U.S.

Department of Justice RT
ME
NT OF J
US

PA

TI
CE
DE
Office of Justice Programs

BJ A C E

G OVC
MS
OF F

RA
IJ

N
I

S
J
O F OJJ D P B RO
National Institute of Justice J US T I C E P

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’
rights. This survey of more than 1,300
Legal Protection Make a Difference?
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
States” had better experiences with Congress, but the report led to a prolif- National Center for Victims of Crime,4
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
ings (see “The Importance of Victims’
They were more likely: victims’ rights Rights to Victims Themselves” on page
● To be notified of events in their The experiences of crime victims in the 4), but unless they receive notice of pro-
cases. two States studied where legal protection ceedings and of their rights, cannot exer-
of victims’ rights is strong were compared cise those rights.
● To be informed of their rights with those in the two States studied
as crime victims and of services where protection is weak. In each group, At most points in the criminal justice
available. the victims were asked whether they process, from arrest through the parole
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-
they suffered as a result of the crime, formed of plea negotiations were nearly
Legal protection is not sufficient, the same in strong- as in weak-protec-
however, to guarantee victims’ and they rated their satisfaction with the
criminal justice process and its various tion States, despite the fact that both
rights. More than one in four victims strong-protection States—but neither
from the two strong-protection representatives.
weak-protection State—had a law requir-
States were very dissatisfied with the ing that victims be informed of such ne-
Representatives of the criminal justice
criminal justice system. Nearly half of gotiations. In other words, the relative
system are the implementors of laws that
them were not notified of the sen- strength, and even the existence, of laws
provide victims access to information and
tence hearing, and they were as providing this right made no difference
facilitate victims’ participation in the
unlikely as those in weak-protection to the provision of the notice.
criminal justice process. For this reason,
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.
actual “delivery” of victims’ rights. formed by the criminal justice system.
Notification plays a key role in a victim’s (See exhibit 1.) Lack of such advance
Target audience: Victims’ rights
organizations, criminal justice offi-
cials, and other government officials
at State and local levels. 2
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Measuring the effectiveness of victims’ rights laws—the study design

T he first step in the study was iden-

tifying States that were weak in protecting
views were completed with 1,308 crime vic-
tims (83 percent of the victims who could be
cause-and-effect relationships. In this study,
strong- and weak-protection States were
victims’ rights and those that were strong. located and disclosed their victimization). not identical in certain factors that might
Next, crime victims from two “weak” determine case outcomes or how victims
States and two “strong” States were The sample consisted of victims of physical are treated; the differences may have af-
asked about their experiences in the crimi- assault (25 percent), robbery (24 percent), fected the findings. Another limitation to
nal justice process. Their experiences were sexual assault (11 percent), other crimes generalizing the findings is that the victims
compared and contrasted to find out (10 percent), and relatives of homicide vic- selected for this study were not a represen-
whether there is a measurable difference tims (30 percent).c tative sample of all crime victims. That is be-
in the two groups of States in victim pro- cause most crimes are not reported to the
Interviews were conducted by phone, and
tection. State and local level criminal jus- police and, if they are, do not progress be-
information was obtained about the crime,
tice professionals, policymakers, and victim yond the report stage. Because the cases in
experiences with the criminal justice system,
assistance professionals in both groups of this study progressed further, the victims
satisfaction with treatment by the system,
States were asked their opinions of victim surveyed were likely to be more satisfied
and crime-related injuries and losses.d Inter-
protection, and their responses were also than the average crime victim. In addition,
views averaged 40.2 minutes and were con-
compared and contrasted.a the legal analysis of State laws and State
ducted between April and October 1995.
constitutional amendments reflected the
Selecting strong and weak States. To situation at a single point in time (January
Views of government and victim assis-
identify strong and weak States, a legal 1, 1992), and many changes in applicable
tance professionals. Criminal justice
analysis of victims’ rights laws in all 50 statutes and constitutional provisions have
officials, other government officials, and pro-
States was conducted. Criteria were devel- been made since then.
fessionals in victim assistance organizations
oped to rate statutory and State constitu-
were asked their opinions, perceptions, and
tional protection of victims’ rights on the a. Unless stated otherwise, chi-square analyses
suggestions about the rights of crime victims were used to test differences between the
basis of comprehensiveness, strength, and
and crime victim services. These individuals, groups of States. In addition, unless otherwise
specificity. The criteria were then used to
145 at the local level and 53 at the State indicated, all findings are significant at the 0.05
rate each State in four areas: (1) the right to level or less. Percentages were rounded to whole
level, fell into the following categories:
notification, (2) the right to be present, (3) numbers. Because not all victims progressed
the right to be heard, and (4) the right to Local State equally far in the criminal justice process, per-
restitution. Applying these ratings, each centages are based on the number of victims
State was ranked according to the strength Judges* Agency directors who had each type of relevant experience.

of its legal protection of victims’ rights. Prosecutors Legislators b. Failure of crime victims who have reported
Groups of strong- and weak-protection crimes to the police to disclose the crime when
Parole and probation Victim coalition
States were identified, and two States from contacted by victimization survey interviewers
officials directors is consistent with the results of reverse records
each group were selected as sites for study.
Victim assistance Other government check studies (e.g., Reiss, A.J., Jr., and J.A.
(Both strong States had constitutional
Roth, eds., Understanding and Preventing Vio-
amendments covering victims’ rights, coordinators officials lence, Washington, D.C.: National Academy
whereas neither weak State did.) Victim-witness staff Press, 1993: appendix B).

Crime victims’ views. From the four Defense attorneys c. Because the distribution of types of crime
States, adult (age 18 and older) crime vic- victims differed among the four States, inter-
Police and sheriffs view data were weighted by State, using the
tims’ names and locational information
proportion of victims in the entire sample as
were obtained from department of correc- *Judges constituted almost half the people
case weights. Thus, the distribution of crime
tions and victims’ compensation agencies. interviewed at the local level. types in strong and weak protection States was
Of the 2,245 victims who could be lo- identical. The weighted number of crime vic-
Can the findings be generalized? By their tims in the sample was 1,312.
cated, 665 (29.6 percent of the contacted
very nature, the findings of social science
sample) denied that they or a family mem- d. All interviews were conducted by SRBI, a New
studies that are not true experiments can
ber had been a recent victim of crime.b Of York-based survey research firm, using a com-
establish relationships among various factors;
the remaining 1,580 respondents, inter- puter-assisted telephone interview procedure.
more difficult is establishing definitive,

3
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

The importance of victims’ rights to victims themselves

T he right to participate in the pro-

cess of justice, including the right to attend
● Being informed about the date of the ear-
liest possible release from incarceration.
● Making a victim’s impact statement
before sentencing.
criminal proceedings and to be heard at
various points in the criminal justice pro- ● Being heard in decisions about the ● Being involved in the decision about
cess, is important to crime victims. The defendant’s release on bond. what sentence should be given.
researchers reached this conclusion by pre-
● Discussing the case with the prosecutor’s On each item, more than three-fourths of
senting victims with the following list of
office. the victims rated the particular right as
rights and asking them to rate the impor-
“very important.” Topping the list was the
tance of each one:a ● Discussing whether the defendant’s plea right to be informed about whether there
to a lesser charge should be accepted. was an arrest, rated “very important” by
● Being informed about whether anyone
was arrested. more than 97 percent of the victims. The
● Making a victim’s impact statement
sole item rated “very important” by less
during the defendant’s parole hearing.
● Being involved in the decision to drop than 80 percent was involvement in the
the case. ● Being present during the grand jury hearing. decision about the sentence.

● Being informed about the defendant’s ● Being present during release hearings. a. The rights are listed in descending order of
release on bond. their rating.
● Being informed about postponement of
grand jury hearings.

notice would directly affect the ability

of victims to exercise their rights to Exhibit 1. Notification of events in the case—percentage notified
attend and/or be heard at such pro-
ceedings. Event/Proceeding

Notification of their rights Arrest of perpetrator

as victims
Bond hearing
Crime victims not only need to be noti-
fied about events and proceedings in Pretrial release of defendant
the criminal justice process, they also
need to be informed of their legal Trial scheduling
rights. They need to know, for ex-
ample, not only that the trial has been Sentencing hearing
scheduled, but also that they have a
right to discuss the case with the Parole hearings
prosecutor. As expected, there were
significant differences on this score Plea negotiations*
between strong- and weak-protection
States. It was much more common in Dismissal of charges*
the strong-protection States for crime
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
victims to be notified of their various
rights and of the availability of Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States
services. (See exhibit 2.) For example,
almost three-fourths of victims in
strong-protection States were informed * Difference between groups is not statistically significant.
of the availability of victim services,

4
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

while less than half in weak-protection of the rights to participate. Research- groups of States, who knew of the pro-
States received such information. ers asked crime victims who indicated ceeding and of their legal rights, exer-
they had received such information cised those rights.
There were similar differences when it whether they had in fact exercised
came to being informed of the right to their rights to attend, make statements While the strength of the legal protec-
discuss the case with the prosecutor, at, or otherwise participate in the tions of victims’ rights to participate
make a victim’s impact statement, and criminal justice process. The re- did appear to influence the numbers of
make a statement at the parole hearing. sponses of victims in strong-protection victims who exercised some rights to
Victims in the strong-protection States and weak-protection States were then participate, victims in both groups of
fared better. But again, as with notifica- compared. States were more likely to exercise
tion of case-processing events, even in some rights than others. For instance,
the strong-protection States large pro- At some points in the criminal justice most victims in both strong- and weak-
portions of crime victims were not process, among victims who had re- protection States who were notified of
notified of their rights and of available ceived the prerequisite notice, victims the sentencing hearing and their rights
services. Thus, almost 40 percent of in the strong-protection States were to participate attended sentencing
victims in the strong-protection States more likely to exercise their rights hearings (72 percent) and made an im-
were not informed they could make an than those in weak-protection States. pact statement at sentencing (93 per-
impact statement at the parole hearing. They were more likely to make recom- cent). Relatively few victims in either
mendations at bond hearings, to make group, even when they were aware of
Exercising their rights recommendations about sentences, their rights and of the proceeding,
and to make an impact statement at exercised their rights to make recom-
Notifying crime victims in advance of the parole hearing. (See exhibit 3.) mendations at bond hearings or to at-
events and proceedings in the criminal At other stages, such as making an tend parole hearings. (See exhibit 3.)
justice process, and informing them of impact statement at sentencing, or
their rights to participate in that pro- attending the parole hearings, similar Obtaining restitution
cess, are prerequisites to the exercise percentages of victims from both
Another important area of victims’
rights examined in this study was the
right of victims to restitution–the court
Exhibit 2. Notification of services and rights—percentage notified orders a convicted defendant to repay
the victim for crime-related economic
Right
losses. Contrary to the hypothesis that
judges in strong-protection States
Availability of would be more likely to order restitu-
victim services tion whenever a victim had sustained
economic losses, they were signifi-
cantly less likely to do so (22 percent,
Right to discuss case in contrast to 42 percent in the weak-
with prosecutor protection States).6 In the cases in
which restitution was ordered, there
was no significant difference in the
Right to make percentages of victims from strong-
impact statement and weak-protection States who actu-
ally received restitution (37 percent
versus 43 percent). Overall, victims in
Right to make impact strong-protection States who were eli-
statement at parole hearing gible for restitution were significantly
less likely than their counterparts in
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 weak-protection States ever to receive
any restitution (8 percent, in contrast
Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States to 18 percent).

Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less.

5
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

opinions about the appropriateness of

Exhibit 3. Exercising their rights as victims—percentage exercising
ordering restitution.
their right a

Rating the criminal justice

Right Exercised
process and its agents
Make recommendations
at bond hearings
Crime victims need to have confidence
in the criminal justice process. To
Testify in court
measure their level of confidence, the
Make recommendations researchers asked them to assess the
about sentences adequacy of criminal justice system
Make impact statements performance at several points in the
at parole hearing
criminal justice process. Again, the
Attend grand jury hearings b findings were consistent with the hy-
Discuss plea agreements pothesis: victims who came from States
with prosecutors b where legal protection is strong were
Attend sentencing hearings b more likely to rate the system favor-
ably. (See exhibit 4.) Still, the com-
Make impact statement
at sentencing b
parative figures cannot conceal the
fact that many victims, even in States
Attend parole hearing b
where legal protection is strong, gave
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 the system very negative ratings.

Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States Rating the outcome of the case. As

predicted by the hypothesis, victims in
weak-protection States were more likely
a. In each case, percentages are based on number of relevant cases. For example, the percentages that to believe the fairness of the sentence
attended the grand jury hearing were based on the number of victims who knew of the hearing; the was “completely inadequate” (the low-
percentages who testified in court were based on the number of cases that went to trial. est rating). However, a sizeable minor-
b. Difference between groups is not statistically significant. ity of victims in the strong-protection
States also believed the sentence im-
Because these results were contrary to fying the incarceration of convicted posed was “completely inadequate”
the hypothesis, exploratory analyses defendants as a reason for the superi- (34 percent in weak-protection versus
were conducted to determine if other ority of the weak-protection States in 25 percent in strong-protection States).
factors might explain them. The analy- ordering restitution. Similarly, more than one in four vic-
ses revealed that defendants in restitu- tims from weak-protection States and
tion-eligible cases in strong-protection The most striking finding was the rela-
tively small percentage of eligible vic- one in five from strong-protection
States were more likely than those in States believed the fairness of the
weak-protection States to have been tims overall (less than 20 percent) who
received any restitution (whether or- verdict or plea was completely inad-
incarcerated (89 percent, in contrast to equate. More than 25 percent of vic-
72 percent). Restitution in both groups dered or not). The low percentage sug-
gests that factors other than legislative tims from weak-protection States and
of States was less likely to have been 15 percent from strong-protection
ordered in cases involving a sentence mandates are driving whether restitu-
tion is paid. When criminal justice States felt the speed of the process was
of incarceration. However, the analy- completely inadequate. Finally, 22
ses also revealed that weak-protection officials were surveyed (see “How the
criminal justice system views crime percent of victims from weak-protec-
States were significantly more likely to tion States and 15 percent from strong-
order restitution than strong-protection victims’ rights,” page 8), they indi-
cated that the factors influencing the protection States said support services
States, regardless of whether the sen- for victims were completely inad-
tence included incarceration (44 per- ordering of restitution might include
lack of knowledge about victims’ eco- equate.
cent, in contrast to 23 percent), or did
not include incarceration (61 percent, nomic losses or the amount of defen- These negative ratings are particularly
in contrast to 36 percent). Thus, the dants’ assets, lack of knowledge about noteworthy in view of the fact that,
analyses were unsuccessful in identi- the victims’ right to restitution, and from the victims’ perspective, the

6
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

outcomes of these cases were much

Exhibit 4. Victims rate criminal justice processing—percentage who rate
more favorable than most; that is, a
it more than adequate or completely inadequate*
higher than usual proportion resulted
in a plea or verdict of guilty that led
to incarceration of the defendant. Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States
Clearly, to many crime victims, even
in cases resulting in a conviction and More Than Completely More Than Completely
imprisonment of the defendant, the Aspect of Processing Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate
criminal justice process did not meet Efforts to apprehend 44 6 27 11
their expectations. the perpetrator

Rating the system and its agents. Efforts to inform the 29 9 13 19

family about progress
Victims gave high marks to the various
on the case
agents of the criminal justice system,
such as the police. Again, victims in Their ability to have 21 15 9 25
the strong-protection States tended to input in the case
be more satisfied than those in the Thoroughness of 28 10 14 20
weak-protection States. But the pro- case preparation
portions who said they were very satis-
Fairness of the trial 20 11 10 20
fied or somewhat satisfied with the
performance of police, prosecutors, Fairness of the 17 21 6 28
victim/witness agency staff, and judges verdict or plea
were high across the board, irrespec- Fairness of sentence 14 25 5 34
tive of the strength of legal protection.
Speed of the process 17 15 6 27
Thus, in the strong-protection States,
83 percent of the victims were very or Support services 16 15 8 22
somewhat satisfied with the police
and, at 77 percent, the proportion in * The ratings continuum was “more than adequate,” “adequate,” “somewhat less than adequate,”
the weak-protection States was simi- and “completely inadequate.”
larly high. (See exhibit 5.) Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less.
The criminal justice system overall was
rated somewhat lower than each of its
were constructed, each of which com- States the Victim Satisfaction Scale
component representatives: Only 55
prised several questions asked of vic- scores were higher than in the weak-
percent of victims in strong-protection
tims. The scales measured overall protection States, and this was true
States and 47 percent in weak-protec-
satisfaction with the criminal justice after controlling for the effects of
tion States were very satisfied or some-
system, the extent to which victims gender, race, and income level.
what satisfied with it. At the other end
thought they were informed of their
of the scale, the proportion of victims Are victims more satisfied if they are
rights, and victims’ perceptions of the
expressing strong dissatisfaction with informed of their rights? And are they
effectiveness of their impact state-
the system was relatively high—more more satisfied if they believe their
ments. They were called, respectively,
than one-fourth of the victims in the participation in the system has had an
the Victim Satisfaction Scale, the In-
strong-protection States and more than impact on the decision process? To
formed Victim Scale, and the Victims’
one-third in the weak-protection States. answer the first question, Victim Satis-
Impact Scale.
faction Scale scores were analyzed in
What explains victims’ As measured by the Victim Satisfac- relation to the Informed Victim Scale
satisfaction levels tion Scale, satisfaction with the crimi- scores, with the results revealing a
nal justice system was greater among strong correlation between the two:
Knowing whether and to what extent female than male victims, among white victims who were informed of their
crime victims are satisfied (or dissatis- than African-American victims, and rights were more satisfied with the jus-
fied) with the criminal justice system among higher income than lower in- tice system than those who were not.
is not the same as knowing why. To come victims. Age made no difference. To answer the second question, the
shed light on the issue, three scales As expected, in the strong-protection Victim Satisfaction Scales were again

7
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

analyzed, this time in relation to the reported several major crime-related spent it participating in the justice
Victims’ Impact Scale scores. Again, losses. For certain kinds of losses— system and obtaining services.
the analysis revealed a strong correla- property damage or destruction, prop-
tion, indicating that victims who erty or monetary loss, time away from How the criminal justice system
thought their participation had an im- work or school to consult with the po-
pact on their cases were more satisfied
views crime victims’ rights
lice, and canceled insurance coverage
with the system. or increased premiums—strong legal This study also included a survey of
protection made no difference, be- criminal justice and victim assistance
Crime-related physical, cause victims in both weak- and professionals at the State and local
strong-protection States were equally levels. There were two reasons for
financial, and mental
affected. (See exhibit 6.) For other their inclusion. The first is that those
health problems kinds of problems resulting from the professionals can affect crime victims’
Crime victims experience a variety of crime—time lost from work or school ability to recover and to cope with the
losses relating to the crime. They may because of injuries and receiving aftermath of the offense and the stress
sustain physical or psychological inju- medical treatment for those injuries— of participation in the criminal justice
ries, with some victims requiring coun- victims from the weak-protection system. The average citizen, newly
seling. They may lose money or suffer States were more likely to be affected. thrust into the criminal justice system
property destruction, loss, or damage. But victims in strong-protection States as a victim of crime, often has little
Victims may lose time from work or were more likely to note a loss of time understanding of the basic workings
school as a result of their injuries or as from work or school because of consul- of the system. Representatives of the
a consequence of time spent consulting tations with prosecutors, attending various components of the criminal
with law enforcement or prosecutors, or trial, or receiving counseling. This justice system and victim assistance
attendance at court proceedings. could be viewed not so much as a professionals can play key roles in
greater problem than as a greater op- helping facilitate access and under-
Whether they were from weak- or portunity: Although the time these vic- standing as cases progress.
strong-protection States, victims tims lost cannot be discounted, they
There was another important rationale
Exhibit 5. Victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system—
for surveying such professionals. The
percentage who are very or somewhat satisfied
survey of crime victims produced a
wealth of data on whether the strength
Component of victims’ rights laws influenced the
rate at which victims received their
rights and on victims’ satisfaction with
Police the criminal justice system. However,
it could not suggest reasons that laws
might or might not produce such an
effect. Local and State professionals
Prosecutors were surveyed to begin to explore such
reasons.7 The data produced by these
surveys inform the discussion of influ-
ences on the implementation of victims’
Victim/Witness rights, and suggest additional avenues
Staff Judges for research.
Thus, State and local officials and ad-
Criminal Justice vocates were surveyed to determine the
System extent to which they were aware of the
legal rights of victims, their views of
how victims’ rights are ensured, and
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
their thinking about what further steps
Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States may be necessary to strengthen the pro-
tection of victims’ rights. The interviews
Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less.
with such officials revealed much the

8
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

status of victims’ rights and the chal-

Exhibit 6. Victims’ crime-related problems—percentage who
lenges of implementing them.
experienced problems
Problem Type
At the State level, as at the local level,
strong legal protection made a differ-
Time lost from work or to ence, though not in all respects. Lead-
consult with police*
ers from the strong States were more
Property or monetary loss* likely to believe their criminal justice
Property damage system was performing well, particu-
or destruction* larly in protecting victims’ rights.
Life insurance canceled/ However, even where legal protection
premium increased*
was strong, a large majority also indi-
Time lost from work or
school due to injuries
cated they were aware of problems
Medical treatment for victims are experiencing in obtaining
crime-related injuries benefits and services. The problems
Time lost from work or school to most frequently cited had to do with
consult with prosecutor or for trial
victim notification.
Time spent for counseling
for psychological injuries

Problems with their families Barriers to implementation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Criminal justice and victim advocate
professionals at the State and local
Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States levels were asked for their suggestions
for improving the provision of victims’
* Difference not statistically significant. rights. Their responses basically fell
into three groups: increased funding,
increased training, and increased
same pattern as the interviews with how they are being provided. For ex-
enforcement of victims’ rights.
victims: strong legal protection tended ample, only 39 percent of the local
to translate in practice as greater imple- professionals in the strong-protection Resource limitations were cited by offi-
mentation of those rights, but in many States knew that their State had a con- cials as the most common reason for be-
cases did not guarantee the provision of stitutional amendment enumerating ing unable to fulfill their responsibilities.
such rights. victims’ rights. For a majority of ques- Local officials from the strong-protection
tions about victims’ rights, a substan- States were more likely than those from
Views of local criminal justice tial number of officials incorrectly weak-protection States to believe that
and victim service professionals. identified the source of the victims’ funding for the implementation of vic-
If the local officials came from strong- right as a policy or practice, rather tims’ rights was adequate. (In the strong-
protection States, they were more than a statute or State constitutional protection States, 55 percent of local
likely than those from weak-protection amendment. Many officials were also officials, in contrast to 34 percent in the
States to say they “always” or “usu- unclear about which agency had the weak-protection States, felt funding for
ally” provide crime victims with their duty to provide victims a given right. victim services was adequate; 39 percent
rights to notification of events in the in the strong-protection States, but only
case, to be present at the various State leaders’ views. The opinions
27 percent in the weak-protection States,
stages of the criminal justice process, of State leaders indicate the extent
felt funding for implementation of vic-
and to be heard. These local officials to which crime victims’ rights have
tims’ rights was adequate.) At the same
were also about one-third more likely achieved understanding and accept-
time, a considerable percentage of these
than their counterparts in weak- ability at high levels of government.
local leaders, even those from the strong-
protection States to believe that vic- At the State level, awareness of legally
protection States, believed funding for
tims’ rights are “adequate.” mandated victims’ rights tends to be
victim services was very inadequate (15
higher than it is locally. Such leaders
Yet, large proportions of local criminal percent, and 35 percent of those in the
as governors, attorneys general, heads
justice officials, even from States weak-protection States).
of State criminal justice agencies, and
where legal protection is strong, were heads of State crime victims’ organiza- When asked if their office had funding
not aware of many victims’ rights and tions generally were aware of the for use in victim services programs or

9
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

for implementing victims’ rights, only ing legal protection of crime victims’ rights. Criminal justice officials are
about one-third of all officials at the rights. Where legal protection is not likely to enforce victims’ rights
local level said it had (and there was strong, victims are more likely to be laws if they are unaware they exist.
little difference between the weak- and aware of their rights, to participate in They may be less likely to seek fund-
the strong-protection States). What is the criminal justice system, to view ing for services they do not know they
more, very few of those without fund- criminal justice system officials favor- have a duty to provide. Victims are un-
ing said they had actively sought it in ably, and to express more overall satis- likely to attempt to assert rights they
the previous year. faction with the system. Moreover, the do not know they have.
levels of overall satisfaction in strong-
At the State level, officials offered a protection States are higher. Strong le- Even when criminal justice officials
similar assessment of funding; that is, gal protection produces greater victim know what the law requires of them,
those from strong-protection States involvement and better experiences they may not have the means to carry
were more likely to believe that fund- with the justice system. A more favor- out their duties. Victims’ rights can be
ing was adequate than were those able perception of the agents of the ensured only if resources are sufficient,
from weak-protection States. (Half the system—police, prosecutors, victim/ and resource limitations were cited by
State leaders in strong-protection witness staff, and judges—is another officials as the most common reason for
States, in contrast to 31 percent in the benefit. Because strong legal protec- being unable to fulfill their duties un-
weak-protection States, believed fund- tion at the State level is associated der the law. It can be assumed that
ing for implementation of victims’ with victim awareness, participation, there is a relationship between the
rights was adequate.) The State leaders and satisfaction, some have advocated strength of legal mandates and the pro-
also cited increased funding—specifi- a Federal constitutional amendment to vision of funding to implement those
cally for additional staff (victim/wit- protect victims’ rights. mandates. In other words, it is reason-
ness coordinators and criminal justice able to assume that States with stronger
staff)—more often than any other On the other hand, legal protections legal mandates for the provision of vic-
need. And whether they were from per se, regardless of their relative tims’ rights tend to provide more funds
States with weak or strong legal pro- strength in State law or State constitu- for implementation than States with
tection, these leaders most often cited tions, are not always enough to ensure weaker mandates. While this study did
increased funding or staffing when victims’ rights. As the study revealed, not attempt to measure the actual levels
they were asked how they would mini- even in States where victims’ rights of funding, officials in the States with
mize problems in providing victims’ were protected strongly by law, many strong legal protections of victims’
services. victims were not notified about key rights were more likely to believe that
hearings and proceedings, many were funding was adequate.
In prioritizing suggestions to improve not given the opportunity to be heard,
the treatment of crime victims in their and few received restitution. In the Finally, even where strong laws exist
criminal justice systems, leaders in strong-protection States examined in and are fully understood, and where
weak-protection States most frequently this study, more than one in four vic- resources are adequate, there may be
named the establishment, enhance- tims were very dissatisfied with the a need for additional enforcement
ment, and/or enforcement of victims’ criminal justice system as a whole. mechanisms to ensure that victims are
rights laws as their top priority; in- given their rights. While some enforce-
creased funding was a secondary pri- Mediating factors. Several mediat- ment mechanisms may involve giving
ority. By contrast, among leaders in ing factors were identified as influenc- victims the power to assert their legal
the strong-protection States, the larg- ing the provision of victims’ rights, rights, others might involve procedures
est percentage of responses dealt with beyond the strength of the statute or that better allow criminal justice agen-
issues of increased funding and re- State constitutional amendment. The cies to monitor their own compliance
sources for victim-related services and first among these is knowledge of vic- with victims’ rights laws.
programs, followed by the need for tims’ rights. The survey of local crimi-
better education of criminal justice nal justice officials and victim service Strengthening victim protection. In
officials regarding victims’ rights. professionals revealed a lack of aware- view of these considerations, the States
ness of victims’ rights and how those and/or the criminal justice system can
rights are implemented. The level of take several steps, on a variety of fronts,
What more needs to be done to strengthen victim protection:8
criminal justice officials’ and victims’
The findings offer support for the posi- knowledge of victims’ rights influences
tion of those who advocate strengthen-
● Keep victims informed, provide them
their conduct with respect to those
with opportunities for input, and

10
 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

consider that input carefully for, as Notes 5. The term “victim services” refers to a wide
the study revealed, informed victims, range of programs and policies (such as crisis
1. President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime counseling, transportation, and employer inter-
and those who thought their input had
Final Report, Washington, D.C.: President’s cession) that provide assistance directly to
influenced criminal justice decisions, Task Force on Victims of Crime, December crime victims.
were more likely to be satisfied with 1982:114.
the criminal justice system. 6. Restitution-eligible cases are those in which
2. For current information about the status of the victims sustained economic losses and the
● Make changes to ensure that restitu- crime victims’ rights laws, contact the National defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted.
tion is ordered, monitored, paid, and Center for Victims of Crime at 2111 Wilson Findings are significant at the .05 level or less.
received.9 Boulevard, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201
(703–276–2880). 7. Because in this part of the analysis the
● Offer criminal justice officials and sample size for each type of State was relatively
crime victims additional education 3. For a recent review of research, see Kelly, small, the data were not subjected to the same
about victims’ rights and their legal D.P., and Erez, E., “Victim Participation in the type of statistical analysis as were the data from
mandates. Criminal Justice System,” in R.C. Davis, A. J. victims.
Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of
● Take steps to seek and ensure ad- Crime (second edition), Thousand Oaks, Cali- 8. The Council of State Governments-Eastern
equate funding for victims’ services fornia: Sage, 1997. Currently under way is a Regional Conference (see note 3) is currently
and the implementation of victims’ survey, conducted by the Council of State planning a regional conference that will ad-
rights. Governments, Eastern Regional Conference, dress such issues as identifying victim issues
of the attitudes of citizens, including crime that could be addressed through legislation,
● Institute mechanisms to monitor the victims, toward the criminal justice system. modifying existing victims’ rights legislation,
provision of victims’ rights by crimi- The survey, which will cover 10 Northeastern and developing model legislation that could
nal justice officials whose duty is to States, will cover the extent and nature of vic- meet crime victims’ needs.
implement the law, and provide a timization, perceptions of victims’ rights and
means by which victims who are de- victims’ services, and victims’ experiences in 9. There is a useful discussion of restitution
reporting crime. issues in “Making Victims Whole Again,” by
nied their rights can enforce those
B.E. Smith and S. W. Hillenbrand, in R.C.
rights.10 4. Formerly the National Victim Center. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds.,
Victims of Crime.
Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., professor Copies of the full report, “Statutory
of psychology and Director of the and Constitutional Protection of 10. A recent report by the Office for Victims of
Victims’ Rights: Implementation and Crime presents recommendations from crime
National Crime Victims Research and
Impact on Crime Victims,” by David victims, victim advocates, criminal justice
Treatment Center at the Medical Uni- practitioners, health professionals, and re-
versity of South Carolina (Charleston, Beatty, Susan Smith Howley, and
searchers. See New Directions from the Field:
South Carolina), was the study’s Dean G. Kilpatrick (Washington,
Victims’ Rights and Services for the 21st Cen-
D.C., National Victim Center,
Research Director. David Beatty, J.D., December 20, 1996), are available
tury, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Director of Public Policy, National Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, 1998.
from the National Criminal Justice NCJ170600.
Center for Victims of Crime (Arling- Reference Service. Through NIJ’s
ton, Virginia), was the Project Direc- Data Resources Program, the data This and other NIJ publications can be
tor; Susan Smith Howley, J.D., who generated by the study have been found at and downloaded from the NIJ
also contributed to the report, is As- deposited with the National Archive Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).
sistant for Legislative Services at the of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD)
National Center for Victims of Crime. for public availability. The data can The National Institute of Justice is a
The survey interviews were conducted be accessed early in 1999 at the component of the Office of Justice
by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucavalas, Web site of the Inter-university Programs, which also includes the Bureau
Inc., under the direction of Dr. John Consortium for Political and Social of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice
Research (ICPSR), which adminis- Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Boyle. The research was conducted
ters the NACJD: http:// Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
and the report prepared under a www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/ Victims of Crime.
cooperative agreement between the archive.html or by contacting ICPSR,
National Center for Victims of Crime University of Michigan, Institute for Findings and conclusions of the research
and the National Institute of Justice Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, reported here are those of the authors and do
(# 93–IJ–CX–K003). Ann Arbor, MI 48106–1248 (phone not necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
734–998–9900; fax: 734–998–9889;
e-mail: [email protected]). NCJ 173839

11
U.S. Department of Justice
PRESORTED STANDARD
Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID
National Institute of Justice DOJ/NIJ
PERMIT NO. G–91
Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300