U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

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

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

The Rights of Crime Victims—Does

Legal Protection Make a Difference?

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

December 1998

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

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
2

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

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.

Issues and Findings

continued...

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 weakprotection 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 weakprotection 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 strongprotection 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
3

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

he 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 State

Judges* Agency directors

Prosecutors Legislators

Parole and probation Victim coalition

officials directors

Victim assistance Other government

coordinators officials

Victim-witness staff

Defense attorneys

Police and sheriffs

*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,

Measuring the effectiveness of victims’ rights laws—the study design T 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.
4

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

Exhibit 1. Notification of events in the case—percentage notified

* Difference between groups is not statistically significant.

The importance of victims’ rights to victims themselves T he 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:a

● 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.

a. The rights are listed in descending order of

their rating.

notice would directly affect the ability

of victims to exercise their rights to

attend and/or be heard at such proceedings.

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,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Arrest of perpetrator

Bond hearing

Pretrial release of defendant

Trial scheduling

Sentencing hearing

Parole hearings

Plea negotiations*

Dismissal of charges*

Strong-Protection States

Event/Proceeding

Weak-Protection States
5

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

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 weakprotection 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 weakprotection States).6

 In the cases in

which restitution was ordered, there

was no significant difference in the

percentages of victims from strongand 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).

Exhibit 2. Notification of services and rights—percentage notified

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Availability of 

victim services

Right to discuss case

with prosecutor

Right to make

impact statement

Right to make impact

statement at parole hearing

Strong-Protection States

Right

Weak-Protection States

Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less.
6

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

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 identiExhibit 3. Exercising their rights as victims—percentage exercising

their right a

a. In each case, percentages are based on number of relevant cases. For example, the percentages that

attended the grand jury hearing were based on the number of victims who knew of the hearing; the

percentages who testified in court were based on the number of cases that went to trial.

b. Difference between groups is not statistically significant.

fying 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 strongprotection 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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Make recommendations

at bond hearings

Make recommendations

about sentences

Make impact statements 

at parole hearing

Discuss plea agreements

with prosecutors 

Make impact statement

at sentencing 

Attend sentencing hearings 

Attend parole hearing 

Attend grand jury hearings 

Testify in court

Strong-Protection States

Right Exercised

Weak-Protection States

b

b

b

b

b
7

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

Exhibit 4. Victims rate criminal justice processing—percentage who rate

it more than adequate or completely inadequate*

Strong-Protection States Weak-Protection States

More Than Completely More Than Completely

Aspect of Processing Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate

Efforts to apprehend 44 6 27 11

the perpetrator

Efforts to inform the 29 9 13 19

family about progress

on the case

Their ability to have 21 15 9 25

input in the case

Thoroughness of 28 10 14 20

case preparation

Fairness of the trial 20 11 10 20

Fairness of the 17 21 6 28

verdict or plea

Fairness of sentence 14 25 5 34

Speed of the process 17 15 6 27

Support services 16 15 8 22

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 weakprotection 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

* The ratings continuum was “more than adequate,” “adequate,” “somewhat less than adequate,”

and “completely inadequate.”

Note: All figures are statistically significant at the 0.05 level or less.
8

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

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

Exhibit 5. Victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system—

percentage who are very or somewhat satisfied

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Police

Prosecutors

Victim/Witness 

Staff Judges

Criminal Justice 

System

Strong-Protection States

Component

Weak-Protection States
9

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

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 strongprotection 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 weakprotection 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 strongprotection 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 strongprotection 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

Exhibit 6. Victims’ crime-related problems—percentage who

experienced problems

* Difference not statistically significant.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Property or monetary loss*

Time lost from work or to

consult with police*

Property damage

or destruction*

Life insurance canceled/

premium increased*

Time lost from work or

school due to injuries

Medical treatment for

crime-related injuries

Time lost from work or school to

consult with prosecutor or for trial

Time spent for counseling

for psychological injuries

Problems with their families

Strong-Protection States

Problem Type

Weak-Protection States
10

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

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 strongprotection 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
11

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

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

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.

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

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.

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).

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).
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

PERMIT NO. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300