Title: The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection Make a Difference?
Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Author(s): Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan Smith Howley
Published: December 1998
Subject(s): Victims' rights, victim services, victim/witness
27 pages
48,000 bytes

------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not
included in this ASCII plain-text file. To view
this document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420
(877-712-9279 for TTY users).

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Research in Brief

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, Director
December 1998

-------------------------------

The Rights of Crime Victims--Does Legal Protection
Make a Difference? 

by Dean G. Kilpatrick, David Beatty, and Susan
Smith Howley 

-------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: The impact of legal
protection on crime victims' rights. This survey
of more than 1,300 crime victims, the largest of
its kind, was conducted by the National Center for
Victims of Crime to find out whether State
constitutional amendments and other legal measures
designed to protect crime victims' rights have
been effective. The researchers sought the views
of victims in two States representative of those
in which legal protection of victims' rights is
strong and two States representative of those in
which such protection is weak, testing whether
victims from the "strong-protection States" had
better experiences with the justice system. 

Key issues: All States have some form of statutory
protection of victims' rights, and more than half
have constitutional amendments protecting these
rights. Until this study, little research had been
directed at whether these legal guarantees mean crime
victims are kept informed of the events in their
cases and of their rights as victims, whether they
are adequately notified of services, and whether
they are satisfied with the criminal justice
system's handling of their cases. 

Key findings: Strong victims' rights laws make a
difference, but in many instances, even where
there is strong legal protection, victims' needs are not
fully met. In the two States studied where legal 
protection is strong, victims were more likely
than in the two selected weak-protection States to
be afforded their rights, to be involved, and to
feel the system is responsive. They were more
likely:

--To be notified of events in their cases. 

--To be informed of their rights as crime victims
and of services available. 

--To exercise their rights (though not at all
stages of the criminal justice process). 

--To give high ratings to the criminal justice
system and its various agents, such as the
police. 

Legal protection is not sufficient, however, to
guarantee victims' rights. More than one in four
victims from the two strong-protection States were
very dissatisfied with the criminal justice
system. Nearly half of them were not notified of
the sentence hearing, and they were as 
unlikely as those in weak-protection States to be
informed of plea negotiations. Substantial
proportions of victims in both the strong- and
weak-protection States were not notified of other
rights and services, including the right to be informed
about protection and to discuss the case with the
prosecutor. 

Strong legal protection--either through State
constitutional amendments or other means--
appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for ensuring the protection of crime
victims' rights, because a host of intervening
factors, such as knowledge, funding, and
enforcement, mediates the actual "delivery"
of victims' rights. 

Target audience: Victims' rights organizations,
criminal justice officials, and other government
officials at State and local levels. 

-------------------------------

The President's Task Force on Victims of Crime
concluded in its 1982 Final Report that there was
a serious imbalance between the rights of criminal
defendants and the rights of crime victims. This
imbalance was viewed as so great that the task
force proposed an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution to provide crime victims with "the
right to be present and to be heard at all
critical stages of judicial proceedings."[1] The
recommended amendment has not been enacted by
Congress, but the report led to a proliferation of
victims' rights legislation at the State level. 

By the early 1990s, every State had enacted
statutory rights for crime victims, and many had
adopted constitutional amendments protecting
victims' rights. Today, all 50 States have passed
some form of a statutory crime victims' bill of
rights, and 29 have amended their constitutions to
include rights for crime victims.[2] At the Federal
level, the Victim's Rights and Protection Act of
1990, and several subsequent statutes, gave
victims of Federal crime many of the rights 
accorded at the State level. 

Despite the widespread adoption of legal
protection, the implementation of such protection
and its impact on victims have not been widely
studied, nor has much research been directed at
how this legislation has influenced victims' views
of the criminal justice system.[3] One reason the
latter issue is important is that victims who view
the criminal justice system unfavorably are likely
to share that opinion with others, thereby
undermining confidence in the system. The current 
debate in the U.S. Congress over a proposed crime
victims' rights constitutional amendment
highlights the relevance of victims' rights
legislation and the need for research in this
area. 

This research project, conducted by the National
Center for Victims of Crime,[4] was designed to test
the hypothesis that the strength of legal
protection for crime victims' rights has a
measurable impact on how victims are treated by
the criminal justice system and on their
perceptions of the system. A related hypothesis
was that victims from States with strong legal
protection would have more favorable experiences
and greater satisfaction with the system than
those from States where legal protection is weak. 

Overall, the research revealed that strong legal
protection makes a difference, but it also revealed
that even in States where legal protection is strong,
some victims are not afforded their rights. In other
words, enactment of State laws and State constitutional
amendments alone appears to be insufficient to guarantee
the full provision of victims' rights in practice. The
likely reason is that a host of other factors mediates the
laws' effects. Thus, although the disparities between strong
and weak victims' rights laws indicate the need to
strengthen legal protection, additional steps may
be necessary to address the other, intervening
factors, to better ensure that the laws have their 
intended effects. 

Assessing the implementation of victims' rights

The experiences of crime victims in the two States
studied where legal protection of victims' rights
is strong were compared with those in the two
States studied where protection is weak. In each
group, the victims were asked whether they 
were afforded their rights in several areas.
Were they kept informed of case proceedings
and their rights as victims? Did they exercise
those rights? Did they receive adequate
notification of available victim services?[5] Did
they receive restitution for the crime committed
against them? They also were asked what losses
they suffered as a result of the crime, 
and they rated their satisfaction with the
criminal justice process and its various
representatives. 

Representatives of the criminal justice system are
the implementors of laws that provide victims
access to information and facilitate victims'
participation in the criminal justice process. For
this reason, officials from various components of
the system, as well as victim assistance
professionals, were asked how much they were aware
of victims' rights and how well they believed these
rights are implemented in their jurisdiction. (For further
details of the study's methodology, including the definition
of "strong-protection" and "weak-protection" States,
see "Measuring the Effectiveness of Victims'
Rights Laws--the Study Design," on page 3.) 

Notification of case events and proceedings 

Perhaps the most fundamental right of a crime
victim is the right to be kept informed by the
criminal justice system. Notification plays a key
role in a victim's ability to participate in the
system because victims cannot participate unless
they are informed of their rights and of the time
and place of the relevant criminal justice
proceedings in which they may exercise those
rights. Victims clearly attested to the importance
of their rights to attend and be heard at
proceedings (see "The Importance of Victims'
Rights to Victims Themselves" on page 4), but
unless they receive notice of proceedings and of
their rights, cannot exercise those rights.

At most points in the criminal justice process,
from arrest through the parole hearing, victims in
strong-protection States were much more likely to
receive advance notification than those in
weak-protection States. (See exhibit 1.) At
certain other points in the process, however, the
difference between the two groups was not
significant. For example, the proportions of
victims who were not informed of plea negotiations
were nearly the same in strong- as in
weak-protection States, despite the fact that both
strong-protection States--but neither
weak-protection State--had a law requiring that
victims be informed of such negotiations. In other
words, the relative strength, and even the
existence, of laws providing this right made no
difference to the provision of the notice.

In other cases, while the strength of the legal
protection for a victim's right did appear to
affect the rate at which the right was provided,
it was not sufficient to ensure that most victims
in fact received the right. For example, far more
victims in strong-protection than weak-protection
States were notified of the defendant's pretrial
release, but more than 60 percent of victims in
those strong-protection States did not receive
such notice. (See exhibit 1.) Similarly, nearly
twice as many victims in strong-protection States
as in weak-protection States were notified in
advance of the sentencing hearing, but more than
40 percent of such victims were not notified. (See
exhibit 1.) Lack of such advance notice would
directly affect the ability of victims to exercise
their rights to attend and/or be heard at such
proceedings.

-------------------------------

Measuring the effectiveness of victims' rights
laws--the study design

The first step in the study was identifying States
that were weak in protecting victims' rights and
those that were strong. Next, crime victims from
two "weak" States and two "strong" States were
asked about their experiences in the criminal
justice process. Their experiences were compared
and contrasted to find out whether there is a
measurable difference in the two groups of States
in victim protection. State and local level
criminal justice professionals, policymakers, and
victim assistance professionals in both groups of
States were asked their opinions of victim
protection, and their responses were also compared
and contrasted.(a)

Selecting strong and weak States. To identify
strong and weak States, a legal analysis of
victims' rights laws in all 50 States was
conducted. Criteria were developed to rate
statutory and State constitutional protection of
victims' rights on the basis of comprehensiveness,
strength, and specificity. The criteria were then
used to rate each State in four areas: (1) the
right to notification, (2) the right to be
present, (3) the right to be heard, and (4) the
right to restitution. Applying these ratings, each
State was ranked according to the strength of its
legal protection of victims' rights. Groups of
strong- and weak-protection States were
identified, and two States from each group were
selected as sites for study. (Both strong States
had constitutional amendments covering victims'
rights, whereas neither weak State did.)

Crime victims' views. From the four States, adult
(age 18 and older) crime victims' names and
locational information were obtained from
department of corrections and victims'
compensation agencies. Of the 2,245 victims who
could be located, 665 (29.6 percent of the
contacted sample) denied that they or a family
member had been a recent victim of crime.(b) Of the
remaining 1,580 respondents, interviews were
completed with 1,308 crime victims (83 percent of
the victims who could be located and disclosed
their victimization). 

The sample consisted of victims of physical
assault (25 percent), robbery (24 percent), sexual
assault (11 percent), other crimes (10 percent),
and relatives of homicide victims (30 percent).(c) 

Interviews were conducted by phone, and
information was obtained about the crime,
experiences with the criminal justice system,
satisfaction with treatment by the system, and
crime-related injuries and losses.(d) Interviews
averaged 40.2 minutes and were conducted between
April and October 1995.

Views of government and victim assistance
professionals. Criminal justice officials, other
government officials, and professionals in victim
assistance organizations were asked their opinions,
perceptions, and suggestions about the rights of
crime victims and crime victim services. These
individuals, 145 at the local level and 53 at the
State level, fell into the following categories:

Local:

Judges*
Prosecutors
Parole and probation officials
Victim assistance coordinators
Victim-witness staff
Defense attorneys
Police and sheriffs

State:
Agency directors
Legislators
Victim coalition directors
Other government officials

*Judges constituted almost half the people
interviewed at the local level.

Can the findings be generalized? By their very
nature, the findings of social science studies
that are not true experiments can establish
relationships among various factors;
more difficult is establishing definitive, 
cause-and-effect relationships. In this study,
strong- and weak-protection States were not
identical in certain factors that might determine
case outcomes or how victims are treated; the
differences may have affected the findings.
Another limitation to generalizing the findings is
that the victims selected for this study were not
a representative sample of all crime victims. That
is because most crimes are not reported to the
police and, if they are, do not progress beyond
the report stage. Because the cases in this study
progressed further, the victims surveyed were
likely to be more satisfied than the average crime
victim. In addition, the legal analysis of State
laws and State constitutional amendments reflected
the situation at a single point in time (January
1, 1992), and many changes in applicable statutes
and constitutional provisions have been made since
then.

a. Unless stated otherwise, chi-square analyses
were used to test differences between the groups
of States. In addition, unless otherwise
indicated, all findings are significant at the
0.05 level or less. Percentages were rounded to
whole numbers. Because not all victims progressed
equally far in the criminal justice process,
percentages are based on the number of victims who
had each type of relevant experience.

b. Failure of crime victims who have reported
crimes to the police to disclose the crime when
contacted by victimization survey interviewers 
is consistent with the results of reverse records
check studies (e.g., Reiss, A.J., Jr., and J.A.
Roth, eds., Understanding and Preventing Violence,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993:
appendix B).

c. Because the distribution of types of crime
victims differed among the four States, interview
data were weighted by State, using the proportion
of victims in the entire sample as case weights.
Thus, the distribution of crime types in strong
and weak protection States was identical. The
weighted number of crime victims in the sample was
1,312.

d. All interviews were conducted by SRBI, a New
York-based survey research firm, using a
computer-assisted telephone interview procedure.

-------------------------------

The importance of victims' rights to victims
themselves

The right to participate in the process of justice,
including the right to attend criminal proceedings
and to be heard at various points in the criminal
justice process, is important to crime victims.
The researchers reached this conclusion by presenting
victims with the following list of rights and
asking them to rate the importance of each one
(the rights are listed in descending order of
their rating):

--Being informed about whether anyone was
arrested.

--Being involved in the decision to drop the
case.

--Being informed about the defendant's
release on bond.

--Being informed about the date of the earliest
possible release from incarceration.

--Being heard in decisions about the
defendant's release on bond.

--Discussing the case with the prosecutor's
office.

--Discussing whether the defendant's plea to
a lesser charge should be accepted.

--Making a victim's impact statement 
during the defendant's parole hearing. 

--Being present during the grand jury hearing.

--Being present during release hearings.

--Being informed about postponement of grand
jury hearings.

--Making a victim's impact statement 
before sentencing.

--Being involved in the decision about what
sentence should be given.

On each item, more than three-fourths of the
victims rated the particular right as "very
important." Topping the list was the right to be
informed about whether there was an arrest, rated
"very important" by more than 97 percent of the
victims. The sole item rated "very important" by
less than 80 percent was involvement in the
decision about the sentence.

-------------------------------

Notification of their rights as victims 

Crime victims not only need to be notified about
events and proceedings in the criminal justice
process, they also need to be informed of their
legal rights. They need to know, for example, not
only that the trial has been scheduled, but also
that they have a right to discuss the case with
the prosecutor. As expected, there were significant
differences on this score between strong- and
weak-protection States. It was much more common in
the strong-protection States for crime victims to
be notified of their various rights and of the
availability of services. (See exhibit 2.) For example,
almost three-fourths of victims in strong-protection
States were informed of the availability of victim
services, while less than half in weak-protection
States received such information. 

There were similar differences when it came to
being informed of the right to discuss the case
with the prosecutor, make a victim's impact
statement, and make a statement at the parole
hearing. Victims in the strong-protection States
fared better. But again, as with notification of
case-processing events, even in the
strong-protection States large proportions of
crime victims were not notified of their rights and
of available services. Thus, almost 40 percent of
victims in the strong-protection States were not
informed they could make an impact statement at
the parole hearing. 

Exercising their rights

Notifying crime victims in advance of events and
proceedings in the criminal justice process, and
informing them of their rights to participate in
that process, are prerequisites to the exercise of
the rights to participate. Researchers asked crime
victims who indicated they had received such
information whether they had in fact exercised
their rights to attend, make statements at, or
otherwise participate in the criminal justice
process. The responses of victims in
strong-protection and weak-protection States were
then compared. 

At some points in the criminal justice process,
among victims who had received the prerequisite
notice, victims in the strong-protection States
were more likely to exercise their rights than
those in weak-protection States. They were more
likely to make recommendations at bond hearings,
to make recommendations about sentences, and to
make an impact statement at the parole hearing.
(See exhibit 3.) At other stages, such as making
an impact statement at sentencing, or attending the
parole hearings, similar percentages of victims from
both groups of States, who knew of the proceeding
and of their legal rights, exercised those rights.

While the strength of the legal protections of
victims' rights to participate did appear to
influence the numbers of victims who exercised
some rights to participate, victims in both groups
of States were more likely to exercise some rights
than others. For instance, most victims in both
strong- and weak-protection States who were
notified of the sentencing hearing and their
rights to participate attended sentencing hearings
(72 percent) and made an impact statement at
sentencing (93 percent). Relatively few victims in
either group, even when they were aware of their
rights and of the proceeding, exercised their rights to
make recommendations at bond hearings or to attend
parole hearings. (See exhibit 3.)

Obtaining restitution 

Another important area of victims' rights examined
in this study was the right of victims to
restitution--the court orders a convicted defendant
to repay the victim for crime-related economic
losses. Contrary to the hypothesis that judges in
strong-protection States would be more likely to
order restitution whenever a victim had sustained
economic losses, they were significantly less
likely to do so (22 percent, in contrast to 42
percent in the weak-protection States).[6] In the
cases in which restitution was ordered, there was
no significant difference in the percentages of
victims from strong- and weak-protection States
who actually received restitution (37 percent
versus 43 percent). Overall, victims in
strong-protection States who were eligible for
restitution were significantly less likely than
their counterparts in weak-protection States ever
to receive any restitution (8 percent, in contrast
to 18 percent). 

Because these results were contrary to the
hypothesis, exploratory analyses were conducted to
determine if other factors might explain them. The
analyses revealed that defendants in
restitution-eligible cases in strong-protection
States were more likely than those in
weak-protection States to have been incarcerated
(89 percent, in contrast to 72 percent).
Restitution in both groups of States was less
likely to have been ordered in cases involving a
sentence of incarceration. However, the analyses
also revealed that weak-protection States were
significantly more likely to order restitution
than strong-protection States, regardless of
whether the sentence included incarceration (44
percent, in contrast to 23 percent), or did not
include incarceration (61 percent, in contrast to
36 percent). Thus, the analyses were unsuccessful
in identifying the incarceration of convicted
defendants as a reason for the superiority of the
weak-protection States in ordering restitution. 

The most striking finding was the relatively small
percentage of eligible victims overall (less than
20 percent) who received any restitution (whether
ordered or not). The low percentage suggests that
factors other than legislative mandates are
driving whether restitution is paid. When criminal
justice officials were surveyed (see "How the criminal
justice system views crime victims' rights," page
8), they indicated that the factors influencing
the ordering of restitution might include lack of
knowledge about victims' economic losses or the
amount of defendants' assets, lack of knowledge
about the victims' right to restitution, and
opinions about the appropriateness of ordering
restitution.

Rating the criminal justice process and its agents

Crime victims need to have confidence in the
criminal justice process. To measure their level
of confidence, the researchers asked them to
assess the adequacy of criminal justice system
performance at several points in the criminal
justice process. Again, the findings were
consistent with the hypothesis: victims who came
from States where legal protection is strong were
more likely to rate the system favorably. (See
exhibit 4.) Still, the comparative figures cannot
conceal the fact that many victims, even in States
where legal protection is strong, gave the system
very negative ratings. 

Rating the outcome of the case. As predicted by
the hypothesis, victims in weak-protection States
were more likely to believe the fairness of the
sentence was "completely inadequate" (the lowest
rating). However, a sizeable minority of victims
in the strong-protection States also believed the
sentence imposed was "completely inadequate" 
(34 percent in weak-protection versus 25 percent
in strong-protection States).

Similarly, more than one in four victims from
weak-protection States and one in five from
strong-protection States believed the fairness of
the verdict or plea was completely inadequate. More
than 25 percent of victims from weak-protection
States and 15 percent from strong-protection
States felt the speed of the process was
completely inadequate. Finally, 22 percent of
victims from weak-protection States and 15 percent
from strong-protection States said support
services for victims were completely inadequate. 

These negative ratings are particularly noteworthy
in view of the fact that, from the victims'
perspective, the outcomes of these cases were much
more favorable than most; that is, a higher than usual
proportion resulted in a plea or verdict of guilty that led 
to incarceration of the defendant. Clearly, to
many crime victims, even in cases resulting in a
conviction and imprisonment of the defendant, the
criminal justice process did not meet their
expectations. 

Rating the system and its agents. Victims gave
high marks to the various agents of the criminal
justice system, such as the police. Again, victims
in the strong-protection States tended to be more
satisfied than those in the weak-protection
States. But the proportions who said they were
very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the
performance of police, prosecutors, victim/witness
agency staff, and judges were high across the
board, irrespective of the strength of legal
protection. Thus, in the strong-protection States,
83 percent of the victims were very or somewhat
satisfied with the police and, at 77 percent, the
proportion in the weak-protection States was
similarly high. (See exhibit 5.) 

The criminal justice system overall was rated
somewhat lower than each of its component
representatives: Only 55 percent of victims in
strong-protection States and 47 percent in
weak-protection States were very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with it. At the other end of
the scale, the proportion of victims expressing
strong dissatisfaction with the system was
relatively high--more than one-fourth of the
victims in the strong-protection States and more
than one-third in the weak-protection States.

What explains victims' satisfaction levels 

Knowing whether and to what extent crime victims
are satisfied (or dissatisfied) with the criminal
justice system is not the same as knowing why. To
shed light on the issue, three scales were
constructed, each of which comprised several
questions asked of victims. The scales measured
overall satisfaction with the criminal justice
system, the extent to which victims thought they
were informed of their rights, and victims'
perceptions of the effectiveness of their impact
statements. They were called, respectively, the
Victim Satisfaction Scale, the Informed Victim
Scale, and the Victims' Impact Scale. 

As measured by the Victim Satisfaction Scale,
satisfaction with the criminal justice system was
greater among female than male victims, among
white than African-American victims, and among
higher income than lower income victims. Age made
no difference. As expected, in the strong-protection
States the Victim Satisfaction Scale scores were higher
than in the weak-protection States, and this was true 
after controlling for the effects of gender, race, and
income level.

Are victims more satisfied if they are informed of
their rights? And are they more satisfied if they
believe their participation in the system has had an 
impact on the decision process? To answer the first
question, Victim Satisfaction Scale scores were analyzed
in relation to the Informed Victim Scale scores, with the
results revealing a strong correlation between the two:
victims who were informed of their rights were
more satisfied with the justice system than those
who were not. To answer the second question, the
Victim Satisfaction Scales were again analyzed,
this time in relation to the Victims' Impact Scale
scores. Again, the analysis revealed a strong
correlation, indicating that victims who thought
their participation had an impact on their cases
were more satisfied with the system. 

Crime-related physical, financial, and mental 
health problems

Crime victims experience a variety of losses
relating to the crime. They may sustain physical
or psychological injuries, with some victims
requiring counseling. They may lose money or
suffer property destruction, loss, or damage.
Victims may lose time from work or school as a
result of their injuries or as a consequence of
time spent consulting with law enforcement or
prosecutors, or attendance at court proceedings.

Whether they were from weak- or strong-protection
States, victims reported several major crime-related
losses. For certain kinds of losses--property damage or
destruction, property or monetary loss, time away
from work or school to consult with the police,
and canceled insurance coverage or increased
premiums--strong legal protection made no
difference, because victims in both weak- and
strong-protection States were equally affected.
(See exhibit 6.) For other kinds of problems
resulting from the crime--time lost from work or
school because of injuries and receiving medical
treatment for those injuries--victims from the
weak-protection States were more likely to be
affected. But victims in strong-protection States
were more likely to note a loss of time from work
or school because of consultations with
prosecutors, attending trial, or receiving
counseling. This could be viewed not so much as a
greater problem than as a greater opportunity:
Although the time these victims lost cannot be
discounted, they spent it participating in the
justice system and obtaining services. 

How the criminal justice system views crime
victims' rights

This study also included a survey of criminal
justice and victim assistance professionals at the
State and local levels. There were two reasons for
their inclusion. The first is that those
professionals can affect crime victims' ability to
recover and to cope with the aftermath of the
offense and the stress of participation in the
criminal justice system. The average citizen,
newly thrust into the criminal justice system as a
victim of crime, often has little understanding of
the basic workings of the system. Representatives
of the various components of the criminal justice
system and victim assistance professionals can play
key roles in helping facilitate access and understanding
as cases progress.

There was another important rationale for
surveying such professionals. The survey of crime
victims produced a wealth of data on whether the
strength of victims' rights laws influenced the
rate at which victims received their rights and on
victims' satisfaction with the criminal justice
system. However, it could not suggest reasons that
laws might or might not produce such an 
effect. Local and State professionals were
surveyed to begin to explore such reasons.[7] 
The data produced by these surveys inform the
discussion of influences on the implementation of
victims' rights, and suggest additional avenues
for research.

Thus, State and local officials and advocates were
surveyed to determine the extent to which they
were aware of the legal rights of victims, their
views of how victims' rights are ensured, and
their thinking about what further steps may be
necessary to strengthen the protection of victims'
rights. The interviews with such officials
revealed much the same pattern as the interviews
with victims: strong legal protection tended to
translate in practice as greater implementation of
those rights, but in many cases did not guarantee
the provision of such rights. 

Views of local criminal justice and victim service
professionals. If the local officials came from
strong-protection States, they were more likely than
those from weak-protection States to say they "always"
or "usually" provide crime victims with their rights to
notification of events in the case, to be present at the
various stages of the criminal justice process, and to be
heard. These local officials were also about one-third
more likely than their counterparts in weak-protection
States to believe that victims' rights
are "adequate." 

Yet, large proportions of local criminal justice
officials, even from States where legal protection
is strong, were not aware of many victims' rights
and how they are being provided. For example, only
39 percent of the local professionals in the
strong-protection States knew that their State had
a constitutional amendment enumerating victims'
rights. For a majority of questions about victims'
rights, a substantial number of officials
incorrectly identified the source of the victims'
right as a policy or practice, rather than a
statute or State constitutional amendment. Many
officials were also unclear about which agency had
the duty to provide victims a given right.

State leaders' views. The opinions of State
leaders indicate the extent to which crime victims'
rights have achieved understanding and acceptability
at high levels of government. At the State level,
awareness of legally mandated victims' rights tends
to be higher than it is locally. Such leaders as governors,
attorneys general, heads of State criminal justice agencies,
and heads of State crime victims' organizations
generally were aware of the status of victims' rights and
the challenges of implementing them. 

At the State level, as at the local level, strong
legal protection made a difference, though not in
all respects. Leaders from the strong States were
more likely to believe their criminal justice
system was performing well, particularly in
protecting victims' rights. However, even where
legal protection was strong, a large majority also
indicated they were aware of problems victims are
experiencing in obtaining benefits and services.
The problems most frequently cited had to do with
victim notification. 

Barriers to implementation

Criminal justice and victim advocate professionals
at the State and local levels were asked for their
suggestions for improving the provision of
victims' rights. Their responses basically fell
into three groups: increased funding, increased
training, and increased enforcement of victims' rights. 

Resource limitations were cited by officials as
the most common reason for being unable to fulfill
their responsibilities. Local officials from the
strong-protection States were more likely than
those from weak-protection States to believe that
funding for the implementation of victims' rights
was adequate. (In the strong-protection States, 55
percent of local officials, in contrast to 34
percent in the weak-protection States, felt
funding for victim services was adequate; 39
percent in the strong-protection States, but only
27 percent in the weak-protection States, felt
funding for implementation of victims' rights was
adequate.) At the same time, a considerable
percentage of these local leaders, even those from
the strong-protection States, believed funding for
victim services was very inadequate (15 percent,
and 35 percent of those in the weak-protection
States). 

When asked if their office had funding for use in
victim services programs or for implementing
victims' rights, only about one-third of all
officials at the local level said it had (and
there was little difference between the weak- and
the strong-protection States). What is more, very
few of those without funding said they had
actively sought it in the previous year.

At the State level, officials offered a similar
assessment of funding; that is, those from
strong-protection States were more likely to
believe that funding was adequate than were those 
from weak-protection States. (Half the State
leaders in strong-protection States, in contrast
to 31 percent in the weak-protection States,
believed funding for implementation of victims'
rights was adequate.) The State leaders also cited
increased funding--specifically for additional
staff (victim/witness coordinators and criminal
justice staff)--more often than any other need.
And whether they were from States with weak or
strong legal protection, these leaders most often
cited increased funding or staffing when they were
asked how they would minimize problems in
providing victims' services. 

In prioritizing suggestions to improve the
treatment of crime victims in their criminal
justice systems, leaders in weak-protection States
most frequently named the establishment,
enhancement, and/or enforcement of victims' rights
laws as their top priority; increased funding was
a secondary priority. By contrast, among leaders
in the strong-protection States, the largest
percentage of responses dealt with issues of
increased funding and resources for victim-related
services and programs, followed by the need for
better education of criminal justice officials regarding
victims' rights.

What more needs to be done 

The findings offer support for the position of
those who advocate strengthening legal protection
of crime victims' rights. Where legal protection
is strong, victims are more likely to be aware of
their rights, to participate in the criminal
justice system, to view criminal justice system
officials favorably, and to express more overall
satisfaction with the system. Moreover, the levels
of overall satisfaction in strong-protection
States are higher. Strong legal protection
produces greater victim involvement and better
experiences with the justice system. A more
favorable perception of the agents of the system--
police, prosecutors, victim/witness staff, and
judges--is another benefit. Because strong legal
protection at the State level is associated with
victim awareness, participation, and satisfaction,
some have advocated a Federal constitutional
amendment to protect victims' rights. 

On the other hand, legal protections per se,
regardless of their relative strength in State law
or State constitutions, are not always enough to
ensure victims' rights. As the study revealed,
even in States where victims' rights were
protected strongly by law, many victims were not
notified about key hearings and proceedings, many
were not given the opportunity to be heard, and
few received restitution. In the strong-protection
States examined in this study, more than one in
four victims were very dissatisfied with the
criminal justice system as a whole.

Mediating factors. Several mediating factors were
identified as influencing the provision of
victims' rights, beyond the strength of the
statute or State constitutional amendment. The
first among these is knowledge of victims' rights.
The survey of local criminal justice officials and
victim service professionals revealed a lack of
awareness of victims' rights and how those rights
are implemented. The level of criminal justice
officials' and victims' knowledge of victims'
rights influences their conduct with respect to
those rights. Criminal justice officials are not
likely to enforce victims' rights laws if they are
unaware they exist. They may be less likely to
seek funding for services they do not know they
have a duty to provide. Victims are unlikely to
attempt to assert rights they do not know they
have. 

Even when criminal justice officials know what the
law requires of them, they may not have the means
to carry out their duties. Victims' rights can be
ensured only if resources are sufficient, and
resource limitations were cited by officials as
the most common reason for being unable to fulfill
their duties under the law. It can be assumed that
there is a relationship between the strength of
legal mandates and the provision of funding to
implement those mandates. In other words, it is
reasonable to assume that States with stronger
legal mandates for the provision of victims'
rights tend to provide more funds for
implementation than States with weaker mandates.
While this study did not attempt to measure the
actual levels of funding, officials in the States
with strong legal protections of victims' rights
were more likely to believe that funding was
adequate. 

Finally, even where strong laws exist and are
fully understood, and where resources are
adequate, there may be a need for additional
enforcement mechanisms to ensure that victims
are given their rights. While some enforcement
mechanisms may involve giving victims the power
to assert their legal rights, others might involve
procedures that better allow criminal justice agencies
to monitor their own compliance with victims' rights
laws.

Strengthening victim protection. In view of these
considerations, the States and/or the criminal
justice system can take several steps, on a
variety of fronts, to strengthen victim
protection:[8]

--Keep victims informed, provide them with
opportunities for input, and consider that
input carefully for, as the study revealed,
informed victims, and those who thought their
input had influenced criminal justice
decisions, were more likely to be satisfied
with the criminal justice system.

--Make changes to ensure that restitution is
ordered, monitored, paid, and received.[9]

--Offer criminal justice officials and crime
victims additional education about victims'
rights and their legal mandates. 

--Take steps to seek and ensure adequate
funding for victims' services and the
implementation of victims' rights.

--Institute mechanisms to monitor the
provision of victims' rights by criminal
justice officials whose duty is to implement
the law, and provide a means by which victims
who are denied their rights can enforce those
rights.[10] 

-------------------------------

Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., professor of psychology
and Director of the National Crime Victims Research
and Treatment Center at the Medical University of
South Carolina (Charleston, South Carolina), was the
study's Research Director. David Beatty, J.D., Director
of Public Policy, National Center for Victims of
Crime (Arlington, Virginia), was the Project
Director; Susan Smith Howley, J.D., who also
contributed to the report, is Assistant for
Legislative Services at the National Center for
Victims of Crime. The survey interviews were
conducted by Schulman, Ronca, and Bucavalas, Inc.,
under the direction of Dr. John Boyle. The
research was conducted and the report prepared
under a cooperative agreement between the National Center
for Victims of Crime and the National Institute of
Justice (# 93-IJ-CX-K003). 

-------------------------------

Copies of the full report, "Statutory and
Constitutional Protection of  Victims' Rights:
Implementation and Impact on Crime Victims,"
by David Beatty, Susan Smith Howley, and
Dean G. Kilpatrick (Washington, D.C.,
National Victim Center, December 20, 1996), are
available from the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service. Through NIJ's Data Resources
Program, the data generated by the study have been
deposited with the National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data (NACJD) for public availability.
The data can be accessed early in 1999 at the Web
site of the Inter-university Consortium for Political
and Social Research (ICPSR), which administers the
NACJD: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/archive.html
or by contacting ICPSR, University of Michigan,
Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, Ann
Arbor, MI 48106-1248 (phone 734-998-9900; fax:
734-998-9889; e-mail: netmail@icpsr.umich.edu).

-------------------------------

Notes

1. President's Task Force on Victims of Crime
Final Report, Washington, D.C.: President's Task
Force on Victims of Crime, December 1982:114.

2. For current information about the status of
crime victims' rights laws, contact the National
Center for Victims of Crime at 2111 Wilson
Boulevard, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201
(703-276-2880).

3. For a recent review of research, see Kelly,
D.P., and Erez, E., "Victim Participation in the
Criminal Justice System," in R.C. Davis, A. J.
Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of Crime
(second edition), Thousand Oaks, California: Sage,
1997. Currently under way is a survey, conducted
by the Council of State Governments, Eastern
Regional Conference, of the attitudes of citizens,
including crime victims, toward the criminal justice
system. The survey, which will cover 10 Northeastern
States, will cover the extent and nature of victimization,
perceptions of victims' rights and victims'
services, and victims' experiences in reporting
crime.

4. Formerly the National Victim Center.

5. The term "victim services" refers to a wide
range of programs and policies (such as crisis
counseling, transportation, and employer
intercession) that provide assistance directly to
crime victims.

6. Restitution-eligible cases are those in which
the victims sustained economic losses and the
defendants pleaded guilty or were convicted.
Findings are significant at the .05 level or less.

7. Because in this part of the analysis the sample
size for each type of State was relatively small,
the data were not subjected to the same type of
statistical analysis as were the data from
victims.

8. The Council of State Governments-Eastern
Regional Conference (see note 3) is currently
planning a regional conference that will address
such issues as identifying victim issues that
could be addressed through legislation, modifying
existing victims' rights legislation, and
developing model legislation that could meet crime
victims' needs. 

9. There is a useful discussion of restitution 
issues in "Making Victims Whole Again," by B.E.
Smith and S. W. Hillenbrand, in R.C. Davis, A. J.
Lurigio, and W.G. Skogan, eds., Victims of Crime. 

10. A recent report by the Office for Victims of
Crime presents recommendations from crime victims,
victim advocates, criminal justice practitioners,
health professionals, and researchers. See New
Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and
Services for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Victims of
Crime, 1998. NCJ170600. 

-------------------------------

This and other NIJ publications can be found at
and downloaded from the NIJ Web site
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

-------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs, which also
includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
the Office for Victims of Crime.

-------------------------------

Findings and conclusions of the research 
reported here are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NCJ 173839