On the one hand, republican criminology argues that victim advocacy is a liberating force in the criminal process through which victim advocates can promote a more responsive criminal justice system. Republican criminology is based on the premise that the influence victim advocacy groups wield will serve the interests of reintegrative crime control policies. On the other hand, opponents of legislation such as the CPA argue that victim advocates promote punitive policies that empower the State, deprive offenders of their constitutional rights, and divert attention from crime causes to crime symptoms. In this case, victim advocates mobilized public opinion to demand strong preventive measures against sexual violence. However, the authors conclude that the advocates were not "uncompromising crusaders" for punitive responses to sexual assault, nor did they take control of the legislative process. The legislators incorporated a number of procedural safeguards into the civil commitment process, requiring a trial before incarceration, treatment during incarceration, and continuing opportunities for sexual offenders to prove their rehabilitation. Nonetheless, the victim advocacy groups did display a tendency to sacrifice due process in the name of crime control. Politicians are faulted in this report for failing to provide adequate funding to carry out the preventive measures they legislated. 10 notes and 39 references