Title: The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?

Series: NIJ Research in Brief

Author(s): Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan Smith Howley

Published: December 1998

Subject(s): Victims' rights, victim services, victim/witness

27 pages

48,000 bytes



------------------------------



Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not

included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view

this document in its entirety, download the Adobe

Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site

or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420

(877-712-9279 for TTY users).



------------------------------



U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice



Research in Brief



National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

December 1998



-------------------------------



The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection

Make a Difference? 



by Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan

Smith Howley 



-------------------------------



Issues and Findings



Discussed in this Brief: The impact of legal

protection on crime victims' rights. This survey

of more than 1,300 crime victims, the largest of

its kind, was conducted by the National Center for

Victims of Crime to find out whether State

constitutional amendments and other legal measures

designed to protect crime victims' rights have

been effective. The researchers sought the views

of victims in two States representative of those

in which legal protection of victims' rights is

strong and two States representative of those in

which such protection is weak, testing whether

victims from the "strong-protection States" had

better experiences with the justice system. 



Key issues: All States have some form of statutory

protection of victims' rights, and more than half

have constitutional amendments protecting these

rights. Until this study, little research had been

directed at whether these legal guarantees mean crime

victims are kept informed of the events in their

cases and of their rights as victims, whether they

are adequately notified of services, and whether

they are satisfied with the criminal justice

system's handling of their cases. 



Key findings: Strong victims' rights laws make a

difference, but in many instances, even where

there is strong legal protection, victims' needs are not

fully met. In the two States studied where legal 

protection is strong, victims were more likely

than in the two selected weak-protection States to

be afforded their rights, to be involved, and to

feel the system is responsive. They were more

likely:



--To be notified of events in their cases. 



--To be informed of their rights as crime victims

and of services available. 



--To exercise their rights (though not at all

stages of the criminal justice process). 



--To give high ratings to the criminal justice

system and its various agents, such as the

police. 



Legal protection is not sufficient, however, to

guarantee victims' rights. More than one in four

victims from the two strong-protection States were

very dissatisfied with the criminal justice

system. Nearly half of them were not notified of

the sentence hearing, and they were as 

unlikely as those in weak-protection States to be

informed of plea negotiations. Substantial

proportions of victims in both the strong- and

weak-protection States were not notified of other

rights and services, including the right to be informed

about protection and to discuss the case with the

prosecutor. 



Strong legal protection--either through State

constitutional amendments or other means--

appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient

condition for ensuring the protection of crime

victims' rights, because a host of intervening

factors, such as knowledge, funding, and

enforcement, mediates the actual "delivery"

of victims' rights. 



Target audience: Victims' rights organizations,

criminal justice officials, and other government

officials at State and local levels. 



-------------------------------



The President's Task Force on Victims of Crime

concluded in its 1982 Final Report that there was

a serious imbalance between the rights of criminal

defendants and the rights of crime victims. This

imbalance was viewed as so great that the task

force proposed an amendment to the U.S.

Constitution to provide crime victims with "the

right to be present and to be heard at all

critical stages of judicial proceedings."[1] The

recommended amendment has not been enacted by

Congress, but the report led to a proliferation of

victims' rights legislation at the State level. 



By the early 1990s, every State had enacted

statutory rights for crime victims, and many had

adopted constitutional amendments protecting

victims' rights. Today, all 50 States have passed

some form of a statutory crime victims' bill of

rights, and 29 have amended their constitutions to

include rights for crime victims.[2] At the Federal

level, the Victim's Rights and Protection Act of

1990, and several subsequent statutes, gave

victims of Federal crime many of the rights 

accorded at the State level. 



Despite the widespread adoption of legal

protection, the implementation of such protection

and its impact on victims have not been widely

studied, nor has much research been directed at

how this legislation has influenced victims' views

of the criminal justice system.[3] One reason the

latter issue is important is that victims who view

the criminal justice system unfavorably are likely

to share that opinion with others, thereby

undermining confidence in the system. The current 

debate in the U.S. Congress over a proposed crime

victims' rights constitutional amendment

highlights the relevance of victims' rights

legislation and the need for research in this

area. 



This research project, conducted by the National

Center for Victims of Crime,[4] was designed to test

the hypothesis that the strength of legal

protection for crime victims' rights has a

measurable impact on how victims are treated by

the criminal justice system and on their

perceptions of the system. A related hypothesis

was that victims from States with strong legal

protection would have more favorable experiences

and greater satisfaction with the system than

those from States where legal protection is weak. 



Overall, the research revealed that strong legal

protection makes a difference, but it also revealed

that even in States where legal protection is strong,

some victims are not afforded their rights. In other

words, enactment of State laws and State constitutional

amendments alone appears to be insufficient to guarantee

the full provision of victims' rights in practice. The

likely reason is that a host of other factors mediates the

laws' effects. Thus, although the disparities between strong

and weak victims' rights laws indicate the need to

strengthen legal protection, additional steps may

be necessary to address the other, intervening

factors, to better ensure that the laws have their 

intended effects. 



Assessing the implementation of victims' rights



The experiences of crime victims in the two States

studied where legal protection of victims' rights

is strong were compared with those in the two

States studied where protection is weak. In each

group, the victims were asked whether they 

were afforded their rights in several areas.

Were they kept informed of case proceedings

and their rights as victims? Did they exercise

those rights? Did they receive adequate

notification of available victim services?[5] Did

they receive restitution for the crime committed

against them? They also were asked what losses

they suffered as a result of the crime, 

and they rated their satisfaction with the

criminal justice process and its various

representatives. 



Representatives of the criminal justice system are

the implementors of laws that provide victims

access to information and facilitate victims'

participation in the criminal justice process. For

this reason, officials from various components of

the system, as well as victim assistance

professionals, were asked how much they were aware

of victims' rights and how well they believed these

rights are implemented in their jurisdiction. (For further

details of the study's methodology, including the definition

of "strong-protection" and "weak-protection" States,

see "Measuring the Effectiveness of Victims'

Rights Laws--the Study Design," on page 3.) 



Notification of case events and proceedings 



Perhaps the most fundamental right of a crime

victim is the right to be kept informed by the

criminal justice system. Notification plays a key

role in a victim's ability to participate in the

system because victims cannot participate unless

they are informed of their rights and of the time

and place of the relevant criminal justice

proceedings in which they may exercise those

rights. Victims clearly attested to the importance

of their rights to attend and be heard at

proceedings (see "The Importance of Victims'

Rights to Victims Themselves" on page 4), but

unless they receive notice of proceedings and of

their rights, cannot exercise those rights.



At most points in the criminal justice process,

from arrest through the parole hearing, victims in

strong-protection States were much more likely to

receive advance notification than those in

weak-protection States. (See exhibit 1.) At

certain other points in the process, however, the

difference between the two groups was not

significant. For example, the proportions of

victims who were not informed of plea negotiations

were nearly the same in strong- as in

weak-protection States, despite the fact that both

strong-protection States--but neither

weak-protection State--had a law requiring that

victims be informed of such negotiations. In other

words, the relative strength, and even the

existence, of laws providing this right made no

difference to the provision of the notice.



In other cases, while the strength of the legal

protection for a victim's right did appear to

affect the rate at which the right was provided,

it was not sufficient to ensure that most victims

in fact received the right. For example, far more

victims in strong-protection than weak-protection

States were notified of the defendant's pretrial

release, but more than 60 percent of victims in

those strong-protection States did not receive

such notice. (See exhibit 1.) Similarly, nearly

twice as many victims in strong-protection States

as in weak-protection States were notified in

advance of the sentencing hearing, but more than

40 percent of such victims were not notified. (See

exhibit 1.) Lack of such advance notice would

directly affect the ability of victims to exercise

their rights to attend and/or be heard at such

proceedings.



-------------------------------



Measuring the effectiveness of victims' rights

laws--the study design



The first step in the study was identifying States

that were weak in protecting victims' rights and

those that were strong. Next, crime victims from

two "weak" States and two "strong" States were

asked about their experiences in the criminal

justice process. Their experiences were compared

and contrasted to find out whether there is a

measurable difference in the two groups of States

in victim protection. State and local level

criminal justice professionals, policymakers, and

victim assistance professionals in both groups of

States were asked their opinions of victim

protection, and their responses were also compared

and contrasted.(a)



Selecting strong and weak States. To identify

strong and weak States, a legal analysis of

victims' rights laws in all 50 States was

conducted. Criteria were developed to rate

statutory and State constitutional protection of

victims' rights on the basis of comprehensiveness,

strength, and specificity. The criteria were then

used to rate each State in four areas: (1) the

right to notification, (2) the right to be

present, (3) the right to be heard, and (4) the

right to restitution. Applying these ratings, each

State was ranked according to the strength of its

legal protection of victims' rights. Groups of

strong- and weak-protection States were

identified, and two States from each group were

selected as sites for study. (Both strong States

had constitutional amendments covering victims'

rights, whereas neither weak State did.)



Crime victims' views. From the four States, adult

(age 18 and older) crime victims' names and

locational information were obtained from

department of corrections and victims'

compensation agencies. Of the 2,245 victims who

could be located, 665 (29.6 percent of the

contacted sample) denied that they or a family

member had been a recent victim of crime.(b) Of the

remaining 1,580 respondents, interviews were

completed with 1,308 crime victims (83 percent of

the victims who could be located and disclosed

their victimization). 



The sample consisted of victims of physical

assault (25 percent), robbery (24 percent), sexual

assault (11 percent), other crimes (10 percent),

and relatives of homicide victims (30 percent).(c) 



Interviews were conducted by phone, and

information was obtained about the crime,

experiences with the criminal justice system,

satisfaction with treatment by the system, and

crime-related injuries and losses.(d) Interviews

averaged 40.2 minutes and were conducted between

April and October 1995.



Views of government and victim assistance

professionals. Criminal justice officials, other

government officials, and professionals in victim

assistance organizations were asked their opinions,

perceptions, and suggestions about the rights of

crime victims and crime victim services. These

individuals, 145 at the local level and 53 at the

State level, fell into the following categories:



Local:



Judges*

Prosecutors

Parole and probation officials

Victim assistance coordinators

Victim-witness staff

Defense attorneys

Police and sheriffs



State:

Agency directors

Legislators

Victim coalition directors

Other government officials



*Judges constituted almost half the people

interviewed at the local level.



Can the findings be generalized? By their very

nature, the findings of social science studies

that are not true experiments can establish

relationships among various factors;

more difficult is establishing definitive, 

cause-and-effect relationships. In this study,

strong- and weak-protection States were not

identical in certain factors that might determine

case outcomes or how victims are treated; the

differences may have affected the findings.

Another limitation to generalizing the findings is

that the victims selected for this study were not

a representative sample of all crime victims. That

is because most crimes are not reported to the

police and, if they are, do not progress beyond

the report stage. Because the cases in this study

progressed further, the victims surveyed were

likely to be more satisfied than the average crime

victim. In addition, the legal analysis of State

laws and State constitutional amendments reflected

the situation at a single point in time (January

1, 1992), and many changes in applicable statutes

and constitutional provisions have been made since

then.



a. Unless stated otherwise, chi-square analyses

were used to test differences between the groups

of States. In addition, unless otherwise

indicated, all findings are significant at the

0.05 level or less. Percentages were rounded to

whole numbers. Because not all victims progressed

equally far in the criminal justice process,

percentages are based on the number of victims who

had each type of relevant experience.



b. Failure of crime victims who have reported

crimes to the police to disclose the crime when

contacted by victimization survey interviewers 

is consistent with the results of reverse records

check studies (e.g., Reiss, A.J., Jr., and J.A.

Roth, eds., Understanding and Preventing Violence,

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993:

appendix B).



c. Because the distribution of types of crime

victims differed among the four States, interview

data were weighted by State, using the proportion

of victims in the entire sample as case weights.

Thus, the distribution of crime types in strong

and weak protection States was identical. The

weighted number of crime victims in the sample was

1,312.



d. All interviews were conducted by SRBI, a New

York-based survey research firm, using a

computer-assisted telephone interview procedure.



-------------------------------



The importance of victims' rights to victims

themselves



The right to participate in the process of justice,

including the right to attend criminal proceedings

and to be heard at various points in the criminal

justice process, is important to crime victims.

The researchers reached this conclusion by presenting

victims with the following list of rights and

asking them to rate the importance of each one

(the rights are listed in descending order of

their rating):



--Being informed about whether anyone was

arrested.



--Being involved in the decision to drop the

case.



--Being informed about the defendant's

release on bond.



--Being informed about the date of the earliest

possible release from incarceration.



--Being heard in decisions about the

defendant's release on bond.



--Discussing the case with the prosecutor's

office.



--Discussing whether the defendant's plea to

a lesser charge should be accepted.



--Making a victim's impact statement 

during the defendant's parole hearing. 



--Being present during the grand jury hearing.



--Being present during release hearings.



--Being informed about postponement of grand

jury hearings.



--Making a victim's impact statement 

before sentencing.



--Being involved in the decision about what

sentence should be given.



On each item, more than three-fourths of the

victims rated the particular right as "very

important." Topping the list was the right to be

informed about whether there was an arrest, rated

"very important" by more than 97 percent of the

victims. The sole item rated "very important" by

less than 80 percent was involvement in the

decision about the sentence.



-------------------------------



Notification of their rights as victims 



Crime victims not only need to be notified about

events and proceedings in the criminal justice

process, they also need to be informed of their

legal rights. They need to know, for example, not

only that the trial has been scheduled, but also

that they have a right to discuss the case with

the prosecutor. As expected, there were significant

differences on this score between strong- and

weak-protection States. It was much more common in

the strong-protection States for crime victims to

be notified of their various rights and of the

availability of services. (See exhibit 2.) For example,

almost three-fourths of victims in strong-protection

States were informed of the availability of victim

services, while less than half in weak-protection

States received such information. 



There were similar differences when it came to

being informed of the right to discuss the case

with the prosecutor, make a victim's impact

statement, and make a statement at the parole

hearing. Victims in the strong-protection States

fared better. But again, as with notification of

case-processing events, even in the

strong-protection States large proportions of

crime victims were not notified of their rights and

of available services. Thus, almost 40 percent of

victims in the strong-protection States were not

informed they could make an impact statement at

the parole hearing. 



Exercising their rights



Notifying crime victims in advance of events and

proceedings in the criminal justice process, and

informing them of their rights to participate in

that process, are prerequisites to the exercise of

the rights to participate. Researchers asked crime

victims who indicated they had received such

information whether they had in fact exercised

their rights to attend, make statements at, or

otherwise participate in the criminal justice

process. The responses of victims in

strong-protection and weak-protection States were

then compared. 



At some points in the criminal justice process,

among victims who had received the prerequisite

notice, victims in the strong-protection States

were more likely to exercise their rights than

those in weak-protection States. They were more

likely to make recommendations at bond hearings,

to make recommendations about sentences, and to

make an impact statement at the parole hearing.

(See exhibit 3.) At other stages, such as making

an impact statement at sentencing, or attending the

parole hearings, similar percentages of victims from

both groups of States, who knew of the proceeding

and of their legal rights, exercised those rights.



While the strength of the legal protections of

victims' rights to participate did appear to

influence the numbers of victims who exercised

some rights to participate, victims in both groups

of States were more likely to exercise some rights

than others. For instance, most victims in both

strong- and weak-protection States who were

notified of the sentencing hearing and their

rights to participate attended sentencing hearings

(72 percent) and made an impact statement at

sentencing (93 percent). Relatively few victims in

either group, even when they were aware of their

rights and of the proceeding, exercised their rights to

make recommendations at bond hearings or to attend

parole hearings. (See exhibit 3.)



Obtaining restitution 



Another important area of victims' rights examined

in this study was the right of victims to

restitution--the court orders a convicted defendant

to repay the victim for crime-related economic

losses. Contrary to the hypothesis that judges in

strong-protection States would be more likely to

order restitution whenever a victim had sustained

economic losses, they were significantly less

likely to do so (22 percent, in contrast to 42

percent in the weak-protection States).[6] In the

cases in which restitution was ordered, there was

no significant difference in the percentages of

victims from strong- and weak-protection States

who actually received restitution (37 percent

versus 43 percent). Overall, victims in

strong-protection States who were eligible for

restitution were significantly less likely than

their counterparts in weak-protection States ever

to receive any restitution (8 percent, in contrast

to 18 percent). 



Because these results were contrary to the

hypothesis, exploratory analyses were conducted to

determine if other factors might explain them. The

analyses revealed that defendants in

restitution-eligible cases in strong-protection

States were more likely than those in

weak-protection States to have been incarcerated

(89 percent, in contrast to 72 percent).

Restitution in both groups of States was less

likely to have been ordered in cases involving a

sentence of incarceration. However, the analyses

also revealed that weak-protection States were

significantly more likely to order restitution

than strong-protection States, regardless of

whether the sentence included incarceration (44

percent, in contrast to 23 percent), or did not

include incarceration (61 percent, in contrast to

36 percent). Thus, the analyses were unsuccessful

in identifying the incarceration of convicted

defendants as a reason for the superiority of the

weak-protection States in ordering restitution. 



The most striking finding was the relatively small

percentage of eligible victims overall (less than

20 percent) who received any restitution (whether

ordered or not). The low percentage suggests that

factors other than legislative mandates are

driving whether restitution is paid. When criminal

justice officials were surveyed (see "How the criminal

justice system views crime victims' rights," page

8), they indicated that the factors influencing

the ordering of restitution might include lack of

knowledge about victims' economic losses or the

amount of defendants' assets, lack of knowledge

about the victims' right to restitution, and

opinions about the appropriateness of ordering

restitution.



Rating the criminal justice process and its agents



Crime victims need to have confidence in the

criminal justice process. To measure their level

of confidence, the researchers asked them to

assess the adequacy of criminal justice system

performance at several points in the criminal

justice process. Again, the findings were

consistent with the hypothesis: victims who came

from States where legal protection is strong were

more likely to rate the system favorably. (See

exhibit 4.) Still, the comparative figures cannot

conceal the fact that many victims, even in States

where legal protection is strong, gave the system

very negative ratings. 



Rating the outcome of the case. As predicted by

the hypothesis, victims in weak-protection States

were more likely to believe the fairness of the

sentence was "completely inadequate" (the lowest

rating). However, a sizeable minority of victims

in the strong-protection States also believed the

sentence imposed was "completely inadequate" 

(34 percent in weak-protection versus 25 percent

in strong-protection States).



Similarly, more than one in four victims from

weak-protection States and one in five from

strong-protection States believed the fairness of

the verdict or plea was completely inadequate. More

than 25 percent of victims from weak-protection

States and 15 percent from strong-protection

States felt the speed of the process was

completely inadequate. Finally, 22 percent of

victims from weak-protection States and 15 percent

from strong-protection States said support

services for victims were completely inadequate. 



These negative ratings are particularly noteworthy

in view of the fact that, from the victims'

perspective, the outcomes of these cases were much

more favorable than most; that is, a higher than usual

proportion resulted in a plea or verdict of guilty that led 

to incarceration of the defendant. Clearly, to

many crime victims, even in cases resulting in a

conviction and imprisonment of the defendant, the

criminal justice process did not meet their

expectations. 



Rating the system and its agents. Victims gave

high marks to the various agents of the criminal

justice system, such as the police. Again, victims

in the strong-protection States tended to be more

satisfied than those in the weak-protection

States. But the proportions who said they were

very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the

performance of police, prosecutors, victim/witness

agency staff, and judges were high across the

board, irrespective of the strength of legal

protection. Thus, in the strong-protection States,

83 percent of the victims were very or somewhat

satisfied with the police and, at 77 percent, the

proportion in the weak-protection States was

similarly high. (See exhibit 5.) 



The criminal justice system overall was rated

somewhat lower than each of its component

representatives: Only 55 percent of victims in

strong-protection States and 47 percent in

weak-protection States were very satisfied or

somewhat satisfied with it. At the other end of

the scale, the proportion of victims expressing

strong dissatisfaction with the system was

relatively high--more than one-fourth of the

victims in the strong-protection States and more

than one-third in the weak-protection States.



What explains victims' satisfaction levels 



Knowing whether and to what extent crime victims

are satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the criminal

justice system is not the same as knowing why. To

shed light on the issue, three scales were

constructed, each of which comprised several

questions asked of victims. The scales measured

overall satisfaction with the criminal justice

system, the extent to which victims thought they

were informed of their rights, and victims'

perceptions of the effectiveness of their impact

statements. They were called, respectively, the

Victim Satisfaction Scale, the Informed Victim

Scale, and the Victims' Impact Scale. 



As measured by the Victim Satisfaction Scale,

satisfaction with the criminal justice system was

greater among female than male victims, among

white than African-American victims, and among

higher income than lower income victims. Age made

no difference. As expected, in the strong-protection

States the Victim Satisfaction Scale scores were higher

than in the weak-protection States, and this was true 

after controlling for the effects of gender, race, and

income level.



Are victims more satisfied if they are informed of

their rights? And are they more satisfied if they

believe their participation in the system has had an 

impact on the decision process? To answer the first

question, Victim Satisfaction Scale scores were analyzed

in relation to the Informed Victim Scale scores, with the

results revealing a strong correlation between the two:

victims who were informed of their rights were

more satisfied with the justice system than those

who were not. To answer the second question, the

Victim Satisfaction Scales were again analyzed,

this time in relation to the Victims' Impact Scale

scores. Again, the analysis revealed a strong

correlation, indicating that victims who thought

their participation had an impact on their cases

were more satisfied with the system. 



Crime-related physical, financial, and mental 

health problems



Crime victims experience a variety of losses

relating to the crime. They may sustain physical

or psychological injuries, with some victims

requiring counseling. They may lose money or

suffer property destruction, loss, or damage.

Victims may lose time from work or school as a

result of their injuries or as a consequence of

time spent consulting with law enforcement or

prosecutors, or attendance at court proceedings.



Whether they were from weak- or strong-protection

States, victims reported several major crime-related

losses. For certain kinds of losses--property damage or

destruction, property or monetary loss, time away

from work or school to consult with the police,

and canceled insurance coverage or increased

premiums--strong legal protection made no

difference, because victims in both weak- and

strong-protection States were equally affected.

(See exhibit 6.) For other kinds of problems

resulting from the crime--time lost from work or

school because of injuries and receiving medical

treatment for those injuries--victims from the

weak-protection States were more likely to be

affected. But victims in strong-protection States

were more likely to note a loss of time from work

or school because of consultations with

prosecutors, attending trial, or receiving

counseling. This could be viewed not so much as a

greater problem than as a greater opportunity:

Although the time these victims lost cannot be

discounted, they spent it participating in the

justice system and obtaining services. 



How the criminal justice system views crime

victims' rights



This study also included a survey of criminal

justice and victim assistance professionals at the

State and local levels. There were two reasons for

their inclusion. The first is that those

professionals can affect crime victims' ability to

recover and to cope with the aftermath of the

offense and the stress of participation in the

criminal justice system. The average citizen,

newly thrust into the criminal justice system as a

victim of crime, often has little understanding of

the basic workings of the system. Representatives

of the various components of the criminal justice

system and victim assistance professionals can play

key roles in helping facilitate access and understanding

as cases progress.



There was another important rationale for

surveying such professionals. The survey of crime

victims produced a wealth of data on whether the

strength of victims' rights laws influenced the

rate at which victims received their rights and on

victims' satisfaction with the criminal justice

system. However, it could not suggest reasons that

laws might or might not produce such an 

effect. Local and State professionals were

surveyed to begin to explore such reasons.[7] 

The data produced by these surveys inform the

discussion of influences on the implementation of

victims' rights, and suggest additional avenues

for research.



Thus, State and local officials and advocates were

surveyed to determine the extent to which they

were aware of the legal rights of victims, their

views of how victims' rights are ensured, and

their thinking about what further steps may be

necessary to strengthen the protection of victims'

rights. The interviews with such officials

revealed much the same pattern as the interviews

with victims: strong legal protection tended to

translate in practice as greater implementation of

those rights, but in many cases did not guarantee

the provision of such rights. 



Views of local criminal justice and victim service

professionals. If the local officials came from

strong-protection States, they were more likely than

those from weak-protection States to say they "always"

or "usually" provide crime victims with their rights to

notification of events in the case, to be present at the

various stages of the criminal justice process, and to be

heard. These local officials were also about one-third

more likely than their counterparts in weak-protection

States to believe that victims' rights

are "adequate." 



Yet, large proportions of local criminal justice

officials, even from States where legal protection

is strong, were not aware of many victims' rights

and how they are being provided. For example, only

39 percent of the local professionals in the

strong-protection States knew that their State had

a constitutional amendment enumerating victims'

rights. For a majority of questions about victims'

rights, a substantial number of officials

incorrectly identified the source of the victims'

right as a policy or practice, rather than a

statute or State constitutional amendment. Many

officials were also unclear about which agency had

the duty to provide victims a given right.



State leaders' views. The opinions of State

leaders indicate the extent to which crime victims'

rights have achieved understanding and acceptability

at high levels of government. At the State level,

awareness of legally mandated victims' rights tends

to be higher than it is locally. Such leaders as governors,

attorneys general, heads of State criminal justice agencies,

and heads of State crime victims' organizations

generally were aware of the status of victims' rights and

the challenges of implementing them. 



At the State level, as at the local level, strong

legal protection made a difference, though not in

all respects. Leaders from the strong States were

more likely to believe their criminal justice

system was performing well, particularly in

protecting victims' rights. However, even where

legal protection was strong, a large majority also

indicated they were aware of problems victims are

experiencing in obtaining benefits and services.

The problems most frequently cited had to do with

victim notification. 



Barriers to implementation



Criminal justice and victim advocate professionals

at the State and local levels were asked for their

suggestions for improving the provision of

victims' rights. Their responses basically fell

into three groups: increased funding, increased

training, and increased enforcement of victims' rights. 



Resource limitations were cited by officials as

the most common reason for being unable to fulfill

their responsibilities. Local officials from the

strong-protection States were more likely than

those from weak-protection States to believe that

funding for the implementation of victims' rights

was adequate. (In the strong-protection States, 55

percent of local officials, in contrast to 34

percent in the weak-protection States, felt

funding for victim services was adequate; 39

percent in the strong-protection States, but only

27 percent in the weak-protection States, felt

funding for implementation of victims' rights was

adequate.) At the same time, a considerable

percentage of these local leaders, even those from

the strong-protection States, believed funding for

victim services was very inadequate (15 percent,

and 35 percent of those in the weak-protection

States). 



When asked if their office had funding for use in

victim services programs or for implementing

victims' rights, only about one-third of all

officials at the local level said it had (and

there was little difference between the weak- and

the strong-protection States). What is more, very

few of those without funding said they had

actively sought it in the previous year.



At the State level, officials offered a similar

assessment of funding; that is, those from

strong-protection States were more likely to

believe that funding was adequate than were those 

from weak-protection States. (Half the State

leaders in strong-protection States, in contrast

to 31 percent in the weak-protection States,

believed funding for implementation of victims'

rights was adequate.) The State leaders also cited

increased funding--specifically for additional

staff (victim/witness coordinators and criminal

justice staff)--more often than any other need.

And whether they were from States with weak or

strong legal protection, these leaders most often

cited increased funding or staffing when they were

asked how they would minimize problems in

providing victims' services. 



In prioritizing suggestions to improve the

treatment of crime victims in their criminal

justice systems, leaders in weak-protection States

most frequently named the establishment,

enhancement, and/or enforcement of victims' rights

laws as their top priority; increased funding was

a secondary priority. By contrast, among leaders

in the strong-protection States, the largest

percentage of responses dealt with issues of

increased funding and resources for victim-related

services and programs, followed by the need for

better education of criminal justice officials regarding

victims' rights.



What more needs to be done 



The findings offer support for the position of

those who advocate strengthening legal protection

of crime victims' rights. Where legal protection

is strong, victims are more likely to be aware of

their rights, to participate in the criminal

justice system, to view criminal justice system

officials favorably, and to express more overall

satisfaction with the system. Moreover, the levels

of overall satisfaction in strong-protection

States are higher. Strong legal protection

produces greater victim involvement and better

experiences with the justice system. A more

favorable perception of the agents of the system--

police, prosecutors, victim/witness staff, and

judges--is another benefit. Because strong legal

protection at the State level is associated with

victim awareness, participation, and satisfaction,

some have advocated a Federal constitutional

amendment to protect victims' rights. 



On the other hand, legal protections per se,

regardless of their relative strength in State law

or State constitutions, are not always enough to

ensure victims' rights. As the study revealed,

even in States where victims' rights were

protected strongly by law, many victims were not

notified about key hearings and proceedings, many

were not given the opportunity to be heard, and

few received restitution. In the strong-protection

States examined in this study, more than one in

four victims were very dissatisfied with the

criminal justice system as a whole.



Mediating factors. Several mediating factors were

identified as influencing the provision of

victims' rights, beyond the strength of the

statute or State constitutional amendment. The

first among these is knowledge of victims' rights.

The survey of local criminal justice officials and

victim service professionals revealed a lack of

awareness of victims' rights and how those rights

are implemented. The level of criminal justice

officials' and victims' knowledge of victims'

rights influences their conduct with respect to

those rights. Criminal justice officials are not

likely to enforce victims' rights laws if they are

unaware they exist. They may be less likely to

seek funding for services they do not know they

have a duty to provide. Victims are unlikely to

attempt to assert rights they do not know they

have. 



Even when criminal justice officials know what the

law requires of them, they may not have the means

to carry out their duties. Victims' rights can be

ensured only if resources are sufficient, and

resource limitations were cited by officials as

the most common reason for being unable to fulfill

their duties under the law. It can be assumed that

there is a relationship between the strength of

legal mandates and the provision of funding to

implement those mandates. In other words, it is

reasonable to assume that States with stronger

legal mandates for the provision of victims'

rights tend to provide more funds for

implementation than States with weaker mandates.

While this study did not attempt to measure the

actual levels of funding, officials in the States

with strong legal protections of victims' rights

were more likely to believe that funding was

adequate. 



Finally, even where strong laws exist and are

fully understood, and where resources are

adequate, there may be a need for additional

enforcement mechanisms to ensure that victims

are given their rights. While some enforcement

mechanisms may involve giving victims the power

to assert their legal rights, others might involve

procedures that better allow criminal justice agencies

to monitor their own compliance with victims' rights

laws.



Strengthening victim protection. In view of these

considerations, the States and/or the criminal

justice system can take several steps, on a

variety of fronts, to strengthen victim

protection:[8]



--Keep victims informed, provide them with

opportunities for input, and consider that

input carefully for, as the study revealed,

informed victims, and those who thought their

input had influenced criminal justice

decisions, were more likely to be satisfied

with the criminal justice system.



--Make changes to ensure that restitution is

ordered, monitored, paid, and received.[9]



--Offer criminal justice officials and crime

victims additional education about victims'

rights and their legal mandates. 



--Take steps to seek and ensure adequate

funding for victims' services and the

implementation of victims' rights.



--Institute mechanisms to monitor the

provision of victims' rights by criminal

justice officials whose duty is to implement

the law, and provide a means by which victims

who are denied their rights can enforce those

rights.[10] 



-------------------------------



Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., professor of psychology

and Director of the National Crime Victims Research

and Treatment Center at the Medical University of

South Carolina (Charleston, South Carolina), was the

study's Research Director. David Beatty, J.D., Director

of Public Policy, National Center for Victims of

Crime (Arlington, Virginia), was the Project

Director; Susan Smith Howley, J.D., who also

contributed to the report, is Assistant for

Legislative Services at the National Center for

Victims of Crime. The survey interviews were

conducted by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucavalas, Inc.,

under the direction of Dr. John Boyle. The

research was conducted and the report prepared

under a cooperative agreement between the National Center

for Victims of Crime and the National Institute of

Justice (# 93-IJ-CX-K003). 



-------------------------------



Copies of the full report, "Statutory and

Constitutional Protection of  Victims' Rights:

Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims,"

by David Beatty, Susan Smith Howley, and

Dean G. Kilpatrick (Washington, D.C.,

National Victim Center, December 20, 1996), are

available from the National Criminal Justice

Reference Service. Through NIJ's Data Resources

Program, the data generated by the study have been

deposited with the National Archive of Criminal

Justice Data (NACJD) for public availability.

The data can be accessed early in 1999 at the Web

site of the Inter-university Consortium for Political

and Social Research (ICPSR), which administers the

NACJD: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/archive.html

or by contacting ICPSR, University of Michigan,

Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, Ann

Arbor, MI 48106-1248 (phone 734-998-9900; fax:

734-998-9889; e-mail: netmail@icpsr.umich.edu).



-------------------------------



Notes



1. President's Task Force on Victims of Crime

Final Report, Washington, D.C.: President's Task

Force on Victims of Crime, December 1982:114.



2. For current information about the status of

crime victims' rights laws, contact the National

Center for Victims of Crime at 2111 Wilson

Boulevard, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201

(703-276-2880).



3. For a recent review of research, see Kelly,

D.P., and Erez, E., "Victim Participation in the

Criminal Justice System," in R.C. Davis, A. J.

Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of Crime

(second edition), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage,

1997. Currently under way is a survey, conducted

by the Council of State Governments, Eastern

Regional Conference, of the attitudes of citizens,

including crime victims, toward the criminal justice

system. The survey, which will cover 10 Northeastern

States, will cover the extent and nature of victimization,

perceptions of victims' rights and victims'

services, and victims' experiences in reporting

crime.



4. Formerly the National Victim Center.



5. The term "victim services" refers to a wide

range of programs and policies (such as crisis

counseling, transportation, and employer

intercession) that provide assistance directly to

crime victims.



6. Restitution-eligible cases are those in which

the victims sustained economic losses and the

defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted.

Findings are significant at the .05 level or less.



7. Because in this part of the analysis the sample

size for each type of State was relatively small,

the data were not subjected to the same type of

statistical analysis as were the data from

victims.



8. The Council of State Governments-Eastern

Regional Conference (see note 3) is currently

planning a regional conference that will address

such issues as identifying victim issues that

could be addressed through legislation, modifying

existing victims' rights legislation, and

developing model legislation that could meet crime

victims' needs. 



9. There is a useful discussion of restitution 

issues in "Making Victims Whole Again," by B.E.

Smith and S. W. Hillenbrand, in R.C. Davis, A. J.

Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of Crime. 



10. A recent report by the Office for Victims of

Crime presents recommendations from crime victims,

victim advocates, criminal justice practitioners,

health professionals, and researchers. See New

Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and

Services for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of

Crime, 1998. NCJ170600. 



-------------------------------



This and other NIJ publications can be found at

and downloaded from the NIJ Web site

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).



-------------------------------



The National Institute of Justice is a component

of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and

the Office for Victims of Crime.



-------------------------------



Findings and conclusions of the research 

reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 



NCJ 173839