researchers asked them to assess the about sentences adequacy of criminal justice system Make impact statements performance at several points in the at parole hearing criminal justice process. Again, the Attend grand jury hearings b findings were consistent with the hy- Discuss plea agreements pothesis: victims who came from States with prosecutors b where legal protection is strong were Attend sentencing hearings b more likely to rate the system favor- ably. (See exhibit 4.) Still, the com- Make impact statement at sentencing b parative figures cannot conceal the fact that many victims, even in States Attend parole hearing b where legal protection is strong, gave 0 102030405060708090100 the system very negative ratings.

Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States Rating the outcome of the case. As predicted by the hypothesis, victims in weak-protection States were more likely a. In each case, percentages are based on number of relevant cases. For example, the percentages that to believe the fairness of the sentence attended the grand jury hearing were based on the number of victims who knew of the hearing; the was “completely inadequate” (the low- percentages who testified in court were based on the number of cases that went to trial. est rating). However, a sizeable minor- b. Difference between groups is not statistically significant. ity of victims in the strong-protection States also believed the sentence im- Because these results were contrary to fying the incarceration of convicted posed was “completely inadequate” the hypothesis, exploratory analyses defendants as a reason for the superi- (34 percent in weak-protection versus were conducted to determine if other ority of the weak-protection States in 25 percent in strong-protection States). factors might explain them. The analy- ordering restitution. Similarly, more than one in four vic- ses revealed that defendants in restitu- The most striking finding was the rela- tims from weak-protection States and tion-eligible cases in strong-protection one in five from strong-protection States were more likely than those in tively small percentage of eligible vic- tims overall (less than 20 percent) who States believed the fairness of the weak-protection States to have been or plea was completely inad- incarcerated (89 percent, in contrast to received any restitution (whether or- dered or not). The low percentage sug- equate. More than 25 percent of vic- 72 percent). Restitution in both groups tims from weak-protection States and of States was less likely to have been gests that factors other than legislative mandates are driving whether restitu- 15 percent from strong-protection ordered in cases involving a sentence States felt the speed of the process was of incarceration. However, the analy- tion is paid. When criminal justice officials were surveyed (see “How the completely inadequate. Finally, 22 ses also revealed that weak-protection percent of victims from weak-protec- States were significantly more likely to criminal justice system views crime victims’ rights,” page 8), they indi- tion States and 15 percent from strong- order restitution than strong-protection protection States said support services States, regardless of whether the sen- cated that the factors influencing the ordering of restitution might include for victims were completely inad- tence included incarceration (44 per- equate. cent, in contrast to 23 percent), or did lack of knowledge about victims’ eco- not include incarceration (61 percent, nomic losses or the amount of defen- These negative ratings are particularly in contrast to 36 percent). Thus, the dants’ assets, lack of knowledge about noteworthy in view of the fact that, analyses were unsuccessful in identi- the victims’ right to restitution, and from the victims’ perspective, the

6 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f outcomes of these cases were much more favorable than most; that is, a Exhibit 4. Victims rate criminal justice processing—percentage who rate higher than usual proportion resulted it more than adequate or completely inadequate* in a plea or verdict of guilty that led to incarceration of the defendant. Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States Clearly, to many crime victims, even in cases resulting in a and More Than Completely More Than Completely imprisonment of the defendant, the Aspect of Processing Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate criminal justice process did not meet Efforts to apprehend 44 6 27 11 their expectations. the perpetrator Rating the system and its agents. Efforts to inform the 29 9 13 19 Victims gave high marks to the various family about progress on the case agents of the criminal justice system, such as the police. Again, victims in Their ability to have 21 15 9 25 the strong-protection States tended to input in the case be more satisfied than those in the Thoroughness of 28 10 14 20 weak-protection States. But the pro- case preparation portions who said they were very satis- Fairness of the trial 20 11 10 20 fied or somewhat satisfied with the performance of police, prosecutors, Fairness of the 17 21 6 28 victim/witness agency staff, and judges verdict or plea were high across the board, irrespec- Fairness of sentence 14 25 5 34 tive of the strength of legal protection. Thus, in the strong-protection States, Speed of the process 17 15 6 27 83 percent of the victims were very or Support services 16 15 8 22 somewhat satisfied with the police and, at 77 percent, the proportion in * The ratings continuum was “more than adequate,” “adequate,” “somewhat less than adequate,” the weak-protection States was simi- and “completely inadequate.” larly high. (See exhibit 5.) Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less. The criminal justice system overall was rated somewhat lower than each of its were constructed, each of which com- States the Victim Satisfaction Scale component representatives: Only 55 prised several questions asked of vic- scores were higher than in the weak- percent of victims in strong-protection tims. The scales measured overall protection States, and this was true States and 47 percent in weak-protec- satisfaction with the criminal justice after controlling for the effects of tion States were very satisfied or some- system, the extent to which victims gender, race, and income level. what satisfied with it. At the other end thought they were informed of their of the scale, the proportion of victims rights, and victims’ perceptions of the Are victims more satisfied if they are expressing strong dissatisfaction with effectiveness of their impact state- informed of their rights? And are they the system was relatively high—more ments. They were called, respectively, more satisfied if they believe their than one-fourth of the victims in the the Victim Satisfaction Scale, the In- participation in the system has had an strong-protection States and more than formed Victim Scale, and the Victims’ impact on the decision process? To one-third in the weak-protection States. Impact Scale. answer the first question, Victim Satis- faction Scale scores were analyzed in What explains victims’ As measured by the Victim Satisfac- relation to the Informed Victim Scale satisfaction levels tion Scale, satisfaction with the crimi- scores, with the results revealing a nal justice system was greater among strong correlation between the two: Knowing whether and to what extent female than male victims, among white victims who were informed of their crime victims are satisfied (or dissatis- than African-American victims, and rights were more satisfied with the jus- fied) with the criminal justice system among higher income than lower in- tice system than those who were not. is not the same as knowing why. To come victims. Age made no difference. To answer the second question, the shed light on the issue, three scales As expected, in the strong-protection Victim Satisfaction Scales were again

7 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f analyzed, this time in relation to the reported several major crime-related spent it participating in the justice Victims’ Impact Scale scores. Again, losses. For certain kinds of losses— system and obtaining services. the analysis revealed a strong correla- damage or destruction, prop- tion, indicating that victims who erty or monetary loss, time away from How the criminal justice system thought their participation had an im- work or school to consult with the po- views crime victims’ rights pact on their cases were more satisfied lice, and canceled insurance coverage with the system. or increased premiums—strong legal This study also included a survey of protection made no difference, be- criminal justice and victim assistance Crime-related physical, cause victims in both weak- and professionals at the State and local financial, and mental strong-protection States were equally levels. There were two reasons for affected. (See exhibit 6.) For other their inclusion. The first is that those health problems kinds of problems resulting from the professionals can affect crime victims’ Crime victims experience a variety of crime—time lost from work or school ability to recover and to cope with the losses relating to the crime. They may because of injuries and receiving aftermath of the offense and the stress sustain physical or psychological inju- medical treatment for those injuries— of participation in the criminal justice ries, with some victims requiring coun- victims from the weak-protection system. The average citizen, newly seling. They may lose money or suffer States were more likely to be affected. thrust into the criminal justice system property destruction, loss, or damage. But victims in strong-protection States as a victim of crime, often has little Victims may lose time from work or were more likely to note a loss of time understanding of the basic workings school as a result of their injuries or as from work or school because of consul- of the system. Representatives of the a consequence of time spent consulting tations with prosecutors, attending various components of the criminal with or prosecutors, or trial, or receiving counseling. This justice system and victim assistance attendance at court proceedings. could be viewed not so much as a professionals can play key roles in greater problem than as a greater op- helping facilitate access and under- Whether they were from weak- or portunity: Although the time these vic- standing as cases progress. strong-protection States, victims tims lost cannot be discounted, they There was another important rationale Exhibit 5. Victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system— for surveying such professionals. The percentage who are very or somewhat satisfied survey of crime victims produced a of data on whether the strength Component of victims’ rights laws influenced the rate at which victims received their rights and on victims’ satisfaction with Police the criminal justice system. However, it could not suggest reasons that laws might or might not produce such an effect. Local and State professionals Prosecutors were surveyed to begin to explore such reasons.7 The data produced by these surveys inform the discussion of influ- ences on the implementation of victims’ Victim/Witness rights, and suggest additional avenues Staff Judges for research. Thus, State and local officials and ad- Criminal Justice vocates were surveyed to determine the System extent to which they were aware of the legal rights of victims, their views of how victims’ rights are ensured, and 0 102030405060708090100 their thinking about what further steps Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States may be necessary to strengthen the pro- tection of victims’ rights. The interviews Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less. with such officials revealed much the

8 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

of victims’ rights and the chal- Exhibit 6. Victims’ crime-related problems—percentage who lenges of implementing them. experienced problems At the State level, as at the local level, Problem Type strong legal protection made a differ- Time lost from work or to ence, though not in all respects. Lead- consult with police* ers from the strong States were more Property or monetary loss* likely to believe their criminal justice Property damage system was performing well, particu- or destruction* larly in protecting victims’ rights. Life insurance canceled/ However, even where legal protection premium increased* was strong, a large majority also indi- Time lost from work or school due to injuries cated they were aware of problems Medical treatment for victims are experiencing in obtaining crime-related injuries benefits and services. The problems Time lost from work or school to most frequently cited had to do with consult with prosecutor or for trial victim notification. Time spent for counseling for psychological injuries Problems with their families Barriers to implementation

0 102030405060708090100Criminal justice and victim advocate professionals at the State and local Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States levels were asked for their suggestions for improving the provision of victims’ * Difference not statistically significant. rights. Their responses basically fell into three groups: increased funding, increased training, and increased how they are being provided. For ex- same pattern as the interviews with enforcement of victims’ rights. victims: strong legal protection tended ample, only 39 percent of the local to translate in practice as greater imple- professionals in the strong-protection Resource limitations were cited by offi- mentation of those rights, but in many States knew that their State had a con- cials as the most common reason for be- cases did not guarantee the provision of stitutional amendment enumerating ing unable to fulfill their responsibilities. such rights. victims’ rights. For a majority of ques- Local officials from the strong-protection tions about victims’ rights, a substan- States were more likely than those from Views of local criminal justice tial number of officials incorrectly weak-protection States to believe that and victim service professionals. identified the source of the victims’ funding for the implementation of vic- If the local officials came from strong- right as a policy or practice, rather tims’ rights was adequate. (In the strong- protection States, they were more than a or State constitutional protection States, 55 percent of local likely than those from weak-protection amendment. Many officials were also officials, in contrast to 34 percent in the States to say they “always” or “usu- unclear about which agency had the weak-protection States, felt funding for ally” provide crime victims with their duty to provide victims a given right. victim services was adequate; 39 percent rights to notification of events in the in the strong-protection States, but only State leaders’ views. The opinions case, to be present at the various 27 percent in the weak-protection States, of State leaders indicate the extent stages of the criminal justice process, felt funding for implementation of vic- to which crime victims’ rights have and to be heard. These local officials tims’ rights was adequate.) At the same achieved understanding and accept- were also about one-third more likely time, a considerable percentage of these ability at high levels of government. than their counterparts in weak- local leaders, even those from the strong- At the State level, awareness of legally protection States to believe that vic- protection States, believed funding for mandated victims’ rights tends to be tims’ rights are “adequate.” victim services was very inadequate (15 higher than it is locally. Such leaders percent, and 35 percent of those in the Yet, large proportions of local criminal as , attorneys general, heads weak-protection States). justice officials, even from States of State criminal justice agencies, and where legal protection is strong, were heads of victims’ organiza- When asked if their office had funding not aware of many victims’ rights and tions generally were aware of the for use in victim services programs or

9 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f for implementing victims’ rights, only ing legal protection of crime victims’ rights. Criminal justice officials are about one-third of all officials at the rights. Where legal protection is not likely to enforce victims’ rights local level said it had (and there was strong, victims are more likely to be laws if they are unaware they exist. little difference between the weak- and aware of their rights, to participate in They may be less likely to seek fund- the strong-protection States). What is the criminal justice system, to view ing for services they do not know they more, very few of those without fund- criminal justice system officials favor- have a duty to provide. Victims are un- ing said they had actively sought it in ably, and to express more overall satis- likely to attempt to assert rights they the previous year. faction with the system. Moreover, the do not know they have. levels of overall satisfaction in strong- At the State level, officials offered a protection States are higher. Strong le- Even when criminal justice officials similar assessment of funding; that is, gal protection produces greater victim know what requires of them, those from strong-protection States involvement and better experiences they may not have the means to carry were more likely to believe that fund- with the justice system. A more favor- out their duties. Victims’ rights can be ing was adequate than were those able perception of the agents of the ensured only if resources are sufficient, from weak-protection States. (Half the system—police, prosecutors, victim/ and resource limitations were cited by State leaders in strong-protection witness staff, and judges—is another officials as the most common reason for States, in contrast to 31 percent in the benefit. Because strong legal protec- being unable to fulfill their duties un- weak-protection States, believed fund- tion at the State level is associated der the law. It can be assumed that ing for implementation of victims’ with victim awareness, participation, there is a relationship between the rights was adequate.) The State leaders and satisfaction, some have advocated strength of legal mandates and the pro- also cited increased funding—specifi- a Federal to vision of funding to implement those cally for additional staff (victim/wit- protect victims’ rights. mandates. In other words, it is reason- ness coordinators and criminal justice able to assume that States with stronger staff)—more often than any other On the other hand, legal protections legal mandates for the provision of vic- need. And whether they were from per se, regardless of their relative tims’ rights tend to provide more funds States with weak or strong legal pro- strength in State law or State constitu- for implementation than States with tection, these leaders most often cited tions, are not always enough to ensure weaker mandates. While this study did increased funding or staffing when victims’ rights. As the study revealed, not attempt to measure the actual levels they were asked how they would mini- even in States where victims’ rights of funding, officials in the States with mize problems in providing victims’ were protected strongly by law, many strong legal protections of victims’ services. victims were not notified about key rights were more likely to believe that hearings and proceedings, many were funding was adequate. In prioritizing suggestions to improve not given the opportunity to be heard, the treatment of crime victims in their and few received restitution. In the Finally, even where strong laws exist criminal justice systems, leaders in strong-protection States examined in and are fully understood, and where weak-protection States most frequently this study, more than one in four vic- resources are adequate, there may be named the establishment, enhance- tims were very dissatisfied with the a need for additional enforcement ment, and/or enforcement of victims’ criminal justice system as a whole. mechanisms to ensure that victims are rights laws as their top priority; in- given their rights. While some enforce- creased funding was a secondary pri- Mediating factors. Several mediat- ment mechanisms may involve giving ority. By contrast, among leaders in ing factors were identified as influenc- victims the power to assert their legal the strong-protection States, the larg- ing the provision of victims’ rights, rights, others might involve procedures est percentage of responses dealt with beyond the strength of the statute or that better allow criminal justice agen- issues of increased funding and re- State constitutional amendment. The cies to monitor their own compliance sources for victim-related services and first among these is knowledge of vic- with victims’ rights laws. programs, followed by the need for tims’ rights. The survey of local crimi- better education of criminal justice nal justice officials and victim service Strengthening victim protection. In officials regarding victims’ rights. professionals revealed a lack of aware- view of these considerations, the States ness of victims’ rights and how those and/or the criminal justice system can take several steps, on a variety of fronts, What more needs to be done rights are implemented. The level of criminal justice officials’ and victims’ to strengthen victim protection:8 The findings offer support for the posi- knowledge of victims’ rights influences ● Keep victims informed, provide them tion of those who advocate strengthen- their conduct with respect to those with opportunities for input, and

10 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

consider that input carefully for, as Notes 5. The term “victim services” refers to a wide the study revealed, informed victims, range of programs and policies (such as crisis and those who thought their input had 1. President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime counseling, transportation, and employer inter- Final Report, Washington, D.C.: President’s influenced criminal justice decisions, cession) that provide assistance directly to Task Force on Victims of Crime, December crime victims. were more likely to be satisfied with 1982:114. the criminal justice system. 6. Restitution-eligible cases are those in which 2. For current information about the status of the victims sustained economic losses and the ● Make changes to ensure that restitu- crime victims’ rights laws, contact the National defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted. tion is ordered, monitored, paid, and Center for Victims of Crime at 2111 Wilson Findings are significant at the .05 level or less. received.9 Boulevard, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201 (703–276–2880). 7. Because in this part of the analysis the ● Offer criminal justice officials and sample size for each type of State was relatively crime victims additional education 3. For a recent review of research, see Kelly, small, the data were not subjected to the same about victims’ rights and their legal D.P., and Erez, E., “Victim Participation in the type of statistical analysis as were the data from mandates. Criminal Justice System,” in R.C. Davis, A. J. victims. Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of ● Take steps to seek and ensure ad- Crime (second edition), Thousand Oaks, Cali- 8. The Council of State -Eastern equate funding for victims’ services fornia: , 1997. Currently under way is a Regional Conference (see note 3) is currently and the implementation of victims’ survey, conducted by the Council of State planning a regional conference that will ad- rights. Governments, Eastern Regional Conference, dress such issues as identifying victim issues of the attitudes of citizens, including crime that could be addressed through legislation, ● Institute mechanisms to monitor the victims, toward the criminal justice system. modifying existing victims’ rights legislation, provision of victims’ rights by crimi- The survey, which will cover 10 Northeastern and developing model legislation that could nal justice officials whose duty is to States, will cover the extent and nature of vic- meet crime victims’ needs. implement the law, and provide a timization, perceptions of victims’ rights and means by which victims who are de- victims’ services, and victims’ experiences in 9. There is a useful discussion of restitution nied their rights can enforce those reporting crime. issues in “Making Victims Whole Again,” by rights.10 B.E. Smith and S. W. Hillenbrand, in R.C. 4. Formerly the National Victim Center. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of Crime. Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., professor Copies of the full report, “Statutory of psychology and Director of the and Constitutional Protection of 10. A recent report by the Office for Victims of National Crime Victims Research and Victims’ Rights: Implementation and Crime presents recommendations from crime victims, victim advocates, criminal justice Treatment Center at the Medical Uni- Impact on Crime Victims,” by David Beatty, Susan Smith Howley, and practitioners, health professionals, and re- versity of South Carolina (Charleston, searchers. See New Directions from the Field: South Carolina), was the study’s Dean G. Kilpatrick (Washington, D.C., National Victim Center, Victims’ Rights and Services for the 21st Cen- Research Director. David Beatty, J.D., December 20, 1996), are available tury, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Director of Public Policy, National Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 1998. from the National Criminal Justice NCJ170600. Center for Victims of Crime (Arling- Reference Service. Through NIJ’s ton, Virginia), was the Project Direc- Data Resources Program, the data This and other NIJ publications can be tor; Susan Smith Howley, J.D., who generated by the study have been found at and downloaded from the NIJ also contributed to the report, is As- deposited with the National Archive Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij). sistant for Legislative Services at the of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) National Center for Victims of Crime. for public availability. The data can The National Institute of Justice is a The survey interviews were conducted be accessed early in 1999 at the component of the Office of Justice by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucavalas, Web site of the Inter-university Programs, which also includes the Bureau Inc., under the direction of Dr. John Consortium for Political and Social of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Research (ICPSR), which adminis- Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Boyle. The research was conducted ters the NACJD: http:// Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for and the report prepared under a www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/ Victims of Crime. cooperative agreement between the archive.html or by contacting ICPSR, National Center for Victims of Crime University of Michigan, Institute for Findings and conclusions of the research and the National Institute of Justice Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, reported here are those of the authors and do (# 93–IJ–CX–K003). Ann Arbor, MI 48106–1248 (phone not necessarily reflect the official position or 734–998–9900; fax: 734–998–9889; policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. e-mail: [email protected]). NCJ 173839

11 U.S. Department of Justice PRESORTED STANDARD Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID National Institute of Justice DOJ/NIJ PERMIT NO. G–91 Washington, DC 20531

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300