It first summarizes the reforms and then reports on whether or not they are working. It highlights the recent U.S. Supreme Court turnabout on the admissibility of victim-impact testimony and suggests that much of the opposition to victims' reforms is misguided. Victim-related statutes have focused on victim financial compensation, including restitution; victim participation in parole hearings, plea bargaining, sentencing, and other aspects of case proceedings; closed-circuit televised testimony for child victims/witnesses; and laws that aim to provide increased protection for victims of domestic violence. Although many laws have mandated the increased participation of victims in case processing, studies show that relatively few victims have taken advantage of these new opportunities. The U.S. Supreme Court has reinstituted the use of victim-impact testimony in capital cases. The Court also rejected its previous conclusion in Booth v. Maryland that victim-impact testimony could skew sentencing decisions to favor articulate, high-status victims and their families. Although many attorneys are convinced that any gain for victims must invade and undermine defendants' rights, empirical studies suggest that victim participation in case processing does not produce harsher sentences for offenders.