Chapter 2

History of the Crime Victims' Movement

in the United States

Steven Derene, Steve Walker, Ph.D., and John Stein, J.D.[^1]

This chapter reviews the influence of ancient legal and social codes on
today's victims' movement and provides an overview of movements that
were precursors of the crime victims' movement. The six stages of the
movement are then delineated. Finally, the major milestones at both the
federal and state level are summarized.

Today's view of violent crime and victimization is quite different than
in the 1970s. The nation's emotional and legal reaction to criminals has
changed dramatically. Why have personal and political responses changed
during this period? This chapter will first summarize the early legal
codes from which today's victims' rights evolved; then it will focus on
the historical development of the crime victims' movement and the
reasons for the public's more recently altered perceptions of crime and
the treatment of crime victims.

In the last three decades, the crime victims' movement has emerged as a
powerful source of social, legal, and political change. Many early
pioneers of the crime victims' movement were influenced by the cultural
environment created by the civil rights and antiwar movements.
Meanwhile, the women's movement, as well as the law and order movement,
led more directly to the emergence of a clearly defined crime victims'
movement. The history of the movement can be divided into six stages,
each denoting new developments in victim involvement and services,
changes in service providers' attitudes, new theoretical concepts, and
ongoing legal changes. This description is, by necessity, not inclusive
of all historical facts; rather, its purpose is to acquaint the reader
with the *zeitgeist,* or spirit, of each stage of the crime victims'
movement.

**EARLY LEGAL CODES**

Modern legislative codes primarily have evolved from earlier legal codes
as an attempt to define and deal with deviant behavior. The focus has
predominantly been on the criminal and his or her motivation, not on the
victim and his or her needs. Max Weber stated that the primary purpose
of the law was to regulate the flow of human interaction in order to
make the behavior of others predictable (as cited in Rheinstein, 1954).
Historically, laws also serve other purposes: banishing private
retribution, reflecting public opinion, deterring criminal acts,
punishing offenders, and providing socioeconomic control (Siegel, 1989).
These various purposes almost exclusively focus on altering the
criminal's behavior.

The question is how other systems have made room for the victim in this
discussion of the purpose of the law. Roscoe Pound, a great modern legal
scholar, believed that the law was malleable and a tool of social
engineering (Pound, 1968). Pound believed that the law should change
with societal changes and the advent of new ideas. He espoused a series
of *jural postulates* that reflected the shared needs of society. In
this context, the needs and rights of crime victims are appropriate
aspects of any legal code, especially today, as victim issues have
emerged since the 1970s. The following sections will detail how several
ancient and modern societies have attempted to protect crime victims'
rights.

## **Code of Hammurabi**

King Hammurabi ruled Babylon around 2000 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era)
for about 55 years. He was the sixth king of the First Dynasty of
Babylon, which was the commercial center of the known civilized world.
Babylon's strength and the length of Hammurabi's reign created a time of
great stability. To enhance this stability of both social and commercial
life, Hammurabi created a code that established rules for all aspects of
his subjects' lives (Gordon, 1957).

This code was intended to replace clan blood feuds with a system of laws
sanctioned and administered by the state. The code contained five
sections (Gordon, 1957):

1.  A code of basic laws.

2.  A manual of instruction for judges, police officers, and witnesses.

3.  A handbook of rights and duties of husbands, wives, and children.

4.  A set of regulations establishing wages and prices.

5.  A code of ethics for merchants, doctors, and officials (Masters and
    Roberson, 1985).

In essence, the Code of Hammurabi was a set of laws, an administrative
manual, a set of Old Testament-type commandments, a collection of
commercial regulations, and a statement of professional ethics. Western
society has all of these, but they are often found in separate volumes
under the jurisdiction of separate administrative entities. This code
was indeed a broad undertaking to provide order and stability in its
time.

The code established three major changes in society's view of the law
that directly affected the stability of society and the treatment of
crime victims. Again, these changes were directed at terminating the
clan rule by the blood feud, which often was perpetuated for generations
and affected the basic continued existence of an entire society
(Wallace, 1998). The three major changes were:

1.  **An assertion of the power of the crown or state.** This was the
    beginning of state-administered punishment. Blood feuds between
    private citizens were banned under the code.

2.  **Protection of the weaker from the stronger.** Widows were to be
    protected from those who might exploit them; elderly parents were
    protected from sons who would disown them; and lesser officials were
    protected from harassment by higher officials.

3.  **Restoration of equity between the offender and the victim.** The
    victim was to be made as whole as possible, and, in turn, he or she
    was required to forgo vengeance and forgive the offender.

Of significance for the later victims' movement was that this was one of
the first victims' rights statutes in history. Punishment of the
offender and restitution to the victim were equally important in
Babylonian society. Two other ancient societies also attempted to deal
with victims' rights. Both of these influenced English and American law.

## **Roman Law**

The next major attempt to codify the law to avoid personal disputes and
blood feuds was Roman law. During the period known as the *Pax Romana*,
Roman law affected most of the civilized world, including England. These
laws were derived from the Twelve Tables, which were written in about
450 B.C.E. As with the Code of Hammurabi, these tables delineated a set
of basic rules pertaining to family life, religious practices, and
economic endeavors. For the first time in Roman life, written laws now
applied to all classes of society (Wallace, 1998).

Later, Emperor Justinian I codified these tables into a set of writings.
The Justinian Code distinguished two types of laws:

-   **Public laws.** These dealt with the organization and
    administration of the Republic.

-   **Private laws.** These addressed issues such as contracts;
    possession and other property rights; injuries to citizens; and the
    legal status of various persons, such as slaves, husbands, and
    wives.

This code contained elements reflected later in both English and
American civil and criminal law. From 100 B.C.E. to about 400 C.E.
(Common Era), Roman law and customs were forced on the English people
and influenced the development of English legal practices into the
Middle Ages.

## **Jewish Law**

The oral tradition of the Mosaic Code probably began several centuries
B.C.E., and it was written for the first time in the fifth book of the
Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, around 100 B.C.E. This covenant or contract
between Yahweh and the 12 tribes of Israel has had a long-lasting effect
on all Judeo-Christian societies, especially England and America. The
Ten Commandments' prohibition against murder, perjury, and theft became
the basis for the laws in these two societies (Wallace, 1998).

Of equal influence was Deuteronomy's prescription for the punishment of
these and other crimes: "an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for
hand, foot for foot" (Deuteronomy 19:21 TNIV). This early pronouncement
of basic justice owed to victims was not meant to be taken literally,
according to rabbinic tradition. Rather, it was interpreted to mean that
the victim of a crime should receive from the criminal the value of an
eye, a tooth, a hand, a foot, and so forth. This was the first
formalized proposal of victim restitution since the Code of Hammurabi.

## **English Law**

From the Middle Ages until the Norman conquest in 1066 C.E., England was
a decentralized country with multiple kings and nobles holding power
over their individual lands. There was little written law, and crimes
during this period were viewed as personal wrongs, not the concern of
the state as in the Code of Hammurabi. Restitution for the offense
(known as *wergeld*) was paid directly to the victim or the victim's
family. If the offender failed to make payment, revenge was exacted, and
often a blood feud ensued. The victim's right to equity was preeminent,
but the stability of society was very tenuous.

However, with the advent of William the Conqueror's rule in 1066, royal
administrators rode the circuit and rendered justice. To make this new
system more palatable, these administrators combined Roman law with
local custom and rules of conduct to guide their judgments. This system
of standing "by the decided law" would have a direct effect on the later
development of English common law (Wallace, 1998).

Common law was recognized before William's rule. This traditional body
of unwritten legal precedents created by court decisions (as
distinguished from written statutory law) was used by the royal judges
as they started their deliberations. They would review past decisions
that were similar to their current case and apply them when possible.
Then, in the 11th century, King Edward the Confessor (1042--1066)
proclaimed that common law was the law of the land, and court decisions
were then recorded that could be used by lawyers in pleading their
cases. Common law was the melding of existing legal practices known as
Dane law and Mercian law with West Saxon legal practice. The concept of
common law greatly influenced the development of American law and its
early emphasis on restitution and victims' rights.

The final step in the codification of laws in England was the signing of
the Magna Carta in 1215. This was a written statement of the basic
liberties granted to English noblemen and the people. The U.S.
Constitution and its unique statement of individual rights and
liberties, and American legal practices in general, were greatly
affected by the way this document evolved as a claim of everyone's
rights against the state.

## **United States Law**

This focus on the development of law builds upon an almost 4,000-year
history of some attention to victims' rights. American law combined
common law, written statutes enacted by a legislative body, and the
foundation of the Constitution. From the time of the earliest settlers
in this country in the 16th century until early in the 19th century,
victims served as police officers and prosecutors (or hired them) and
prosecuted crimes done to them in much the same way that they might seek
redress in civil courts. The main form of punishment imposed was an
order of restitution, just as in common law. The victim often arranged
for a posse to capture the thief, paid an attorney to prosecute the
case, and may have even paid the expenses for a circuit judge to come to
that jurisdiction.

*The most significant development in the treatment of crime victims was
the establishment of public prosecutors.* "The office was first
established by statute in Connecticut in 1704, whose example was soon
followed by the other colonies. However, it was not until shortly after
the Revolution that this office emerged as the predominant method of
prosecution" (McDonald, 1976, p. 660). According to one scholar, the
"monopoly of criminal prosecution by the district attorney is more the
result of a misunderstanding of history than of explicit legislative
direction" (Goldstein, 1982, pp. 518-9), in that most statutes at the
time authorized the district attorney to prosecute criminal cases but
did not explicitly preclude victims or anyone else from prosecuting on
their own. Nevertheless, courts subsequently interpreted---or
misinterpreted---English precedents, eventually leading to the standard
that only district attorneys could conduct criminal prosecutions
(Goldstein, 1982).

Between 1850 and the early 1970s, the victim's central role faded and
then was lost. It is difficult to clearly distinguish why this radical
change occurred. As with most social processes, it must have been a
slow, gradual process. Before the 1850s in America, two major changes
may have influenced this decrease in attention to victims' rights.
Government began turning law enforcement and prosecution over to new
public servants, in part because the system of private prosecution
favored those with means. The general welfare of the community became
the focus, breathing new life into the traditional English theory that
crime was primarily a wrong against the public and only secondarily
against the individual. The fact that the newly created public
prosecutors were elected reinforced their self-image as serving the
greater good.

In this changeover, restitution was seen as being owed to society, not
to the victim, in the form of fines, a principal form of punishment in
the years predating the widespread use of prisons. This led to the
second major change. In the same period, the mid-19th century
Philadelphia Quakers constructed a special kind of jail where convicts
were expected to do penance for their wrongs (hence "penitentiaries").
This was the advent of building more and larger penitentiaries as the
primary mode of punishing or correcting offenders. If a debt (time more
than money) was owed to society, more places were required to pay this
debt. Restitution to the victim became an afterthought that was now seen
as the purview of the civil court. With fewer stringent guidelines and
even fewer resources, victims' rights languished within the civil court
system for almost 125 years.

Starting in the 1970s, the societal view of criminals' and victims'
rights began changing dramatically and not always on parallel tracks,
given the differing kinds of reforms that advocates sought for victims.
In 1972, an assistant district attorney in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin,
published an article in the *Notre Dame Law Review* that described the
"pattern of blindness and neglect" with which witnesses were treated
(Ash, 1972, p. 399). The article drew attention to the critical role of
crime victims in the criminal justice system and encouraged the
development of what was then referred to as "witness appearance-control
projects" (Ash, 1972, pp. 411-12).

Victim issues gradually moved back into the mainstream of the criminal
justice system and led to the creation of entirely new kinds of social
services. The following sections delineate the reasons for these changes
and describe the movements that helped precipitate this return to the
victims' rights of the late 1700s and early 1800s.

## **EMERGING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS**

It was not until the 1800s that women like Susan B. Anthony began to
rebel against male domination and abuse. Most known for her zeal in
promoting the right for women to vote, Anthony was also creating the
first women's movement in this country by addressing domestic violence,
the victimization of prostitutes, and the battle for equal pay for
women. She published a newspaper edited by and for women, cautioning
workers about sexual harassment while railing against substance abuse
and pointing out that women beaten by their intoxicated husbands were
its most common victims (Sherr, 1995).

> Friends, when we come before you to advocate the Cause popularly
> termed "Women's Rights," we simply ask that woman not be wronged. We
> ask for her justice and equality---not favor and superiority---the
> rights and privileges her humanity charters to her equally with man,
> not arbitrary power and selfish domination. (Sherr, 1995, p. 50)

In 1866, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
was formed, followed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children in 1975, both predating any formal organization to prevent
cruelty to women in the United States. In spite of the noble efforts of
Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and, one generation later,
Jane Addams, who founded Hull House in Chicago, not much changed for
women in the United States until the first protective shelters for
battered women were established 100 years later.

Beginning in the early 1960s and preceding renewed focus on crime
victims, four social/political movements set the stage for the crime
victims' movement as it exists today. The first two---the civil rights
movement and the antiwar movement---created a cultural environment that,
along with the inspiration of President John F. Kennedy's "New Frontier"
idealism, greatly influenced the philosophical, legal, and tactical
background of many pioneers of the crime victims' movement. Two other
movements---the women's movement and the law and order movement---had
more direct bearing on the evolution of the crime victims' movement.

**The Civil Rights Movement**

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other leaders of the civil rights
movement changed this country's view of civil disobedience, clarifying
that all Americans have rights under the U.S. Constitution, and focusing
on nonviolent change. Even though this country has had a long history of
civil disobedience dating back to the Boston Tea Party and 19th century
literary figures like Thoreau and Whitman, this approach diminished as a
result of 20th century patriotism engendered by two world wars. Civil
disobedience was, therefore, not new in 1963 but reemerged and was
applied to a new group: American minorities. The civil rights movement
enabled society's disenfranchised minorities to exert power over
American governmental and private institutions and demand equal rights
and equal access to society's opportunities and institutions. This
movement helped establish the principles that constitutional rights
should apply to all citizens, and that nonviolent methods of advocacy
can be productive in changing American society (Karmen, 2004).

**The Antiwar Movement**

This movement organized to oppose American participation in the war in
Vietnam. It pointed to America's propensity for violence and the
influence of the military-industrial complex, as President Dwight D.
Eisenhower called it. A key component of this movement was distrust of
authority, which continues today. Through its well-orchestrated marches
in cities across America, the antiwar movement showed that grassroots
politics could influence and even overpower conventional politics. More
importantly, the movement raised questions not only about governmental
decisionmaking but also about the moral implications of these decisions.

Even more than proponents of the civil rights movement, antiwar
proponents used the media, especially television, to publicize their
issues and concerns. The women's movement later used this tool
efficiently in publicizing the plight of rape and domestic violence
victims. Both of these populist political movements empowered citizens,
especially young people, to speak out publicly for what they believed
was right. Both served as incubators of grassroots organizations that
would awaken groups and organizations concerned with sexual assault,
domestic violence, and homicide.

**The Women\'s Movement**

A focus on child abuse and neglect led to attention to women as well.
This child protection concern initially focused on physicians, social
workers, and public-sector personnel. The attention of child advocates
and Congress to the work of Dr. C. Henry Kempe, who made his first
presentation about the "battered child syndrome" in 1961, led to the
creation of the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1974.

Attention to women as a group had diminished after they were given the
right to vote by the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Not until
the early 1970s did the women's movement reexamine American family
values and traditional male/female roles by spotlighting sexism in
bureaucracy (including, very importantly, the criminal justice system)
and economic discrepancies between men and women. This perspective and
insight have been considered the most significant precursor ("the
mother") of the crime victims' movement. "The idea that women should
organize to combat rape (and domestic violence) was an invention of the
women's movement" (Burgess, 2004, p. 4). The victimization of women and
the bureaucratic facilitation of this violence in all areas of society
were clarified and politicized. The long overdue recognition that women
were entitled to equal social, political, and economic opportunity and
power became a national focus.

Susan Brownmiller's book *Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape* gave
credence to the sexual assault movement. It broadened the understanding
of "rape" from a crime against "sexual morality" to one of "physical
assault" and called attention to society's and, in particular, the
criminal justice system's maltreatment of sexual assault victims
(Brownmiller, 1975).

A direct result of this increase in women's power and attention to
women's issues was the formation of rape crisis centers and domestic
violence shelters in the early 1970s (Burgess, 2004). These
community-based grassroots programs were started by rape and domestic
violence victims in their own living rooms and basements. The common
agenda was to right the wrongs for other victims, but the programs met
strong resistance. In one community after another, rape crisis
counselors faced countless negative encounters with the criminal justice
system and other bureaucracies. Meanwhile, they developed descriptions
of "crisis counselors," as they called themselves. "They began with no
role models and became role models for themselves and for other crime
victims" (Burgess, 2004). This important manifestation of the women's
movement led to some of its earliest, most publicized political events,
such as Take Back the Night and numerous candlelight vigils for women's
rights to facilitate consciousness-raising.

**The Law and Order Movement**

The law and order movement in 1968 slightly predated the beginning of
the crime victims' movement (often marked at 1972, when the first three
official crime victim service agencies were formed), and its alliance
with the women's movement did not develop until 1974. The law and order
movement focused on increasing the rights of the common citizen to
achieve parity with the rights of the criminal. However, many supporters
felt that common citizens could manage their own protection and believed
that justice should be accomplished without expanding governmental
assistance and monetary support (Karmen, 2004). Law and order supporters
believed that criminals should be punished more rigorously; potential
victims should be more careful; and victims, once victimized, should be
self‑sufficient and not dependent on the government for assistance.

The mid-1970s brought the development of victim/witness assistance
programs located in prosecutors' offices. The earliest programs were
designed to help victims who were witnesses in criminal cases navigate
the criminal court system and to encourage them to cooperate and thereby
improve conviction rates. The emotional distress of many victims led
some members of the victim/witness staff to offer counseling as part of
their job. As they tried to make the road through the justice system
smoother, some of them began to see themselves as advocating on behalf
of victims as well.

By the early 1980s, a shift developed placing more emphasis on victims'
needs. Programs emerged to respond to the crises of all victims of
violence---some in grassroots settings and some in law enforcement
agencies. The support for increased offender accountability and a
back-to-the-basics constitutional approach produced a new emphasis on
restitution and individual rights. The law and order movement has been
particularly influential in the later stages of the crime victims'
movement. Its call for participation by victims as a way to protect
their own interests was hastened along by new victim
activists---including some within the system who were allied to this
cause, as were an increasing number of veterans of the law and order
movement who broadened their focus from the offender to the victim.

Sometimes in unison, more often in parallel ways, the women's movement
and the law and order movement greatly accelerated the pace and success
of the victims' movement in the 1980s.

The following section outlines and describes six stages of the crime
victims' movement, detailing critical events in its history. This
description denotes changes concerning victim involvement and services,
service providers' attitudes, new theoretical concepts, and ongoing
legal changes. The changes associated with these stages did not always
occur in neat, discrete epochs but evolved out of earlier developments
and continued through subsequent stages.

The identification and role of broad movements should not overlook or
diminish the contributions of individuals, not necessarily acting in
concert with others, to the development of the crime victims' movement.
For example, Margery Fry originated the concept of government-run crime
victim compensation programs and invented domestic violence shelters.
Also important, was the power of personal stories, such as those of
Candy Lightner, John Walsh, and Roberta Roper, in fostering a broader
appreciation and support for crime victims' rights and services.

## 

**HISTORICAL STAGES OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' MOVEMENT**

**Stage 1: Response to Crime**

In the early 1960s, crime rose steadily in the United States, reaching
its highest point in 1981 (Federal Bureau of Investigation \[FBI\],
1981). Its effect on American life was evident. In response, the crime
victims' movement mobilized on multiple fronts (Young, 1988).

In 1965, the first crime victims' compensation program was established
by the California legislature. However, the major strides of this period
were accomplished not by legislatures but by the energy of volunteers,
many of whom were crime victims themselves. In many cases, they had been
victimized again due to less-than-adequate assistance and services
within the criminal justice system.

In 1972, volunteers founded the first three official victim assistance
programs that still exist today:

-   Aid for Victims of Crime, St. Louis, Missouri (now the Crime Victim
    Advocacy Center of St. Louis).

-   Bay Area Women Against Rape, San Francisco, California.

-   Rape Crisis Center, Washington, DC.

Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, many state and federal commissions
were established to study crime and urban riots and their consequences.
Following these efforts, the federal government took two significant
steps to address the problem: the creation of the first national
victimization survey, *National Crime Survey*, in 1972 (renamed the
*National Crime Victimization Survey* in 1990) and the formation of the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) (Young, 1988).

The *National Crime Survey* gathered crime data from randomly selected
individuals and households all across America, an approach that was very
different from the FBI's *Uniform Crime Report* (UCR), which compiles
only crime statistics reported to law enforcement agencies. The new
information made it devastatingly clear that the rates of rape and other
violent crimes were much higher than those reported to law enforcement.
The *National Crime Survey* showed that actual crime rates were three or
four times higher than the UCR's published official rates (Bureau of
Justice Statistics \[BJS\], 1998).

LEAA monies were intended to combat victimization by increasing law
enforcement funding and establishing the first victim/witness programs
across the United States in 1974. Funds were also used to help educate
and increase the sensitivity of police officers in dealing with victims.

In 1974, the first battered women's shelter was established in Denver,
Colorado. It was operated by volunteers who used their own funds and a
few donations. Their major focus, as in the women's movement, was to
provide victim support using the approach of self‑help groups. Their
goals quickly expanded to target insensitive and unfair treatment of
victims by the criminal justice system (Young, 1988), an evolution from
helping to advocacy and activism that was occurring in other sectors of
the movement.

-   LEAA called together leading victim activists to discuss methods of
    increasing victim assistance and created some pilot victim/witness
    programs in 1974.

-   James Rowland, chief probation officer in Fresno, California,
    developed the first victim impact statement used by the criminal
    justice system to clearly ascertain and specify a victim's losses.

-   In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Indianapolis, Indiana, the first
    law enforcement‑based victim assistance programs were established.

In 1975, Frank Carrington's book *The Victims* promoted "the proposition
that the victim's current sorry status in the criminal justice system
*need not be so* \[italics added\] and that something can and must be
done to enhance the rights of the victim" (Carrington, 1975). The
National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) was founded in 1975.

In 1976, about 100 leaders met at the Second National Victim Assistance
Conference in Fresno, California.

During this first stage, mental health providers had limited involvement
at the grassroots level. However, practitioners working with victims of
sexual assault recognized characteristics common to many victims. In
1974, Ann Burgess coined the term *rape trauma syndrome* (Burgess and
Holstrom, 1974). Although not universally accepted until years later,
its initial use during this time would later facilitate better services
for victims in both the mental health and criminal justice systems.

By the late 1970s, mental health providers became more aware of victim
trauma. Research began to show the efficacy of peer support groups; some
research indicated that these groups were often much more helpful than
mental health professionals, partly because the professionals had little
training in the grieving process and crisis therapy. *The Crime Victim's
Book*, written by Morton Bard and Dawn Sangrey and first published in
1979, was an early, influential primer on understanding and recognizing
victims' emotional responses to crime victimization.

As specialized service providers gained new insights into victimization,
mental health practitioners began to acknowledge their lack of expertise
and began to listen to advocates and victims. For example, the
description of the "battered woman syndrome," formulated by Lenore
Walker in 1979, provided a theoretical framework for working with
victims of domestic violence.

During this period, a number of the pioneers in understanding and
treating the mental health problems of crime victims began comparing
notes with colleagues treating Vietnam veterans suffering from what
seemed to be related aftereffects of trauma.

By the end of this stage, the groundwork was laid from two sources for
the development of a full-fledged movement. The women's movement created
grassroots rape counseling and domestic violence programs, and within
the criminal justice system through LEAA funding, victim assistance
programs were emerging.

**Stage 2: Conflict and Unstable Funding**

At the outset of this second stage, it appeared that many of the gains
of the fledgling victims' movement might be lost. In 1979, LEAA was
defunded by Congress, and thus the first stream of federal support
abruptly ended. As is often the case when limited funding is paired with
too many needs, community‑based and government‑based programs began to
compete for limited resources (Young, 1988).

Professionalism and training emerged as competing themes, partly to
define differing approaches to victim services and partly to propose
that their own perspective was most worthy of the dwindling dollars.
Despite their common purpose of assisting victims, the contrasting
perspectives, purposes, structure, and operation of grassroots victim
programs versus criminal justice‑based programs increasingly became
issues. This was exacerbated by the frequent complaint of grassroots
victim advocates that the criminal justice system did not adequately
support victims of rape and domestic violence. Even today, some of the
residual tension from this grassroots-versus-system perspective remains,
as do critiques of both perspectives from those without ties to either
camp.

In 1978, sexual assault programs and domestic violence programs created
their own national organizations to pursue their specific agendas
(Young, 1986). These organizations include the following:

-   National Coalition Against Sexual Assault (NCASA).

-   National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV).

Believing that change in rape and domestic violence law was not
happening quickly enough, these organizations decided not to work within
the criminal justice system, which, they felt. was not listening. At the
same time, however, they fought successfully for the first round of
victims' rights reforms, namely rape shield laws and a ban on the
exemption for marital rape.

During this period, program leaders and administrators debated the
strengths and weaknesses of the various programs.

Many movements fail (including some of the precursors of the victims'
movement) because no "second generation" is trained to continue with the
original fervor and energy. Fortunately, this was not true for the
victims' movement. In spite of the dissension among the established
programs, the system-based programs were proving their worth, and
important new grassroots organizations arose. Often led by victims,
these new groups directly challenged the indifference of the criminal
justice system and the stigmatizing approaches of the mental health
system.

Two new grassroots programs grew in response to a void in services to
family members of those killed. The cumulative effect was a new infusion
of energy into the movement. These two programs were:

-   Parents of Murdered Children (POMC), founded by Robert and Charlotte
    Hullinger in 1978.

-   Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), founded by Candy Lightner and
    Cindy Lamb in 1980.

In 1979, Frank Carrington founded the Crime Victims' Legal Advocacy
Institute, which was renamed the Victims' Assistance Legal Organization
(VALOR) in 1981, to advocate for the legal rights of crime victims.
While his main contribution was getting the civil courts to make it
easier for victims to get monetary redress, Carrington was also among
those seeking reform in the criminal justice system.

On the legislative front, crime victim advocates pressed for reforms,
and state legislators enacted laws that increasingly supported victims
(NCVC, 1994a), such as the following:

-   In 1977, Oregon passed the first law mandating arrest in domestic
    violence cases.

-   In 1978, Minnesota enacted legislation to allow warrantless arrest
    in domestic violence cases, regardless of whether there was a prior
    protection order.

-   In 1980, Wisconsin enacted the first statutory bill of rights for
    victims and witnesses of crime, including state funding for county
    victim/witness assistance programs.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan became the first president to proclaim National
Victims' Rights Week. Later that year, the Attorney General's Task Force
on Violent Crime issued its report. The task force, which included Frank
Carrington, recommended that a separate task force be created to
consider victims' issues.

**Stage 3: Public Awareness**

As the revitalized crime victims' movement learned better ways to access
the news media, public awareness of victims' issues increased. The 1981
Uniform Crime Reports had clearly shown the increase in victimization,
and the movement actively used these new statistics for its cause (FBI,
1981).

In response to the Attorney General's Task Force recommendation,
President Reagan appointed a Task Force on Victims of Crime in 1982.
Chaired by Lois Haight Herrington, this task force made 68
recommendations to improve the treatment of crime victims. The
recommendations were directed at all segments of the public and private
sectors, including the criminal justice system. The report included, for
the first time, a recommendation for a constitutional amendment for
crime victims' rights and federal funding for state crime victim
compensation and victim/witness assistance programs.

Later that year, Congress passed the Victim and Witness Protection Act.
Borrowing from new victims' rights precepts in state laws, this act
provided for witness protection, restitution, and fair treatment for
federal victims and witnesses of violent crimes (NCVC, 1994a).

Likewise, changes at the federal level encouraged legislative changes at
state levels, including victims' bills of rights, proposals for training
and education, and expansion of existing victim/witness programs. The
single greatest legislative event in the victims' movement to date was
the 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). This act established the Crime
Victims Fund to provide funds for local victim assistance programs and
state victim compensation as well as services for victims of federal
crimes. The fund was made up of money from federal criminal fines,
penalties, and bond forfeitures.

The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), created in the Department of
Justice in 1983 to implement the 68 recommendations of the President's
Task Force, was designated to administer VOCA, including the
distribution of VOCA funds to states for existing victim programs (NCVC,
1994a).

With increased public awareness and high-level political support for
victims' issues, numerous programs were started and laws passed during
the 1980s. The greatest increase in victim/­witness programs occurred in
this third stage. Some highlights of this stage were:

-   National Conference of the Judiciary on Victims of Crime (1983).

-   Missing Children's Assistance Act, which included the establishment
    of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children by
    Congress (1984).

-   Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence (1984).

-   Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (1984).

-   National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and NOVA national
    colloquium, "Aftermath of Crime: A Mental Health Crisis" (1985).

-   National Center for Victims of Crime (formerly Sunny von Bulow
    National Victim Center) (1985).

-   NOVA Constitutional Amendment Meeting (1986).

-   President's Child Safety Partnership (1987).

Changes in rape and domestic violence laws during this period helped to
influence attitudes in the criminal justice system and local
communities. However, grassroots rape counseling and domestic violence
advocates felt that citizens were still inclined to view these crimes in
morality terms rather than criminal terms (Burgess, 2004).

As the movement spread to bring services to other victims as well as
victims of domestic and sexual violence, second-generation grassroots
organizations---including the newer ones---feared that increased
governmental involvement and new competition for funding of victim
programs would lead to dissension as in previous years. These fears were
not realized, however. A floor amendment to VOCA in 1984 had mandated
that priority be given to victims of child abuse, but this led to
complaints from groups representing victims of spousal abuse, sexual
assault, and other crimes. And so a fourth priority, for "previously
underserved victims of violent crimes," was later added. In 1988, VOCA
was reauthorized, and the OVC was established permanently. Crime victim
compensation was expanded to include victims of both domestic violence
and drunk driving.

In addition, during this stage, theoretical concepts were put to more
practical use in both the criminal justice and mental health systems.
The concept of *second victimization* as originally enunciated by
psychiatrist and former New York City police officer Martin
Symonds---that victims were often harmed as much by the system's
response as by the crime itself---became generally recognized and
accepted. Even dealings with friendly justice professionals could
generate acute stress in victims, leading many in prosecutors' offices
to learn the same crisis intervention techniques as were used by
colleagues who saw victims much closer to the original trauma.

The various syndromes identified earlier were being discussed within the
context of a new diagnosis---posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). With
the identification of PTSD, a general diagnosis was now developed that
did not stigmatize the victim but, rather, clarified and legitimized the
victim's normal response to an abnormal situation. In 1980, this
diagnosis was recognized when the description of PTSD was placed in the
*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual* (third edition) of the American
Psychiatric Association (APA), the authoritative diagnostic tool of
mental health professionals.

In addition, better training in trauma and crisis intervention enabled
mental health professionals to learn about victims' issues. Mental
health professionals also began to provide better supportive services.
Peer support groups began to be seen as a useful adjunct to successful
individual therapy.

A major development occurred in 1986 when NOVA was asked to send a team
of experienced crisis counselors to help the community of Edmond,
Oklahoma, immediately after a mass murder. Tens of thousands of
caregivers have been trained in the NOVA model that emerged under the
rubric of Community Crisis Response Teams. A similar set of short-term
services, called Critical Incident Stress Debriefings, emerged at about
the same time, which focused principally on the stresses of first
responders in cases of mass violence. Volunteers from both disciplines
became the victims' movement's special contribution to disaster
services.

During this period, the crime victims' movement came of age, becoming
more focused and sophisticated (Andrews, 1992). The first 10 years had
been initiated and perpetuated by strong leaders with forthright
personalities; however, in this period, an important paradigm shift was
taking place. The movement expanded beyond the dynamics of
individual‑level politics to group‑level national politics, resulting in
the change into a more formalized profession.

**Stage 4: Expanding Legislative Agenda**

In the 1900s, three major legislative issues emerged:

-   Victim service funding.

-   Victims' rights.

-   Law and order concerns.

The growing sophistication of the victims' movement enabled advocates to
exert power and influence on several fronts. Thanks to state networks
and coalitions, political efforts during this time became much more
organized and presented clearer and more cohesive agendas, such as:

-   Removing the limit on deposits into the Crime Victims Fund for VOCA
    to provide expanded and more stable funding for state crime victim
    compensation and victim assistance programs.

-   Expanding victims' rights through more extensive and effective state
    legislation.

-   Adopting crime victims' rights amendments in state constitutions.

Successful results of this agenda at the federal level included the
following:

-   As of 1995, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and three
    territories had enacted crime victim compensation programs.

-   As of 1998, 33 states had passed constitutional amendments.

-   The U.S. Congress passed major legislation that addressed hate
    crimes, campus security, child protection, violence against women,
    sexual assault, kidnapping, and gun control.

-   The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of victim impact statements in
    capital cases.

-   Currently, all states have passed victims' rights legislation in the
    form of a victims' bill of rights or a series of statutory
    protections.

This legislative agenda has continued to grow and expand. The recent
serious congressional consideration to a federal constitutional victim
rights' amendment exemplifies this. The women's movement's rape and
domestic law reform agenda has been embraced by both women and men in
the lawmaking professions (Burgess, 2004). Activities and issues in this
stage continue into the sixth stage.

**Stage 5: Emerging Professionalism**

One of the most salient issues in recent years has been the emerging
professionalism in the field of victim services. As with other
grassroots movements, there is some apprehension about professionalizing
a community‑based service system that originated and developed its
strength through the dedication of volunteers who extended themselves
personally to victims in need. Most victim service programs, however,
have not diluted their passion and are led by dedicated professionals
who have years of experience working with victims in specialized
settings while still relying heavily on trained, committed volunteers.

The historical distrust of other professionals who have no specialized
training or experience in victim treatment issues has persisted in many
areas. Experience has made some of these concerns both legitimate and
urgent. However, salary issues, increased availability of training, and
a growing interest in program evaluation and quality services have led
to significant professionalism in the field.

Victim service providers work in very diverse settings. Advocates
typically perform a variety of tasks that require an understanding of
social, psychological, and legal principles. In addition:

-   The areas of expertise and the training needed are multidisciplinary
    in nature.

-   There is a growing recognition that to be accepted by other
    professionals, certification or some other form of credentialing is
    necessary.

-   Increased professionalization of this field will potentially create
    professional‑level salaries for experienced victim advocates and
    administrative staff.

-   Credentialing by victim groups, with help from allied government
    agencies to support training called for in the credentialing
    program, is seen by many as a way to overcome the fear of
    traditional degree-centered credentials that might be imposed on the
    field by one of the licensed professions. The trend toward
    credentialing by advocates' groups and their allies in government
    has been hastened by (unsuccessful) proposals in a few states that
    only members of a licensed mental health profession should be
    allowed to perform certain counseling services.

The changes in this area have often been small but significant and
growing. By the early 21st century, a dozen or more states have
established their own credentialing systems, with the required
educational units designed and taught mostly by peers. (States with such
systems include Ohio, Florida, California, Connecticut, Kansas, and
South Carolina.)

In 1987, the NOVA Board of Directors adopted a *Code of Professional
Ethics for Victim Service Providers*, which covers practitioners'
relationship with clients, colleagues, other professionals, and the
public. Using NOVA's Code as a template, MADD developed a Code of Ethics
for its victim advocates in 1988.

Academic programs were offered in increasing numbers during the 1990s.
California State University (CSU), Fresno developed the first academic
program in victim services/victimology in the United States. By the
summer of 1989, CSU, Fresno had started the first Victim Services Summer
Institute to make its certificate program available to professionals in
other states. By 1990, the number of graduates from this program had
more than tripled. Finally, by 1991, CSU, Fresno developed the first
victimology major in the nation and then began developing the first
doctorate in 1996 (NCVC, 1994a).

Eight states have established clinics to offer free legal services for
victims seeking to enforce their rights. Nurturing this development is
the National Crime Victims Law Institute, founded in 2000 at Lewis and
Clark Law School in Oregon, which also fosters teaching courses on
victims' rights in law schools around the country.

Academic credit and the development of more degree programs will
continue to be important for the next phases of the crime victims'
movement. Some victimology programs have developed legal advocacy
components in addition to their training, technical assistance, and
educational activities, such as the Center for the Study of Crime
Victims' Rights, Remedies, and Resources of the University of New Haven
in Connecticut. This program, part of the School of Public Safety and
Professional Studies, provides amicus briefs in selected appellate cases
dealing with victims' rights issues.

Based on the template for performance ethnics and standards developed by
the National Victim Assistance Standards Consortium, the next potential
step could be the development of curriculum standards for education at
the national and state levels. The National Victim Assistance Academy
(NVAA) curriculum was created to offer this opportunity. The original
NVAA began in 1995 by offering a 45‑hour core course of work in victim
services that could be taken for academic credit. It formed the basis
for the first state‑level academy in Michigan in 1998. Then, OVC
initiated a multiyear funding strategy for the development of state
victim assistance academies in 1999. As of 2006, state victim assistance
academies have been offered or are in the process of development in 30
states, most which have received OVC financial support and technical
assistance.

A sign of the growing recognition of the need to enhance the
professional status of victim service providers was the creation in 2003
of the National Advocate Credentialing Program (NACP) by a consortium of
national victim organizations. By 2006, more than 500 victim service
providers have received NACP credentials based on their experience and
training.

In 1996, the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1‑800‑799‑SAFE) was
established to provide crisis intervention information and assistance to
victims of domestic violence.

OVC launched a number of international crime victim initiatives in 1996,
including working to foster worldwide implementation of a United Nations
declaration on victims' rights and initiatives to better assist
Americans victimized abroad.

In 1997, OVC representatives joined the U.S. Delegation to the United
Nations Commission on Criminal Justice and Crime Prevention. OVC played
a leadership role in the development of an International Victim
Assistance Training Manual to implement the United Nations *Declaration
of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.*

In 1997, the National Center for Victims of Crime (formerly National
Victim Center) used its extensive legislative database to create the
*Legislative Sourcebook,* a comprehensive compendium of victims' rights
laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In 1998, *New Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and Services
for the 21st Century* was released to the field by OVC. The report was
developed with support from OVC and input from more than 1,000
individuals across the nation. It assessed the nation's progress in
meeting the recommendations set forth in the *Final Report* of the 1982
President's Task Force on Victims of Crime and issued more than 250 new
recommendations from the field for the next millennium. OVC disseminated
the 1998 report widely to many programs across the nation.

**Stage 6: Advancing Advocacy**

During this stage, additional significant developments have occurred on
the national and state levels with respect to victims' rights
constitutional amendments, legislation, expanded VOCA funding, and
creation of national programs affecting crime victims.

***U.S. Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendments***

In the spring of 1996, bipartisan federal victims' rights constitutional
amendments were introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and
the Senate. The amendment was reintroduced in the Senate in January
1997, but no formal action was taken. Hearings on the amendment were
then held in Congress in 1996, 1997, and 1998. In 2004, after being
unable to break a potential filibuster on their proposal, Senators Jon
Kyl and Dianne Feinstein crafted---and Congress passed---a federal
statute modeled on their proposed amendment that allowed the general
rights of restitution, notification, allocution, and protection with
specific measures to enforce its provisions. Additionally, by 1998, a
total of 33 states had adopted crime victims' rights constitutional
amendments.

**[Exhibit II-1]{.smallcaps}**

States' Passage of Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendments

+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **State**            | **Year Passed**      | **Electoral Support** |
+======================+======================+=======================+
| # Alabama            | 1994                 | 80%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Alaska               | 1994                 | 87%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Arizona              | 1990                 | 58%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| California           | 1982                 | 56%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Colorado             | 1992                 | 86%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Connecticut          | 1996                 | 78%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Florida              | 1988                 | 90%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Idaho                | 1994                 | 79%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Illinois             | 1992                 | 77%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Indiana              | 1996                 | 89%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Kansas               | 1992                 | 84%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Louisiana            | 1998                 | 69%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Maryland             | 1994                 | 92%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Michigan             | 1988                 | 84%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Mississippi          | 1998                 | 93%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Missouri             | 1992                 | 84%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Montana              | 1998                 | 71%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Nebraska             | 1996                 | 78%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| New Jersey           | 1991                 | 85%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| New Mexico           | 1992                 | 68%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Nevada               | 1996                 | 74%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| North Carolina       | 1996                 | 78%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ohio                 | 1994                 | 77%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Oklahoma             | 1996                 | 91%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Oregon               | 1996 (overturned     | 59%                   |
|                      | 1998)                |                       |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Rhode Island         | 1986                 | passed by Const.      |
|                      |                      | Convention            |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| South Carolina       | 1996                 | 89%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Tennessee            | 1998                 | 89%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Texas                | 1989                 | 73%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Utah                 | 1994                 | 68%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Virginia             | 1996                 | 84%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Washington           | 1989                 | 78%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| Wisconsin            | 1993                 | 84%                   |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+
| **33 States**        | **Average**          | **79%**               |
+----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------+

***Landmark Federal Legislation***

**1994**

In 1994, the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed. This
has been the most significant legislation in the victims' rights field,
other than VOCA. This act doubled the maximum federal sentences for sex
offenses and domestic violence and required that temporary restraining
orders (TROs) be honored by all other jurisdictions. Domestic violence
perpetrators with TROs were prohibited from possessing firearms. For the
first time, information shared by domestic violence and rape victims
with an advocate was considered to be privileged communication. This act
also established the Office of Violence Against Women and doubled the
available funding for domestic violence and rape counseling programs.

**1996**

In 1996, the Congress passed "Megan's Law," the Community Notification
Act, as an amendment to the national Child Sexual Abuse Registry
legislation. This law provided that local communities be notified of the
residential addresses of convicted sex offenders.

In 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act included the
Mandatory Victims' Restitution Act, under which limited kinds of
restitution were made mandatory in all federal misdemeanor and felony
cases. Compensation and victim assistance services for victims of
terrorism both at home and abroad, including victims in the military,
were expanded.

The Interstate Anti‑Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 was
enacted by Congress. This legislation created a uniform federal law to
protect stalking victims when they travel across a state line or on
federal property, including military bases and Indian reservations. This
law made it a felony to cross a state line to stalk someone or to
violate a restraining order in another state.

**1998**

The Identity Theft and Deterrence Act of 1998 was signed into law in
1998. This landmark federal legislation outlawed identity theft and
directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider various factors in
determining penalties, including the number of victims and the value of
the loss to any individual victim. This act further authorized the
Federal Trade Commission to log and acknowledge reports of identity
theft, provide information to victims, and refer complaints to
appropriate consumer reporting and law enforcement agencies.

**2000**

The Blood Alcohol Concentration Bill of 2000 required states to adopt a
0.08 blood alcohol content (BAC) as the legal limit for drunk driving by
2004; failure to do this would lead to an annual reduction in federal
highway appropriations.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act was passed in 2000 to combat the
trafficking of persons, especially into the sex trade, slavery, and
slavery-like conditions, through prevention, prosecution, and
enforcement against traffickers and by increasing the protection,
assistance, and mandatory restitution for victims. This act established
programs by the U.S. State Department in foreign countries to assist in
the safe reintegration or resettlement of trafficking victims.

The VAWA of 2000 provided for direct compensation from the federal
government to victims of international terrorism. This act improved and
expanded the legal tools and programs addressing domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking. It authorized new grant programs expanding
both programs and research for sexual assault and domestic violence. It
defined dating violence and placed it under the VAWA programs. It
widened the definition of underserved populations and established four
new purposes for VAWA funds: coordinated community response, forensic
medical examiners training, training to recognize disabled and older
victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and assistance with
immigration matters.

**2001**

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 addressed the needs and concerns of victims
of terrorists' acts. The act allowed the OVC director to respond to acts
of terrorism both inside and outside the United States. It established
an antiterrorism emergency reserve in the Crime Victims Fund and
increased federal grants for state crime victim compensation benefits.

In 2001, the VAWA of 1994 was reauthorized with a \$3 billion budget
through 2005. Congress reauthorized the original programs and expanded
them, including grants for legal services, funding for transitional
housing, computerized tracking of protection orders, grants for safe
visitation, and grants for programs that address dating violence.

**2004**

In 2004, Congress passed legislation defining aggravated identity theft
and establishing penalty enhancements for 2 additional years. Title I of
the Justice for All Act (JFA), called the ''Scott Campbell, Stephanie
Roper, Wendy Preston, Louarna Gillis, and Nila Lynn Crime Victims'
Rights Act" (CVRA), enhanced substantive rights for crime victims in the
federal criminal justice system, including the right to be protected
from the accused, heard at all proceedings, treated with fairness and
respect and to receive timely notice of public proceedings, confer with
the government attorney, and receive full and timely restitution. The
CVRA's enforcement provisions are more rigorous than other federal
victims' rights laws and include the appointment of a victims' rights
ombudsman in the U.S. Department of Justice. The act also authorized
additional, non-VOCA funding for federal victim/witness coordinators,
state and federal automated victim notification systems, and victim
assistance legal clinics. Other provisions in the JFA seek to eliminate
the substantial backlog of collection of DNA samples in cases of sexual
assault and from crime scenes, criminals, and convicted offenders.

**2006**

VAWA is reauthorized by Congress and signed into law. The
reauthorization increased funding to support rape crisis centers and
combat violent crimes on campuses and provided funding to place victim
assistants in local law enforcement agencies and to create a national
educational curriculum to ensure that all courts have access to relevant
laws and best practices.

***Federal Crime Victims Fund***

In 1995, deposits in the federal Crime Victims Fund reached a then-high
of more than \$583 million, available for state crime victim
compensation, local victim assistance programs, national training and
technical assistance, and federal victim assistance. As a result of this
increase in fund collections, state assistance grants received more than
three times as much in federal funds in 1997 as they had the previous
year.

In 1999, the fund deposits reached an all-time high of \$985 million. As
a result of significant fluctuations in annual fund deposits, Congress
began capping the amount that could be obligated each year with annual
revenues above the cap stored in the fund balance, from which the
program could draw as a rainy day fund when revenues did not meet the
cap. Congress also began using the fund to support federal victim
services, including victim/witness coordinators in U.S. Attorneys'
Offices, victim specialists in FBI field offices, and a federal Victim
Notification System.

## **REFERENCES**

Andrews, A. 1992. *Victimization and Survivor Services: A Guide to
Victim Assistance.* New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Ash, Michael. 1972. "On Witnesses: A Radical Critique of Criminal Court
Procedures." *Notre Dame Lawyer* 48*:*386--425.

Brownmiller, S. 1975. *Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape.* New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1998. *Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Burgess, A. 2004. "Research and Practice in Victim Services: Perspective
from Education and Research." In *American Society of Victimology
Symposium Proceedings,* A. Burgess and T. Underwood. Topeka, Kansas:
Washburn University, 2.

Burgess, A. and L. Holstrom. 1974. "Rape Trauma Syndrome.  *American
Journal of Nursing.* 131: 981--986.

Carrington, F. G. 1975. *The Victims.* New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House
Pub.

Deuteronomy, in *The Holy Bible* (Today's New International Version).
Retrieved July 17, 2007, from
www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=Deuteronomy%2019&tniv=yes.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1981. *Crime in the United States
Uniform Crime Reports, 1981.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.

Goldstein, A. S. 1982. "Defining the Role of the Victim in Criminal
Prosecution. *Mississippi Law Journal* 52:515--561.

Gordon, H. 1957 *Hammurabi's Code: Quaint or Forward Looking.* New York:
Rinehart.

Karmen, A. 2004. *Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology.*
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

Masters, R., and C. Roberson. 1985. *Inside Criminology.* Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

National Center for Victims of Crime. 1994a. *Crime Victims' Rights in
America: An Historical Overview.* Arlington, VA: Author.

Pound, R. 1968. *Social Control Through the Law.* Hamden, CT: Archon.

Rheinstein, C., ed. 1954. *Max* *Weber on Law in Economy and Society.*
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Siegel, L. 1989. *Criminology,* 3rd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Sherr, L. 1995. *Failure Is Impossible:  Susan B. Anthony in Her Own
Words*. New York: Times Books.

Wallace, H. 1998. *Victimology: Legal, Psychological, and Social
Perspectives.* Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Young, M. 1988. "The Crime Victims' Movement," in F. Ochberg (Ed.),
*Post-Traumatic Therapy and Victims of Violence,* New York:
Brunner/Mazel, 319--329.

**FURTHER READING**

Bard, M., and D. Sangrey. 1986. *The Crime Victim's Book,* 2nd ed. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 1998. *National Crime Victimization
Survey.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1998. *Crime in the United States,
Uniform Crime Reports, 1997.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.

Headden, S. July 1, 1996. "Guns, Money and Medicine." *U.S. News and
World Report*\
30, 31, 34, 36.

Kilpatrick, D. G., C. N. Edmunds, and A. K. Seymour. 1992. *Rape in
America: A Report to the Nation.* Arlington, VA: National Center for
Victims of Crime.

Kilpatrick, D. G. and H. S. Resnick. 1993. "PTSD Associated with
Exposure to Criminal Victimization in Clinical and Community
Populations," In *PTSD* *in Review: Recent Research and Future
Directions,* eds*.* J. R. T. Davidson and E. B. Foa, 113--143.

Kilpatrick, D. G., A. Seymour, and J. Boyle. 1991. *America Speaks Out:
Citizens' Attitudes about Victims' Rights and Violence.* Arlington, VA:
National Center for Victims of Crime.

Lurigio, A., W. Skogan, and R. Davis. 1990. *Victims of Crime: Problems,
Policies and Programs.* Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Miller, T., M. Cohen, and B. Wiersema. 1996. *Victim Costs and
Consequences: A New Look.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice.

National Center for Victims of Crime. 1998. *Legislative Sourcebook.*
Arlington, VA: Author.

Office for Victims of Crime. 1998. *New Directions from the Field:
Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century.* Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.

Resnick, H. S., D. G. Kilpatrick, B. S. Dansky, B. E. Saunders, and C.
L. Best. 1993. "Prevalence of Civilian Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder in a Representative National Sample of Women." *Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology* 61(6): 984--991.

Roberts, A. 1990. *Helping Crime Victims.* Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Victims' Assistance Legal Organization (VALOR). 1995--1999. *National
Crime Victims' Rights Week Resource Guide.* Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime.

[^1]:
    > Authors of this chapter are Steven Derene, Executive Director,
    > National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, Madison,
    > WI; Steve Walker, Ph.D., California State University, Fresno, CA;
    > and John Stein, J.D., International Organization for Victim
    > Assistance, Newberg, OR.