NT OF ME J T US U.S. Department of Justice 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 Rights of Crime 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 State constitutional amend- Crime concluded in its 1982 Final Re- tims who view the criminal justice 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 amendment to the posed crime victims’ rights constitutional which legal protection of victims’ U.S. Constitution 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 legislation and the need 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 amendments 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’ bill 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 statutes, 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 laws 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. needs 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 police. 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 law 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 information 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 jurisdiction. (For further to ensure that most victims in fact re- about protection and to discuss the details of the study’s methodology, includ- ceived the right. For example, far more case with the prosecutor. 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.