There are no standards to determine how victim harm -psychological trauma, physical harm, and financial loss -- fits into criminal cases, in which the main issue is the defendant's guilt or innocence. Court practitioners -- police, prosecutors, and victim-witness staff -- and victims are interviewed. Their responses indicate that the victim declines as a direct source of information as the case proceeds from the police, to the prosecutor, to the judge. Except in areas where victim-witness programs exist, the degree of harm done to the victim is not effectively communicated throughout the system. Victim harm is not considered as a significant characteristic in screening criminal case factors, nor is it of major importance in sentencing. The most important variable appears to be the personal views of practitioners. Regarding victim satisfaction and improving relations with the courts, keeping victims informed is most often recommended by all groups. Improving social services, frequent use of restitution, and harsher treatment of offenders are also cited. The job of keeping victims informed could be assigned to the police, or to the prosecutor's office, where victim-witness units may be employed. Legislation to facilitate the use of victim-witness programs may improve communications between victims, practitioners, and agencies that aid victims. A victim impact statement, recently federally mandated and being used in some State courts, could provide the judge with first-hand information about the victim's injury and the effects of the crime on the victim's life. Treatment of victims and sensitivity to their requirements can be accommodated to the rights of the defendant and within the court processes. For full text document, refer to NCJ 93664.