U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–054 PDF 2006

VICTIMS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

HOW TO PROTECT, COMPENSATE AND VINDICATE THE INTERESTS OF VICTIMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 16, 2006

Serial No. 109–87

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Chief Counsel 

DAVID BRINK, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 16, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 3

WITNESSES 

Ms. Collene Thompson Campbell, National Chair, Force 100

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

Ms. Mary Lou Leary, Executive Director, National Center for Victims of 

Crime 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12

Kathryn Coffman, M.D., Medical Director of Childhelp Children’s Center, 

St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17

Ms. Phyllis Turner Lawrence, Independent Consultant, Restorative Justice 

and Victims Services 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29

(1)

VICTIMS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: HOW TO PROTECT, COMPENSATE AND 

VINDICATE THE INTERESTS OF VICTIMS 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard 

Coble (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome 

you to this morning’s hearing, which will examine how victims fare 

in our criminal justice system. 

Too often we focus on enhancing penalties and new strategies to 

combat crime and seem to overlook the need to ensure our criminal 

justice system best serves those it is intended to protect. When 

someone has fallen prey to a criminal act, they’ve been victimized. 

Victimization can be emotionally and financially overwhelming and 

creates an obvious burden upon society. 

Although crime prevention reduces the incidence of victimization, 

it does not ensure that victims are effectively compensated. In a 

1996 study, conducted by the National Institute of Justice, the calculated loss per victim ranged from $2.9 million for murder, 

$87,000 for rape and sexual assault, $8,000 for robbery, $1,400 for 

burglary, and $370 for larceny. 

Some basic facts demonstrate the impact of the cost to society. 

In 2004 there was an estimated over 23 million violent and property crime victims aged 12 or older in the United States. This includes an estimated 18.6 million property crimes to persons and 

their households, and an estimated 5.2 million violent crimes, 

which vary from simple assaults to the most heinous criminal acts. 

To translate these figures into practice terms for the United 

States, consider the following: one person is murdered every 32.5 

seconds; one violent crime occurs every 6 seconds; one rape or sexual assault occurs every 2.5 minutes; one child is reported abused 

or neglected every 35 seconds; and one violent crime is committed 

every 20 seconds. 

The cost to society is staggering. In 2004 alone, State compensation programs paid crime victims and their families $426 million. 

This is nearly double the amount from 7 years ago. Half of these 

payments were for medical expenses. 20 percent were for lost 

2

wages and support, and 10 percent for funeral bills. Only 9 percent 

was allocated for mental health services. The direct cost of child 

abuse and neglect is more than $24 billion annually, and when 

adding indirect costs such as mental health, lost productivity, and 

criminal behavior, the figure rises to more than $94 billion a year. 

Law enforcement costs are rising as well. Local police spending 

represented 30 percent of the Nation’s total justice expenditures as 

State corrections amounted for 23 percent. That’s over half of our 

justice expenditures. 

We need to make sure that our criminal justice system treats victims fairly and takes into account their rights to justice and compensation. Don’t forget victims include people whose identities have 

been stolen, and elderly who frequently are targeted by sophisticated scabbers on the Internet or in the business world. 

The complexities created by various crimes which pervade our society demand that our criminal justice system is flexible, efficient 

and focused on the victims’ needs. And, of course, we need to do 

all we can to reduce the victimization in America. By deterring 

criminals from committing crimes and by preventing criminals 

from committing crimes. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and am furthermore interested in any legislative ideas that may be forthcoming from these important witnesses who will give testimony 

today. 

I am now pleased to recognize my good friend, the distinguished 

gentleman from Virginia and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express to you 

my appreciation for your holding this hearing on how we can protect, compensate and vindicate the interest of victims of crime. I’m 

sure we can all agree that the best way to do this is actually prevent crimes from happening in the first place. 

I’ve been a long proponent of crime prevention programs aimed 

at preventing crimes before the fact, and as a society, we are ready 

to spend billions of dollars that it takes in the criminal justice system after the crime has been committed, yet when it comes to 

spending money on evidence-based approaches which have been 

proven to prevent crime in the first place, or prisoner development 

programs which significantly reduce recidivism, we find that we either are totally missing in action or very stingy when it comes time 

to spending those monies. 

As a result of these failings—our criminal justice system, Federal, State and local are all failing us. As long as we continue the 

choice that we’re going to play politics rather than actually reduce 

crime, the criminal justice system will continue to fail us. What we 

constantly see around here is ratcheting up more and more penalties, without any indication of whether or not those penalties are 

designed to actually reduce crime. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of people in jail today through these 

policies, and one thing that we are noticing is that about 700,000 

of these prisoners will be released, most no better prepared than 

they were to begin with to lead a law-abiding life. 

I appreciate your holding a hearing just this week on what we 

can do to help these prisoners lead a law-abiding life so that we 

3

don’t have to have more victims asking us for compensation because they were victimized. If we spend the money and have the 

programs that are appropriate, many of these can return to lawabiding life rather than a criminal life, but we have to make sure 

that we make those investments. 

While I’m all for doing what we can to limit crime victimization, 

we also have to make sure that we do not limit the rights of the 

accused. We already know that we have too many people who are 

convicted for crimes they didn’t commit. DNA evidence has proven 

that people, even on death row are there for crimes they didn’t 

commit, and we don’t want to limit whatever rights they have. 

But one of the things that we have seen in the past is when we 

consider victims’ rights legislation, if we consider statutes rather 

than constitutional amendments, we don’t have to get into the debate of whether we’re impinging on people’s constitutional rights. 

If it’s not a constitutional amendment, it’s not implicated. And 

there’s a lot we can do by statute. 

We can have victims’ compensation funds. Virginia has a fund 

where it’s almost like worker’s compensation. If you’re a victim of 

crime, you can get your medical bills paid and some lost wages. 

Maybe we need to have more funds. 

We need to have more money for prosecutors. There is no way 

that you can expect a prosecutor to be even polite if they have a 

stack of files more than they can possibly process in 1 day. They 

need lower caseloads so they can be, instead of being abrupt and 

rude to victims, they can have some time to talk with them and 

go through the process. 

Victim coordinators, people who can go help the victims through 

the criminal justice process, make the phone calls. If something has 

been rescheduled, make the phone calls so that the victim doesn’t 

have to come all the way to court to find out that the thing has 

been continued. Victim coordinators, those are not that expensive 

compared to all of the money we spend in the criminal justice system and can be extremely helpful. And witness protection, to make 

sure that those witnesses who come forward are protected by the 

police from the perpetrators of the crime. 

There’s a lot we can do. Preventing the crimes from happening 

in the first place, and making the investments in the criminal justice system so that the victims are treated with appropriate dignity. 

So I look forward to the testimony by witnesses on how we can 

actually accomplish this, and working with you, Mr. Chairman, on 

how we can improve the criminal justice system for those who have 

been victimized by crime to make sure they’re not victimized again. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

It’s customary for the Subcommittee to restrict opening statements to the Chairman and to the Ranking Member, but the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, who chairs the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Chabot, has done tremendous work in this area, 

and he has requested permission to make a brief opening statement. 

Mr. CHABOT. I think the Chairman very much, and move to 

strike the last word. I look forward to this hearing, and I want to 

4

particularly thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

This, as you mentioned, has been an issue. How crime victims are 

treated in the criminal justice system has been something that’s 

been a particular concern to us for quite some time. I was the sponsor of a victims’ rights constitutional amendment back in the 106th 

Congress, the 107th Congress, the 108th Congress. Unfortunately, 

despite numerous hearings and attempts by Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein, and myself and many others, we just didn’t have 

the votes to pass a constitutional amendment. It takes two-thirds 

in the House, two-thirds in the Senate, and we just didn’t have the 

votes to do that. 

While it became clear that passage of that amendment wasn’t 

possible, at least at that time, Senator Kyl and Senator Feinstein 

worked in the Senate for a bill that would protect crime victims’ 

rights. That bill was passed nearly unanimously in the Senate, and 

I was the sponsor of the bill here in the House. Ultimately, the 

Crime Victims Rights Act was included as title I of the Justice for 

All Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on October 

30 back in ’04. 

The Crime Victims Rights Act was the first Federal law to truly 

provide crime victims with dignity and respect through an established and enforceable set of rights. This ensures that justice is reserved not only for the accused, but also to the thousands of persons whose lives have been impacted by crime. The Crime Victims 

Rights Act is a little over a year old now, and we’re starting to see 

its impact on the Federal court system. For example, in January, 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that crime victims have 

an affirmative right to speak and not just submit written statements at the sentencing phase of a criminal case. 

Also the Justice Department has recently promulgated rules pursuant to the act to help ensure that victims’ rights are effectively 

addressed by Federal prosecutors. I expect that the relevant Subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee will hold oversight 

hearings with regard to the implementation of the Crime Victims 

Rights Act and its impact on the criminal justice system. 

However, the Crime Victims Rights Act is just part of the story 

of how the criminal justice system affects crime victims. For instance, just this week I had the opportunity to meet with Nancy 

Ruhe—she’s the Executive Director of the National Organization of 

Parents of Murdered Children, and talked with her about some of 

the concerns that they have and some of the things to bring up at 

this hearing. This group happens to be based in my district in Cincinnati, Ohio, and they field over 1,000 phone calls every week to 

assist the needs of families who are experiencing the loss of a loved 

one. 

In addition, in the greater Cincinnati area, there’s a lady named 

Deborah Culberson, who lost her daughter, Carrie, to a terrible 

murder. The perpetrator is behind bars, but they’ve not been able 

to locate or identify her daughter’s remains because the murderer 

refuses to disclose to authorities where he hid the body. Part of the 

problem is a patchwork of State laws that call for mandatory DNA 

testing of the unidentified remains in some States, but not in others. Thus, as may have been the situation in Carrie’s case, if a 

murderer disposes of a body in a State that doesn’t have the manVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
5

datory DNA testing law, the loved ones of that missing person may 

never be able to find out where their loved one actually is. 

Ms. Culberson has been very forceful and determined. She’s a 

very courageous and inspiring woman, and she’s been pursing this 

national DNA database to help identify missing loved ones, and 

thereby, provide at least some closure to these families, and I think 

her efforts have truly been amazing to watch, and she’s an inspiration to me and my staff as we’ve worked with her in recent years. 

I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses here today about 

the ways that Congress and the States can better serve the needs 

of crime victims, including Mrs. Culberson and others like her. 

While no one would choose to be a victim of a crime, we can choose 

how we will treat those victims once the crime has occurred. And 

I’ll continue to work with those in the crime victims community to 

ensure that crime victims are treated in the best manner possible 

by the criminal justice system. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak, and thank 

you, for the witnesses being here today. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. 

Ladies, it’s the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses, so if you all would please stand and raise your right hands. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each witness answered in 

the affirmative. You may be seated. 

We are pleased to welcome our panel with us, and Ms. Campbell, 

the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, had requested permission to introduce you to the panel today, but I see 

he is belated, so I will do that in his absence. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Maybe it’s better if he didn’t. [Laughter.] 

Mr. COBLE. I didn’t hear what you said, Ms. Campbell. 

Mr. CHABOT. Maybe it’s better if he didn’t. 

Mr. COBLE. Oh. Well, I am sure he would do a good job. But our 

first witness is the Hon. Collene Thompson Campbell, National 

Chair of Force 100, a victims rights grass roots organization. Ms. 

Campbell was the first woman mayor of the city of San Juan 

Capistrano, and was recently appointed by Governor 

Schwarzenegger to the California POST Commission, that is, Peace 

Officer Standards and Training, which she currently chairs. She is 

also the founder of Memory of Victims Everywhere, known as 

MOVE, an organization devoted to improving the criminal justice 

system by teaching victims how to better understand the law. Ms. 

Campbell has been honored for her fight against crime by numerous top officials, including President George H.W. Bush. 

Our second witness is Ms. Mary Lou Leary, who is the Executive 

Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. Prior to serving in this capacity, Ms. Leary was Senior Counsel to the U.S. Attorney in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. She’s held numerous positions at the U.S. Department of 

Justice, including acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office 

Of Justice Programs, and Deputy Associate Attorney General. Ms. 

Leary has a B.A. degree from Syracuse University, and an M.A. 

from Ohio State University, and a J.D. from Northeastern University School of Law. 

6

And as an aside, Ms. Leary and I share two mutual friends. The 

first one is Mr. M.L. Carr, who is a former basketball star for the 

Boston Celtics, who played his college basketball in my district in 

North Carolina at Guilford College. And your counsel, Jennifer, is 

also a very good friend, Ms. Leary. Good to have you with us. 

Our third witness is Dr. Kathryn Coffman, Medical Director of 

Childhelp Children’s Center at the St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Arizona. In this capacity, Dr. Coffman evaluated children in 

the Crimes Against Children Unit of the Phoenix Police Department, who have been impacted by acts of crime and neglect. Previously, she worked at a child abuse clinic at the Children’s Hospital in New Orleans. Dr. Coffman received an undergraduate degree from the Northwestern University and an M.D. from the University of Iowa. 

Our final witness today is Ms. Phyllis Turner Lawrence, Independent Consultant for the Restorative Justice and Victims Services. Ms. Lawrence provides services to victims of crime as a restorative justice practitioner, program coordinator and trainer, sentencing advocate, and consultant to nonprofits and Government 

agencies. Previously she worked as Special Projects Coordinator for 

the National Organization for Victim Assistance, known as NOVA. 

Currently she’s an adjunct faculty member at the George Mason 

University and the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. Ms. 

Lawrence received both her B.A. and J.D. degrees from the University of California. 

Now, ladies, it is our custom, as we have told you previously, to 

try to comply with the 5-minute rule. When you see the amber 

light on the panel before you, that is your warning that you have 

1 minute remaining, and the ice on which you are skating is becoming thin. Now, we’re not going to keel haul anybody if they violate the 5-minute rule, but when you see the red light appear, if 

you would wrap that up, we would be appreciative. We have examined your written testimony and we will reexamine it. But in the 

interest of time we have other meetings as well, if you could comply with the 5-minute rule we would be appreciative. 

Ms. Campbell, why don’t you start us off? Ms. Campbell, pull 

that mic to you and activate it if you will. 

TESTIMONY OF COLLENE THOMPSON CAMPBELL,

NATIONAL CHAIR, FORCE 100

Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I am frequently asked, ‘‘What are your credentials and your 

degrees? What degrees do you have?’’

Well, I have three degrees, gentlemen. In 1982 I received my 

first degree. Sadly, it was the first degree murder of our only son, 

Scott. I received two additional degrees in 1988. Those were the 

first degree murders of my brother, auto racing legend, Mickey 

Thompson, and his wife. I wish I didn’t have these degrees, but I 

do, and our goal is to avoid others from obtaining these life-altering 

degrees. 

It’s obvious that it’s near impossible, in only a few words, to adequately describe a quarter of a century of our living hell caused by 

both the killers and the justice system. I think it is extremely imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
7

portant for you to try to comprehend the real world of crime and 

victimization. 

Our family’s experience is not uncommon. Millions of honest, 

hard-working Americans are forced to endure the never-ending 

devastation caused by crime, which is expanded by our justice system that is out of balance. 

In order to be here today before you, I had to fly all night last 

night. I haven’t been to bed, and my husband and I paid all costs 

for this trip. That alone should give you a tiny indication of the importance we place on your actions. Yesterday, in fact, just a few 

hours ago, we were in a California court for the 54th time, hoping 

to get a trial date for the 18-year-old murders of my brother and 

his wife. But we didn’t have a right for a speedy trial. Only the accused has that right. So yesterday we got another delay, and 

there’s no end in sight. That’s not only costly to our family, but it’s 

very costly to the taxpayers. 

Just last week we sat across the table from the man who murdered, and then watched as we searched for our son for 11 agonizing months. We were there at the parole hearing to simply ask the 

Parole Board to enforce the truth-in-sentencing. It is very difficult. 

In our U.S. Constitution, an accused criminal has 23 rights, and 

the victim has none. That is unjust and causes our system to be 

heavily weighted in favor of the criminal. 

Mr. Chabot, thank you for what you have done in that area. 

Thank you for your recognition. 

For any family, to deal with murder is excruciating, and to allow 

the American justice system to add additional agony is shameful. 

We ask Congress to do what is right, and please support the Office 

for Victims of Crime. 

I believe my lovely granddaughter, Melissa, summed it up best. 

She said, ‘‘Mom, what would it be like to live in a normal family?’’ 

That about ripped my heart out because we’ve tried so hard to 

make our family normal. I asked her what she meant, and she 

says, ‘‘Well, Mom, every time I ask you and Papa if we can take 

a vacation together, your answer is always the same. You always 

say, ‘‘Well, Princess, we can’t promise you because we may have to 

be in court.’’ So Melissa said, ‘‘You know, Mom, the murderer kills 

our family, then they control the rest of our lives through manipulating the justice system. It’s just not fair.’’

I think Melissa’s words were pretty well said, and really summed 

up what we lived through. 

We’re obviously disturbed that the President’s budget recommends taking the VOCA funds away from the victims, the precise people the fund was designed to help. The Victims of Crimes 

Act was introduced by President Reagan. The money is generated 

from fines levied on the convicted criminals. This fund is not taxpayers’ money. It comes from the correct source, from the criminals. Congress must reflect on not taking that money. They must 

not take that money intended for victims, and instead, raise the 

cap from $625 million to a billion dollars. The criminals are 

housed, fed, educated, mentally cared for, and given every opportunity to succeed with enormous funds spent on their comfort and 

their welfare. There is something greatly wrong with the philosVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
8

ophy that we take care of the criminal, but the victim or their children, are ignored. 

It seems the honest law-abiding person may be on the wrong side 

of the bars. I can assure you that we and thousands of other victims are the product of others before us doing nothing. Hopefully, 

you will continue to move to take action to better protect good, honest-working Americans. 

On behalf of Force 100, representing crime victims from every 

State in the Nation, thank you for allowing me to be heard. God 

bless you, and God bless your work, and this great Nation. And I 

will be happy to answer any and all questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Campbell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLLENE THOMPSON CAMPBELL

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members; 

I’m frequently asked, ‘‘What are your credentials to speak on matters of 

victimology, and what degrees do you possess in this regard?’’ Well, I have three 

degrees. In April 1982 I received my first degree. Regrettably, it was the first-degree

murder of our only son, Scott. I received two additional degrees on the 16th day of 

March 1988. It was the first-degree murders of my only sibling, my brother, auto 

racing legend, Mickey Thompson and his wife, Trudy. I have been in the criminal 

justice system from 1982 until this day, that’s twenty-four straight, exhausting 

years. So there are ‘‘degrees,’’ and then there are ‘‘degrees,’’ and I will leave it up 

to you to decide which are the most significant in our fight for rights and to help 

gain standing in the courts for the victims. I wish to God I could say I have no credentials to address these issues. 

In order to judge moral fiber and fortitude, it is important for you, our Nation’s 

decision makers, to recognize and make a strong effort to identify with ‘‘why’’ we 

feel so strongly about victims and the protection of our citizens. As horrifying as it 

may seem, for a moment, please try to put yourself in my victim’s shoes. It is difficult in a few words to depict a quarter-of-a-century of a living hell furnished first 

hand to my family by killers and expanded by our justice system. 

We are from a good, honest, hard working family. We never thought we could become victims of horrible crimes. Our family is among the millions of Americans who 

have been forced to endure the everlasting devastation caused by criminals, and in 

addition, we are further required to suffer added enormous stress caused by the inequities within our justice system. 

As you can plainly see, I’m certainly not a young woman, and yet, I have done 

what is necessary to be here to speak before you this morning. I have not been in 

a bed for more than thirty hours, and I’m sure I ‘‘look it!’’

Just a week ago, my husband, Gary, and I sat across the table from the man who 

murdered our only Son, asking the parole board to please enforce ‘‘truth in sentencing’’ by keeping the convicted killer in prison for the time the court had ordered. 

Then, yesterday, we again spent the day in a Los Angeles County Superior Courtroom. However, this court appearance was not about our Son’s murder. This time 

we were in court because of the murder of my brother and his wife, Mickey and 

Trudy which seemed to be a continuation of what we have endured on a regular 

basis for nearly twenty-five years straight! 

After leaving the courtroom yesterday, I flew all night to stand before you this 

morning. As with everything we do, my wonderful husband of fifty-five-years financed the travel costs. That alone may give you a tiny indication of the importance 

we place on the subject of crime and the resulting victims. My motivation is to help 

avoid others from living the life we have been forced to endure by crime and the 

justice system. My reward will be for this Committee On Crime to respond with 

positive action to help victims, like making certain the VOCA fund is increased, not 

eliminated in the President’s FY 2007 budget. The additional devastation caused to 

victims of crime, by the system, could and should be improved immediately. 

The trial of our Son’s murder case stretched out more than eight years. The murder case of my Brother and his Wife, has now expanded to eighteen years, and obviously, important witnesses are dying. That, Committee Members, is a total of twenty-four straight years of our family attempting to endure the impact of murder, coupled with a less than balanced justice system. Plus, it must also be noted that these 

delays are a huge liability to the taxpayer. Only the accused has a right to a speedy 

9

trial, not the victim, nor the taxpayer. Victims do not have rights in the Criminal 

Justice System. 

The justice system continues to accommodate the killers, thereby escalating the 

emotional pain to the families of horrible crimes. Evil offenders murder our loved 

ones, then, all too often our system permits them to generate absurd, untrue and 

hurtful accusations against the victims, their families and law enforcement officers. 

The criminal defendant frequently is allowed to generate painful unfairness, prolonged trial delays and knowingly deceive the Court. 

In our U.S. Constitution, an accused criminal has twenty-three rights and the victim has not one single right. It is crucial that we all work to improve the unfairness 

that is heavily weighted in favor of the criminal. 

Along with thousands of other good hard-working Americans who have become 

victims of evil predators, our only son, Scott, is dead because of a weak and forgiving criminal justice system. His killers both would have been ‘‘Three-Strikers’’ 

under today’s California law, and should have been in prison. If they had been incarcerated our Son would be alive today. There are many thousands just like us who 

have lost their loved ones because a criminal was given that ‘‘one more chance,’’ 

which is a huge and unforgivable ‘‘price’’ for a Mom and Dad. 

We may be one of the hardest hit crime victim’s families in the Nation, but we 

are only one family out of hundreds of thousands who are forced to endure huge 

inequities within the system, both State and Federal. 

Our son, Scott, became missing and we desperately searched for him for eleven 

agonizing months before we learned the horrible truth. Scott was kidnapped, assaulted, strangled and then thrown from an airplane into the Pacific Ocean by two 

repeat felony criminals, his body was never found. 

My Brother, my only sibling, auto racing legend Mickey Thompson and his wife, 

Trudy, were shot to death as they were simply leaving their home on their way to 

work in the morning. It has now been eighteen-years since their murders. We have 

traveled to, and been in the courtroom fifty-four times and still do not have a trial 

date, due to defense motions. There is no end in sight. For any family to deal with 

murder is excruciating. However, to allow the American justice system to add additional agony is both intolerable and shameful. Possibly if victims had an organization such as the ACLU or the Trial Attorneys’ Associations our situation might improve. We have very few factions representing victims and that is why it is so very 

important that you step forward to help protect the honest, law abiding citizen who 

just happens be become a victim of crime. Why are so many interested in helping 

the perpetrators of crime and not the victims of the criminal’s evil actions? We ask 

the House to do what is right and support the Office For Victims of Crime and its 

Director, John Gillis, who himself has lived through the devastation of a gang member murdering his only daughter, all because he was a Police Officer. The gang believed to ‘‘murder the daughter of a policeman’’ would escalate their gang status, 

along with the actual gang killer. 

We continue to be deeply saddened, and rightly so, by the 9/11 terrorists’ attacks. 

During those four cowardly assaults, there were 2,752 innocent humans killed by 

terrorists on that heartbreaking day of September 11, 2001. And as of today, unfortunately, in action, we have also lost 1,776 great and courageous Americans in Iraq 

and Afghanistan in the war to protect our Nation and bring peace to the world. 

However, it is important to realize that during that same period of time, as our Nation’s attention is turned to war casualties and the 9/11 fatalities, we have lost more 

than 70,000 American’s right here in our own United States, to MURDER. That is 

more than 15 times the number of people that were killed on both 9/11 AND in the 

war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fifteen times greater and I am only talking about 

murder . . . and not including all the other vicious and violent crimes like rape, 

molestation and robbery. That certainly indicates, we must also focus on what is 

happening here, in our Country. We are obligated to fight and protect the citizens 

of our Nation wherever necessary and that includes here on our own American soil. 

It is time to better serve Americans in our own homeland by being tougher on crime 

and criminals and attempting to help the victims. 

It is inconceivable to realize that every nine weeks there are as many people murdered right here in America as were killed in all four of the horrible 9/11 terrorists’ 

attacks. The safety of its people is our government’s most important and critical 

role. 

My small family consists of proud Americans. Since the American Revolution, our 

family has fought in every major war for equality and the freedom of all Americans 

in this great Nation. We have worked hard, contributed greatly and never asked for 

a handout from anyone. My Father, Marion Thompson, was a police officer, my 

Mother, Geneva Thompson, was a committed and respected volunteer for good and 

my Brother, Mickey Thompson, contributed greatly to the youth and to the developVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
10

ment of automobile safety. My family believed the U.S. Constitution was written to 

protect, balance and establish justice, yes, establish justice . . . And, that is true, 

it does establish justice . . . unless, you have the misfortune of becoming a victim 

of violent crime. 

Like many other crime victims, there has been tremendous pain and grief to our 

family, which was expanded due to the fact that the moment we became victims of 

crime, our rights were ignored in favor of the killer. That means, a murderer or a 

rapist has rights not afforded to victims, all because we, the victim, are not even 

mentioned in our U.S. Constitution. 

My husband and I were not permitted to be in the courtroom during three trials 

of the men who murdered our Son. There was no reason to exclude us, other than 

the defense could get by with it. We were forced to sit in the hall, like a dog with 

fleas. Yet, the killers, along with all their family and supporters, were inside the 

courtroom portraying a family unit. 

We were not allowed to be heard, yet, the killer’s family was able to testify in 

front of the jury, proclaiming the goodness of the defendant and the victim as a lesser person. Our Son’s killers were convicted of first-degree murder; we believed we 

were finally through the process, but we were not informed of the following court 

action. 

We were not notified of a hearing before the District Court of Appeal. Therefore, 

no family member was present to represent our murdered Son, however, in full 

force, forty members of one of the killer’s contingency, were in the courtroom, as 

they had been informed and notified. The conviction of our Son’s murderer was overturned by that Appellate Court. The ‘‘capital case’’ killer was released on bail in violation of the California State Constitution and without consideration for our family’s 

safety. We learned through headlines in the media that there was to be another 

trial and our Son’s killer had been released back into society where he continued 

his deadly criminal lifestyle and others were hurt. 

We contacted the Attorney General’s Prosecutor handling our case and asked why 

she hadn’t bothered calling or notifying us regarding the appeal, the pending court 

proceedings and the killer’s release. Her answer was demeaning, but typical, she 

said, ‘‘We never notify the victims, they simply don’t understand.’’ However, we 

knew the true reason, unlike the killer’s defense, she was not required to notify us, 

because we were only the Mom and Dad of the murdered victim, his next of kin. 

We did not have the right to be notified! 

Our family would never ask for or want restitution, our Son’s life does not have 

a dollar value. However, among many other significant costs, we had to ‘‘cough-up’’ 

$2,000.00 to get his car out of storage, after it had been impounded by the police 

for evidence. The trials took eight years to complete, and during that time our life 

was controlled by the defense. There was no consideration for our panic-stricken 

personal life, our safety, our plans, family holidays, or finances. Today, the inmates 

have free access to the internet and often they utilize their contacts to build websites to defame their victim, the victim’s family and law enforcement. 

I believe my lovely Granddaughter, Melissa, summed it up best. She said, ‘‘Mom 

(that’s what she calls me), what would it be like to live in a ‘‘normal family?’’ Those 

words about ripped my heart out, as we have tried very hard to maintain a ‘‘normal’’ 

and loving family. When I asked her what she meant, she simply said, ‘‘Every time 

I ask you and Papa if we can take a vacation together, your answer is always the 

same.’’ ‘‘Well Sweetie, we can’t promise you, as we may have to be in court.’’ Melissa 

then responded with, ‘‘You know, Mom, the murderer kills our family, then they 

control the rest of our lives through manipulating the justice system, it’s not fair.’’ 

I think Melissa’s words pretty well sum up the feelings of most victims of violent 

crime. The entire family’s life is harmfully altered, not only by the criminal’s evil 

act, but also by a justice system that continues to put the criminal and their desires 

first. 

You rarely hear from people like us, because victims are too devastated to speak 

on the subject. We have no financial help or attorneys representing us. Unlike the 

defense attorney’s associations we are financially unable to contribute to legislators 

and policy makers. The victims are forced to fend for themselves. And unlike the 

inmates, victims don’t have medical care, meals, exercise, psychologists, attorneys 

and legal advisers. Victims are always the only ones at the table who are not on 

someone’s payroll. Victims pay their own costs, even to be heard, like today. 

Congressmen, what we victims fail to understand, is how in this great Nation, we 

have allowed the violent criminals and their defense attorneys to have many rights. 

And, there are no rights for the honest, law-abiding good American citizen, who 

through no fault of their own, have become a victim of violent crime. I’m certain 

this is not what the Founders of this Great Nation and the authors of our Constitution intended and it needs to be corrected immediately. 

11

Many were very disturbed when we learned that the President’s budget recommends taking the VOCA funds (Victims of Crime Act) away from the victims, the 

injured party, the intended beneficiaries and the precise people the fund was designed to help! The Victim of Crime Act is a legacy, introduced by President Ronald 

Reagan and passed in 1984 and funded in 1986. The money is generated from fines 

levied on criminal perpetrators. In other words, this fund is NOT taxpayers’ money, 

it comes from the criminal, the very person who caused there to be a victim. Is any 

legislator paying attention, ‘‘watching the store’’ or caring about victims? These 

funds are generated from the criminal, the person responsible for the crime, it is 

the correct source, and NOW, in the budget, apparently some ‘‘uninformed staffer’’ 

is trying to eliminate those victims’ funds, which is the only source for medical, burial, hospital and necessary help. Please correct this inequity immediately. Congress 

must reject the taking of this money and instead, raise the cap from 625 million dollars to a billion dollars. The criminals are housed, fed, educated, medically cared 

for and given every opportunity to succeed with enormous funds spent on their comfort and welfare. Are you truly going to deny our victims help, even though the 

funding is supplied by the perpetrators. There is something greatly wrong with this 

viewpoint and philosophy. 

It seems the honest law-abiding person may be on the wrong side of the bars? 

The criminals have no worries, there needs are met. Last month I listened to the 

accused killer of my Brother and Sister-in-law complain that he was forced to wait 

four hours to see a doctor. The last time my husband needed to see a doctor it took 

two weeks to get an appointment! I also watch as 

I can assure you, that we and thousands of other victims are the product of others 

before us doing nothing. Hopefully, you are unwilling to continue that standard and 

will move to action to better protect the honest, hard-working American. 

It is appalling that a vicious murderer has rights and the law-abiding American 

citizen, who becomes a victim, has no rights. Unfortunately, the justice system has 

been altered, until it is now broken. Victims ask that you take a strong an honest 

look at the inequities of the so-called ‘‘justice’’ system. 

On behalf of FORCE 100, representing crime victims from every state in our nation, thank you for allowing me to be heard. 

God Bless your work and God Bless our great Nation.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Campbell. 

Ms. Leary? 

TESTIMONY OF MARY LOU LEARY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME 

Ms. LEARY. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member 

Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Mary Lou Leary, 

Executive Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. 

We’re a national, private nonprofit, and we recently celebrated our 

20th year of working to secure the rights and protect the interests 

of victims of crime. 

So I appreciate the chance to speak before you this morning on 

a topic of great importance to victims of crime, and that is, collecting the restitution that is owed to victims. 

You know, this year is the 10th anniversary of the Federal Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996. So it seems like a particularly appropriate time to reflect on our performance in providing 

restitution to crime victims. The National Center has spent many 

years examining this issue of restitution and working with advocates and policymakers to promote best practices in this arena. 

Unfortunately, I have to say that when you look closely at the 

situation, our performance is pretty poor, especially at the Federal 

level. Most recent public figures show uncollected criminal debt at 

the Federal level to be over $25 billion. 70 percent of that is restitution that is owed to individuals and others who are harmed by 

defendants. Last year the GAO released a study that examined five 

high-dollar white-collar financial fraud cases. GAO found that only 

12

7 percent of the restitution ordered in those cases was ever collected, and that was up to 8 years after sentencing. We simply 

have to do a better job. 

And I would note also, that of the uncollected criminal debt, 

about two-thirds of that actually is white-collar fraud and corporate 

crime, so we’re not talking about the kind of run-of-the-mill, ne’erdo-well with no assets here. 

The payment of restitution really matters. It matters to victims 

of crime. Some of the most heartbreaking cases that involve restitution, and especially at the Federal level, involve elderly victims 

who have lost their life savings to fraud. This crime robs them not 

only of their money but of their sense of security, their peace of 

mind, and for many of them, even their ability to remain independent and live in their own homes. The depression and the stress 

that comes in the aftermath of crime and of losing everything can 

lead to a steep decline in physical health as well. 

For these victims, restitution may preserve their future. Even for 

victims who have not lost their life savings, restitution for the 

harm they sustained is important as they rebuild their lives. 

Restitution is important for offenders as well. Courts have recognized that restitution is significant because it forces the defendant 

to confront, in concrete terms, confront the harm he has caused. In 

fact, there is a study that shows the connection between restitution 

and recidivism, and it showed that individuals who paid a higher 

percentage of their ordered restitution were actually less likely to 

recidivate. It’s pretty amazing. 

Significantly, paying criminal fines did not have the same impact. Enforcing these orders of restitution is important to the criminal justice system as well, so the defendants will not walk away 

feeling like, ‘‘I’m above the law. If I don’t pay, nothing will happen.’’ And it’s a message to victims and to the public that when the 

court issues an order, the court will enforce an order. 

So what can we do to do better? First of all, in appropriate cases, 

courts must have the ability to freeze assets prior to conviction, especially with financial fraud. It’s amazing how much money these 

defendants have, and especially in fraud and corporate crimes at 

the time of indictment, and then when it comes around, at time of 

conviction, when it comes around time for sentencing, for restitution, those assets have been secreted, dissipated, transferred to 

family members and so on. 

Second, we have to provide more resources to fund collection efforts. And, finally, we have to create a system to provide immediate 

restitution to the neediest victims of all. Some States actually have 

such a program, like Vermont. A needy victim can get immediate 

restitution up to $10,000, and then the money is paid back to that 

fund by the offender. That’s a system that works. 

Thank you for your time, and the National Center would be very 

happy to work with this Committee to address this issue of restitution, and to answer any questions, of course, that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leary follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY LOU LEARY

Good morning, Chairman Coble, ranking member Scott, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Mary Lou Leary, and I am executive director of the National 

Center for Victims of Crime. The National Center is a nonprofit, resource and advoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
13

1Pub. L. 104–132, title II, subtitle A (§ 201 et seq.), 110 Stat. 1227 (1996). 

2S. Rpt. No. 104–179, at 24 (1995). 

3See, for example, National Center for Victims of Crime, ‘‘Restitution: Making it Work,’’ OVC 

Legal Series Bulletin #5 (November 2002); National Center for Victims of Crime ‘‘Ordering Restitution to the Crime Victim,’’ OVC Legal Series Bulletin # 6 (November 2002); National Victim 

Center, ‘‘1996 Victims’ Rights Sourcebook: A Compilation and Comparison of Victims’ Rights 

Laws,’’ (Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, 1997). 4 U.S. General Accounting Office, ‘‘Criminal Debt: Actions Still Needed to Address Deficiencies 

in Justice’s Collection Processes,’’ GAO–04–338 (Washington, DC: March 2004), 2. This figure 

excludes restitution owed to federal agencies. 5 U.S. General Accounting Office, ‘‘Criminal Debt: Court-Ordered Restitution Amounts Far Exceed Likely Collections for the Crime Victims in Selected Financial Fraud Cases,’’ GAO–05–08 

(Washington, DC: January 2005), 3. 6People v. Moser, 50 Cal. App. 4th 130, 135 (1996). 

7 Cynthia Kempinen, ‘‘Payment of Restitution and Recidivism,’’ Research Bulletin 2, No. 2 

(State College, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, October 2002). 8 Id. 

cacy organization that recently celebrated our 20th year of championing the rights 

and interests of victims of crime. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you 

this morning to address a topic of great importance: collecting the restitution owed 

to victims of crime. 

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the federal Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996.1 In passing that Act, Congress intended to ‘‘ensure that the loss 

to crime victims is recognized, and that they receive the restitution that they are 

due’’ as well as ‘‘to ensure that the offender realizes the damage caused by the offense and pays the debt owed to the victim as well as to society.’’ 2 This 10th anniversary is an appropriate time to reflect on our performance in providing restitution 

to crime victims. The National Center has spent many years examining the issue 

of restitution, working with advocates and policymakers to promote best practices 

in implementing this key victims’right.3

Unfortunately, an honest examination shows we’re doing a poor job in implementing this right, especially at the federal level. The most recent public figures 

show uncollected criminal debt at the federal level to be over $25 billion-seventy 

percent of which is restitution owed to individuals and others harmed by defendants.4 A study released last year by the GAO examined five high-dollar white collar 

financial fraud cases and found that only about seven percent of the restitution ordered in those cases was collected-up to eight years after the offender’s sentencing.5

We simply must do better. 

WHY ENFORCEMENT OF RESTITUTION ORDERS IS IMPORTANT

The payment of restitution is of great importance to victims of crime. Some of the 

most heartbreaking restitution cases, particularly prevalent at the federal level, involve elderly victims who have lost their life savings to fraud. The crime robs them 

not only of their money, but their sense of security and even their ability to remain 

independent and live in their own home. The ensuing depression and stress lead to 

a steep decline in their physical health. For these victims, restitution may preserve 

their future. 

Even for victims who have not lost their life savings, restitution for the harm they 

sustained is important as they rebuild their lives. Repayment of their financial 

losses, including property losses, can be crucial in helping to repair the damages 

from the offense. It is also important as a tangible demonstration that the state, 

and the offender, recognize that the harm was suffered by the victim and that 

amends will be made. 

Restitution is important for offenders as well. Courts have recognized that restitution is significant and rehabilitative because it ‘‘forces the defendant to confront, in 

concrete terms, the harm his or her actions have caused.’’ 6 In fact, a study that examined the connection between restitution and recidivism found that individuals 

who paid a higher percentage of their ordered restitution were less likely to commit 

a new crime.7 Significantly, the payment of criminal fines did not have this effect, 

indicating that it is the act of reparation to the victim that is important.8

Enforcing orders of restitution is also important to our criminal justice system. 

When a criminal court has issued an order, and that order remains unenforced, respect for our justice system suffers. Victims lose faith, criminal justice system employees become cynical, and offenders learn that they will not be held accountable 

when they conduct themselves as if they are ‘‘above the law.’’

14

9Supra, note 2, page 3. 

10 42 PA Cons. Stat. § 9728 (2005). 11 Cal. Penal Code § 186.11 (2006). 12See also U.S. General Accounting Office, ‘‘Criminal Debt: Court-Ordered Restitution 

Amounts,’’ 18. 13 2003 Vt. Acts & Resolves No. 57. 

WHAT CAN WE DO?

First, in appropriate cases, courts must have the ability to freeze assets prior to 

conviction. This is particularly necessary in cases involving financial fraud. The recent GAO report I spoke of earlier noted that many fraud defendants have significant financial resources at the start of the criminal case, but by the time of sentencing have dissipated, transferred, or hidden much of their wealth.9 We must give 

prosecutors the tools to preserve assets in certain cases. 

Some states already allow this. In Pennsylvania, prosecutors can seek a temporary restraining order in cases in which there is a substantial probability that the 

state will prevail, that restitution of more than $10,000 will be ordered, and that 

failure to enter the order will result in the assets being unavailable for payment 

of the anticipated restitution.10 In California, prosecutors may seek an order to prevent offenders from dissipating or secreting specified assets or property at the time 

of the filing of a complaint or indictment when a case involves a pattern of fraud 

and the taking of more than $100,000.11 Federal prosecutors should have a similar 

ability to preserve assets for restitution. 

Second, we must provide more resources to collection efforts. Financial Litigation 

Units, or FLUs, established to pursue collection of federal debt in U.S. Attorneys’ 

offices, tell us they are understaffed.12 No government program can be fully effective 

without adequate resources. We must make FLUs a funding priority. Many FLUs 

also turn to a program that provides additional, highly experienced asset investigators for specific cases, called the Financial Litigation Investigator Program. This 

program should be expanded, to make this tool more widely available. 

Finally, we must create a system to provide immediate restitution to the neediest 

victims. Some victims, particularly vulnerable or frail seniors, cannot wait the years 

it may take to collect restitution from an offender. We must create a program that 

can provide restitution to them immediately, while the program is reimbursed by 

the defendant over time. 

Such a program has been created in Vermont.13 Victims of crime who are awarded 

restitution can immediately take their order to the state’s Restitution Fund, where 

up to $10,000 of the order is paid immediately. The Fund then collects from the offender. The Fund has been operational since July of 2004, and in its first year has 

paid 1,400 claims. Importantly, with a trained staff including collection analysts and 

an attorney, no restitution orders have been determined to be uncollectible. 

These three steps would significantly improve the provision of restitution. The result would be a more complete recovery for crime victims, a restorative sentence for 

offenders, and a system that comes closer to the ideal of ‘‘doing justice.’’

Thank you for your time. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Leary. 

Dr. Coffman? 

TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN COFFMAN, M.D., MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF CHILDHELP CHILDREN’S CENTER, ST. JOSEPH’S 

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER 

Dr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee. 

I’ve been a pediatrician for nearly 25 years, but for the past 15 

years I’ve been working in the field of child maltreatment, and my 

primary role has been medical evaluation of children who are referred for abuse or neglect. I have done this in different regions of 

the country and in different practice settings, but at the current 

time I’m very fortunate to be working in a multidisciplinary center 

called the Childhelp Children’s Center of Arizona. 

This is a child advocacy center that co-houses professionals from 

different agencies who work in the field of child maltreatment, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
15

cluding law enforcement, social services, mental health and medical personnel. 

The multidisciplinary team concept allows professionals from different disciplines, with different agendas and different missions, 

and often different philosophic approaches, to find common ground 

to best serve the children and families in our community. 

What I would like to do in the time allotted to me is address 

some of the issues in my statement that are covered more fully in 

the written statement. 

The first of these, and the foundation of really what I’d like to 

talk about is the necessity of intensive early intervention in the 

lives of children who are living in situations where they are experiencing abuse or neglect. There is a lot of information available on 

the effects of environment, on the developing infant. And I would 

refer you to work by Dr. Bruce Perry, a child psychiatrist in Houston. I did list contact information in the website in my citation. But 

he’s done a lot of work on neurobiology and neurodevelopment in 

children who are exposed to trauma. 

One of the things that’s very clear is that infancy and early 

childhood is the time of life when we are most susceptible to environmental or traumatic influences. And children who are raised in 

neglectful or traumatic environments, experience profound, negative impact on their development, and this is something that’s 

going to eventually touch us all. We need to acknowledge, I think, 

the importance of early childhood and early childhood development 

if we’re going to hope to make a meaningful impact in child abuse 

and in the outcome of these children. 

The second issue follows from the first, and that involves the way 

our system tends to react to children who are victims of abuse and 

neglect, and that is, we have a reactive system rather than a 

proactive system. We wait until something’s happened and then we 

try and do something about it. While this is understandable to 

some extent, because it’s hard to do something when something has 

not happened yet, there are certain risk factors for abuse that are 

well recognized, for example, substance abuse; for example, domestic violence. We know children who live in these homes are very, 

very high risk for abuse and neglect, and yet, we leave children in 

these homes usually until such time as a serious injury occurs, and 

then the response is often too little and too late. 

I would encourage the Committee to support whatever action 

needs to be done to put prevention services in place for these children before such time as they have to experience severe abuse or 

neglect. 

Another issue is our legal system. Our child abuse cases don’t 

usually make it to the criminal justice system unless a child is 

killed or severely injured, but they do make it to the civil justice 

system or the family courts. And what we see in family court is an 

emphasis on family reunification. Above all, that seems to be the 

overriding goal of the civil justice system. 

The problem with this is that we seem to lose sight of the fact 

that child abuse is a crime, and children who have been abused are 

victims of a crime, and people who abuse their children are criminals. We don’t treat these children as victims, and we often tend 

to return them to the very people who victimize them. 

16

A parallel thing is family preservation in the social service system. Family preservation seems to be the overriding goal of our social service agencies across the country, and although it’s a nice 

idea to keep children with their families, and all children should 

be raised in healthy, nurturing, supportive families, the problem is 

some of these families are not families that should be maintained. 

When family preservation becomes the primary goal, child safety 

and child well-being becomes a secondary goal and we lose sight 

again of the importance of that. 

Bottom line, I think, is that we need to move from a family-centered to a child-centered welfare system. We need to make children’s rights and children’s needs our primary focus when we make 

determinations on what’s going to happen with them. 

I would like to close on a message of hope. Again, I have the 

great good fortune to work in a multidisciplinary center, and we 

are able to provide in that center comprehensive services to children and families who are in the situations. In so doing, I think 

we’re able to greatly minimize the likelihood that this child is going 

to be revictimized, greatly minimize the chance that this child’s siblings are going to be victimized, and most importantly, greatly minimize the chance that this child will grow up to be an abusive parent themselves. 

These multidisciplinary centers are not widely available throughout the country. They should be. All children should have access to 

them. And given that funding is one of the primary reasons why 

they’re not available, I would echo the comments of my previous 

two speakers, we need to free up money from the Crime Victims 

Fund in order to put in place these prevention services on behalf 

of our children and behalf of all of us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Coffman follows:]

17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHRYN COFFMAN


KC0001.eps
18


KC0002.eps
19


KC0003.eps
20


KC0004.eps
21


KC0005.eps
22


KC0006.eps
23


KC0007.eps
24


KC0008.eps
25


KC0009.eps
26


KC0010.eps
27

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Dr. Coffman. 

Ms. Lawrence? 

TESTIMONY OF PHYLLIS TURNER LAWRENCE, INDEPENDENT 

CONSULTANT, RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND VICTIMS SERVICES 

Ms. LAWRENCE. First I would like to thank you very much, 

Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott, and all the other 

Members of the Committee and the staffers and the audience, for 

taking the time out of your busy schedule to think about these very 

critical issues. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Lawrence, if you would suspend just a moment. 

I failed to mention we have been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, and the distinguished gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Gohmert. Good to have you all with us. 

And I will not penalize you for that extra time, Ms. Lawrence. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. As my written testimony describes, 

I’m the survivor of a violent rape in 1989 by a man who broke into 

my home. I was a practicing attorney at the time. In fact, my home 

was my office, and he failed to notice my attorney-at-law card on 

the door, which was probably one of his major mistakes. 

He would up being convicted, and he’s doing time in California. 

Now, I’ll be talking about that in a minute. But after I quit practicing law, I came to D.C., and I received extensive training in victim assistance, including my 3 years at the National Organization 

for Victim Assistance in the mid ’90’s. That experience turned me 

into a victim advocate. I’ve also had extensive training and experience in restorative justice, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that 

paradigm. 

But there are three relevant points in terms of how victims are 

treated in the criminal justice system that I would like to mention 

about my own case. First, at the trial, the prosecutor told me to 

be more emotional on the stand. It was obvious that he wanted the 

jury to see someone angry and upset, even though, fortunately, I 

had had great support and was already beginning to heal. 

Secondly, admittedly, it was very challenging to see this man 

that I knew had raped me, go ahead and plead not guilty and deny 

the violence he perpetrated and insist on a trial. However, I considered it my victory over the rapist and his awful acts, that I was 

not swayed from my commitment to the United States Constitution 

and its proper protections against abuses of Government power. 

The terrible sense of violation I experienced could easily have led 

me to substitute emotion for reason and principle, forgetting our 

basic premise that one is innocent until proven guilty by a court 

of law, and potentially, any one of us could be wrongfully accused, 

as Mr. Scott was referring to, we know that that happens, so we 

know we need to maintain every single protection in the Constitution. However, as a victim, I’m not at risk for such threats of abuse 

of governmental power, such to the extent that I would need constitutional protection. 

Thirdly, at the sentencing, when I gave my victim impact statement, it was extremely frustrating that there was no way to make 

sure that this man, who had so violated me, would even listen to 

28

me, pay attention to me as I described the pain he had inflicted. 

But I was very fortunate in my recovery going very well. 

Over my now 11 years of involvement with victims, I have met 

many who have never received support that helps them move toward recovery, and therefore, their grief, their anger and their fear 

continue to dominate their lives. This is tremendously sad. 

Also in my 3 years at NOVA on our victims hotline, I spoke with 

probably at least 3,000 victims, and I can tell you that, unfortunately, more than half of them were complaining about the very 

people they expected to help them, the prosecutors, the police, people in the correctional system and sometimes the judges. 

So it is critical that we continue to educate the people in the allied professions, the people who come into contact with victims, 

that we continue to educate and raise up qualified victim services 

providers, and that we make sure that the laws that already are 

there to protect victims’ rights are enforced by those who are responsible for implementing them. So I too join everyone on the 

panel in asking that Congress leave alone the funding mechanism 

for VOCA, and in fact, increase funding for victims and victim services. 

I would like to turn now to talking about something that has become my major passion in life, and that is the paradigm of restorative justice. Understandably, many times people feel, let’s just lock 

him up, take him away, get rid of him, I don’t want to see him 

again. But we do believe in fundamental fairness in this country 

and we do realize that people are going to get out, and many people 

aren’t going to be locked up in the first place. So we need to address what are kinds of processes that are really going to take into 

account the needs of the victims and the community, and at the 

same time actually hold offenders accountable in a real way. 

For many, accountability has come to mean punishment. We lock 

them up. They’re being accountable. They’re paying their debt to 

society. However, to the victim, they may appreciate that, as I do, 

of feeling safe, but I don’t feel that the man doing what will be at 

least 26 years in prison without ever, ever having to face what he 

did to me, to understand, by having to go through sex offender 

treatment services, that he will come out in 26 years minimally—

if he does good time—of his 48-year sentence, without ever getting 

it, without ever understanding, without ever taking any real responsibility for his actions. 

He left behind a wife and four children. One of the reasons he 

was able to be captured was because he had abused his wife. She 

and her children were left behind, and they are not protected under 

victims of compensation acts, and I believe that the family members of offenders, and offenders who are victimized, should also be 

protected. 

So I’d like you to really consider the meaning out of the dictionary of the word ‘‘accountability.’’ It’s the trait of being answerable to someone for something, or being responsible for one’s conduct. From that perspective, this is what is owed by the offender 

to the victim and the community, rather than a debt to the amorphous State that none of us can actually really experience. 

Restorative justice asks three questions: Who has been hurt? 

What are their needs? And whose obligations are they? So we realVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
29

ly look at the larger picture and really see what the victim’s needs 

are, and how can the system address them, the public address 

them, and what is the offender’s responsibility, and how can we 

help that offender become competent enough that they can make 

repair in realistic and affirmative ways. 

I would also like to add to Ms. Leary’s comments about restitution, that we found that when people participate in a restorative 

process, which is either directly meeting with the—a meeting facilitated by trained facilitators between a voluntary victim and a voluntary offender, or shuttle diplomacy, that somebody’s facilitating 

conversations with them independently and bringing the information back to the table, that when the agreements are made for reparation, the rate of compliance is very, very high. I ran a program 

with juveniles and we had almost 100 percent rate of compliance. 

Thank you very much. I hope you will consider looking at the 

testimony, and consider the concept of restorative justice, and consider piloting projects on the Federal level so we can really have 

good ways of testing implementation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS TURNER LAWRENCE

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members: 

First I would like to offer my sincerest appreciation to Chairperson Coble and 

members of this subcommittee for taking the time to examine the needs of victims 

of crime in order to consider appropriate ‘‘next steps’’ by Congress. Thank you very 

much. 

In 1989, I was living alone and working out of my home in California as an attorney in private practice, some of which consisted of criminal defense. In the 12 years 

that I had been practicing law in California, and during my three years of law 

school at the University of California, there had been little to no emphasis on thinking about the victims of crime. However, I was politically active in women’s rights 

and had represented many women who were physically abused, as well as the local 

shelter in a case over client confidentiality. 

My own world changed when a stranger broke into my home and raped me. Now 

I— who had felt ‘‘it will never happen to me,’’ became a victim myself. Besides the 

psychological and physical trauma of the rape itself, there were the ongoing emotional challenges of having to recall, over and over again, every minute detail of the 

horrific experience in order to make sure that the rapist, who fortunately was 

caught, would be convicted. These were pre-DNA days, and other than blood typing 

matches from both his and my blood from fighting each other, there was little forensic evidence, in fact, little evidence other than my word. Fortunately, there was a 

conviction, and at sentencing, I was able to give my victim impact statement in 

court, but from behind the bench, and without being able to directly confront the 

man who had caused me the worst harm of my life. 

I was also very fortunate to have a wonderfully empathetic female police officer 

and then a very supportive female victim/witness coordinator in the district attorney’s office. However, the male prosecutor chose to direct me to stay in his office 

when others were testifying, claiming he did not want the jury to be distracted by 

watching my every reaction. This was odd, as usually that’s exactly what prosecutors want, but later—when I realized that he also told me to show more emotional 

when testifying—I understood that he wanted an angry, upset victim, not the calm 

person that I had become through my own healing process. I also was later told by 

someone very familiar with this prosecutor that she believed that he did not want 

a victim who was an attorney in the courtroom evaluating his every move. 

I make these points to underscore my later experience when working for the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA) here in Washington in the mid90s. I realized that I was so blessed to have had good support from friends, my SGIUSA Buddhist community and a good therapist, that I was able to begin immediately on a healing journey. However, I have seen through my now 11 years of involvement with victims, that many victims who do not have sufficient professional, 

30

financial, emotional, or spiritual support, continue to suffer with their anger, confusion, and fear dominating their lives. 

I was trained in crisis response and victim advocacy by the NOVA experts, and 

besides my regular research and writing, I answered NOVA’s national victim hotline. Over my three years, I estimate that I responded to calls from perhaps 3000 

victims. To my surprise, and perhaps to yours, more than half those victims were 

hurt or angry about the treatment, not by the offender, but by the professionals they 

expected to ‘‘represent’’ them, the police and the prosecutors, and sometimes the 

judges. We had to explain over and over that one of our goals was to better train 

all those professionals to be more sensitive to victims and to enforce the rights they 

already had under state statutes and constitutions. 

That work of education and professional training of allied professionals and even 

more importantly, sufficient financial support to provide more breadth and depth to 

victim services across the country is critical. Therefore, I offer my strongest encouragement to the members of Congress to not only continue to leave the Victims of 

Crime Act (VOCA) funding mechanisms intact, but to also increase funding to the 

Office for Victims of Crime and the federal programs regarding violence against 

women. For myself, being an attorney, I rationally understood that an accused person has 

the right to plead not guilty and to go to trial. As a victim, I knew he was the man 

who raped me, so it was hard to take that emotionally. The terrible sense of violation I experienced could easily have led me to substitute emotion for reason and 

principle, becoming the kind of victim who could not abide the critical legal distinction: that one is innocent until proven guilty. One victory over the rapist that I 

achieved was that his awful acts did not sway my commitment as an American and 

as an attorney to the United States Constitution and its proper protections against 

abuses of government power in regards to the arrest and prosecution of individuals 

accused of a crime. 

I wanted the fairest trial possible, so there would be no chance for an effective 

appeal. And of course, when the jury changed his status from ‘‘accused’’ to ‘‘convicted’’ and he was no longer the ‘‘defendant’’ but the recognized ‘‘offender,’’ I was 

relieved and felt validated. 

There is one thing that I still am angry about: he was sentenced to 48 years in 

prison, but there is absolutely no requirement that he ever have to come to grips 

with the pain he caused me nor the wife and four children he left behind. I’d rather 

he have to at least periodically be part of a demanding sex offender treatment program, and be evaluated and considered for release, than waste taxpayers’ money 

keeping him locked up for his minimum of 26 years only to get out even more angry 

and ready to do violence again. 

I have been able to embrace a holistic, balanced approach to thinking about how 

we need to respond as a society to crime. This paradigm is often referred to as restorative justice. We must strike the balance between feeling strongly about wanting 

to ‘‘take ’em away and lock ’em up’’ with our fundamental American ideals—beliefs 

in fairness and justice, and the responsibility of both the government and the people 

to treat everyone—in this realm, victim and offender alike—with dignity and respect. Key restorative principles also include the importance of accountability and 

of competency development—the need to help each develop the competency necessary to heal, to repair, and to be productive citizens. 

Americans’ respect for individual liberty is coupled with our expectation of individual responsibility, or accountability. It is now common for those in the criminal 

justice system to just assume that punishment equates with accountability. However, when we talk of governmental accountability—a frequent buzzword these 

days—there seems to be an assumption closer to the American Heritage Dictionary 

definition: ‘‘a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for 

something or being responsible for one’s conduct.’’

From a restorative justice perspective, the latter definition—‘‘being answerable to 

someone . . . for one’s conduct’’—fits what is owed by the offender to the victim and 

to the greater public, not to the amorphous ‘‘state.’’ We have to determine who has 

been harmed—such as individuals, family members, neighbors, the community at 

large? And then they determine in what ways they have been harmed and in what 

manner could those harms be repaired, literally or symbolically. Then, all the stakeholders, collectively, should determine whose obligation is it to repair the various 

harms and how that should be done in meaningful, practical, measurable, ways and 

as efficiently as possible. 

Using my own experience as an example: I was harmed, as was his family. There 

was certainly physical harm, at least to me and to his wife, who had been previously 

battered (it was through those court records that they could produce a photo of him 

that I was able to identify). We all no doubt experienced a variety of emotional and 

31

financial harm as well. Who owes the repair? The rapist at least. Not ever being 

told any of his background other than he was just one year out of the service, I do 

not know who, if anyone, may have been responsible for contributing to his psychological makeup and attitudes. 

[In some instances, especially involving juveniles, the parents’ culpability comes 

to light as well. In some circumstances, there are others spurring on the criminal 

behavior, such as kids spreading rumors, leading to a fight among students.] 

What about my landlords for the poor lighting, lock system, etc., that allowed his 

entrance? Yes, they owe, and they did pay me some compensation, which was handled in the civil realm, which only measures harm by the dollar. However, in the 

criminal realm, the assumption is that the ‘‘debt owed to society’’ is only payable 

to the State, and is measured specifically by time under state control—either in the 

community or in some form of lock-up, and/or possibly other restrictions on behavior, fines, requirements for attending programs, and only occasionally financial restitution, which is often uncollectible or uncollected. 

How can someone ‘‘repair’’ the harm done when they forcibly violate someone’s 

personhood? Obviously, they cannot do something as simple and direct as paying 

back the value of a stolen car or replacing a broken window. However, I, like many 

victims, come to feel that the offender owes me, personally, based on my needs. 

What are some of the greatest needs of victims? Of course, first is safety, which, 

unfortunately can never be fully guaranteed. 

Often ranking stronger in victim studies than the need for retribution is the need 

to experience some control over our lives—to have the experience make some sense; 

to have answers to the questions that plague us. I had to do my own spiritual work 

to understand what was the ‘‘purpose’’ or ‘‘meaning’’ in my own life. 

But regarding the people who do harm, we may realize that in general, some people are just ‘‘messed up’’ or ‘‘mean and evil.’’ But still, the questions about the offender remain: ‘‘Who ARE you? Why did you do this? Why me? Do you have any 

idea what you have done to me?’’ They go on: ‘‘How did you do it? Have you done 

it before? What makes you think it is okay to treat people like this? Are you going 

to hurt me again? Will you hurt someone else? What will it take to get you to 

change?’’

Victims also rate accountability as very important, but define it as the offender 

acknowledging, understanding and accepting personal responsibility for the harm 

and doing something about it, whether in the form of paying something back financially, performing some service to the victim or the community, and particularly 

making efforts to change the attitudes and the behaviors that created the harm. 

When victims are able to know that the person who hurt them ‘‘gets it,’’ even if they 

are unable (obviously) to go back and change things, and if they are capable, will 

pay them and the community back in some way, and will not re-offend—this goes 

an incredibly long way in helping the person move from ‘‘victim’’ to ‘‘survivor’’ and 

hopefully, even to ‘‘thriver.’’

One of the reasons that victims feel so frustrated with the criminal justice and 

correctional systems is that they do not get such opportunities. We can get so little 

information of what went on in the crime, what the system is doing, and what the 

outcomes are of court proceedings, probation, incarceration and parole. And I do not 

just mean being notified that someone is up for a hearing or is being released, or 

even where he or she is going to live and work, but more importantly, ‘‘Where is 

his head at? Am I at risk? What does his family think of him—are they scared? 

Should I be?’’

A truly victim-centered (and restorative) approach to justice should afford the opportunity for victims to get their questions answered, to be part of the process in 

determining what the harm was and to be part of the process in determining how 

the harm can be repaired, including making agreements about material or symbolic 

obligations, and in fact to be directly involved in policy-making. 

Like the approximately other 96% of incarcerated people in the U.S. the man who 

raped me will be released. For me, true accountability to me and to the public lies 

squarely with two entities. The first is Michael Alexander Christopher, who needs 

to admit (unlike at trial) that he fought me, hurt me, and raped me, and that he 

understands what triggers that violence and is willing and able to do everything in 

his power to manage those triggers. And if he is not willing or capable of all of that? 

Then the California criminal justice system and the Department of Corrections are 

accountable to me and to the public to explain why they failed to bring him to that 

level of accountability. While I do not expect their success in every case, a do-nothing but ‘‘lock ’em up’’ approach just does not satisfy this victim and I suspect many 

others as well. 

We have to redefine our values, policies and practices in order to create a balanced, restorative approach to dealing with crime. 

32

We need to realign our allocation of resources to support the needs:

• of victims of all kinds of crimes, whether there is an accused or not,

• of offenders so that they can develop the competencies needed make repair 

and be productive citizens, and

• for the training of victim-sensitive, restoratively-minded professionals who 

will also follow the laws already in place for victim protection and participation, and

• of communities to be more involved and to be supported in making the economic and social changes necessary to create healthy children

While I am very sympathetic to the frustrations of victims dealing with perceived 

inequities in how our adversarial system currently runs, as a fellow victim and a 

victim advocate, I must encourage Congress, victim rights supporters and the public, to devote every bit of energy to transforming an adversarial, punishment-driven 

system to one which is truly about changing and healing lives, not just processing 

cases. 

I would be more than happy to answer any questions and to provide the Chair 

and the Committee with more information about restorative justice. 

Thank you again for your time and attention.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Lawrence. 

Ladies, we impose the 5-minute rule against ourselves as well, 

so if you all can keep your sentences or responses as terse as possible. Now, I don’t really mean to put you on a short leash, but 

time is of the essence for you and for us. We appreciate you all 

being here, and especially Ms. Campbell, who took the red eye from 

the Coast. I know that was not a pleasant encounter, but we appreciate that, Ms. Campbell. 

Ms. Campbell, I’ll start with you. My State of North Carolina is 

the buckle of the NASCAR belt. Your brother was well known 

there. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Now, he was murdered, 18, 19 years ago? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. 18. 

Mr. COBLE. 18. Ms. Campbell, let me ask you this: What specific 

measures do you think can be addressed that will remedy some of 

the deficiencies in the criminal justice system when it comes to victims? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Boy, there’s a lot of them, but I would say——

Mr. COBLE. Give me two or three. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. First of all, thank you for saying that about my 

brother. He was a wonderful man. He just happened to be my 

brother. 

I think balancing the Constitution, where victims have some 

rights to the Constitution since there’s 23 rights given to the criminal. At that time when it was written in 1786 it made sense because people represented themselves. It’s much different today. But 

there’s a whole long list of things that can be done that could help. 

I think one of the things that I am most emphatic about is the fact 

of the situation that attorneys and the perpetrators can knowingly 

lie and deceive the court. There just needs to be some sanctions on 

something like that. 

The families are hurt bad enough, but in order to make it appear 

there were other people involved in the killing, you end up being 

everything from a prostitute to a drug addict to the mafia, and 

those things are delivered to the court, and so it continues to hurt 

the family. They not only take our loved ones, they try to take our 

33

reputation. And there seems to be no sanctions. Nobody does anything about that, and I feel that that’s very painful. 

Do you want me to go on with my list? I don’t want to take more 

time than I should. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I may come back to you. Let me ask Ms. Leary 

a question. 

Ms. Leary, what do you say when a person says to you, ‘‘Okay, 

Ms. Leary, how does restitution work? When the prisoner is incarcerated he’s judgment proof. His family has no funds or no money 

at all.’’ How do you respond to that as far as paying to the victim? 

Ms. LEARY. I think it’s important that the offender pays something, and, you know, that’s why it’s important to investigate assets immediately, to freeze assets immediately. But if you do have 

an offender who just doesn’t have any, and then he is in prison, 

there are prison work programs, and I believe that the offenders 

ought—whatever accounts they have from their wages or from 

money they get from family members or whatever, money should 

come from that and go to the restitution to the victims. It’s critically important. Some States actually take up to 20 percent of an 

inmate’s account for purposes of restitution. It’s just as important 

for the offender as it is for the victim and the victim’s family. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Leary. 

Dr. Coffman, describe the importance of the multidisciplinary 

units assigned to handle children’s abuse specifically, (a) how are 

they funded? and; (b) how effective are they? 

Dr. COFFMAN. The multidisciplinary concept is one in which professionals from different agencies work collaboratively. The efficacy 

is largely related to the collaboration that takes place between the 

different professionals or among the different professionals. In our 

center, for example, the child protective services workers work 

hand in hand in the investigation with the police officers, so they 

don’t duplicate efforts and they’re not in conflict. And I would say 

that our efforts, instead of just being additive are actually synergistic. We really provide extremely effective response and very 

rapid response in investigation, as well as victim treatment. 

In terms of funding, our center basically exists in a building with 

a support system that’s provided by a nonprofit organization called 

Childhelp, and all the agencies are independent. I work for a hospital and I’m based there. The police are funded by the city and 

so on. 

There are other centers that are funded differently. There is an 

up-front cost, obviously, to establishing these centers, but I think 

the cost savings down the road is incredible. We save a lot of 

money because of the efficiency of the investigations. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me try to beat the red light by asking Ms. Lawrence a question. Ms. Lawrence, I understand your theory and concept of restorative justice, but explain to us, if you will, in practical 

terms, how that would work in a court system with a prosecutor 

on the one hand, a judge on the other, defense counsel on the 

other, and finally, a probation and/or parole officer? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Interestingly, actually, there’s a model that 

comes out of the Yukon called sentencing circles, but some courts 

are utilizing them here in the United States, where actually all of 

those parties that you just named, and the victim, if they are carVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
34

ing to participate, the offender and their support system, the support system of the victim, and in some places, anyone in the community who wants to show up has actually a circle, and there’s—

the people that are allowed into this kind of circumstance, the offenders, generally have had to jump through hoops to show their 

good faith that they’re taking responsibility for one, admitting. So 

this is actually a sentencing process. And that they’ve already been 

making efforts to clean up their act, you might say. 

And they actually have a, maybe hours and hours long, circle, 

with some facilitator having each person around the circle passing 

a talking piece usually, be able to tell whatever the topic of that 

round is, and generally it starts with the telling of the stories of 

the impact. And then they actually come up with a sentence that 

is the sentence of the court. That’s kind of the most obvious example given, your example. Other times judges will send people to a 

restorative process, which will be facilitated, clients prepared on 

both sides, the parties be willing. They have a conference, discuss, 

tell the stories, answer questions, discuss reparation, and then that 

reparation agreement is sent back to the court either as the whole 

or part of the sentence. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I asked for a practical explanation and you 

gave me a practical. I appreciate that. 

My time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Lawrence, are any of those programs mandatory? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. There’s the rare case where a judge might say 

you’re ordered into meeting with the victim, but they shouldn’t be. 

Like with any mediation, many courts around the country now, and 

especially in Virginia; we have a very excellent system of mediation, for example, in family matters. The judge does not order a 

person to mediate. They order them into the mediation program 

which then can evaluate is this an appropriate case. So the same 

way for a restorative justice process. Is the offender being appropriate, and is the victim interested and willing? 

Some programs are using surrogate victims, so somebody else is 

coming speaking for the victim, so there’s still a possibility for the 

offender to be accountable. And sometimes it’s community representatives. Some of the models, often called Community Accountability Boards or panels, are using community members who are 

also trained, and they’re meeting with, they’re inviting the victim 

and their support, the offender and their support, and they’re having the same kind of dialogue that I described. But if the victim 

doesn’t come, you still have the community working out with the 

offender what the appropriate reparation agreement will be. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Leary, you mentioned prison work programs. We’re doing 

what we can to keep them alive. There have actually been serious 

attacks on the prison work programs, but we’re doing what we can 

so that you can have that important restitution. 

You mentioned uncollected debt. Do you have any idea of how 

much of this is actually collectible? 

Ms. LEARY. I don’t know how much is actually collectible, and I 

think that that’s one of the biggest problems that you have in the 

35

system, is making a determination about what’s truly collectible 

and what’s not. 

One of the dangers, of course, is assuming, oh, you can’t get 

blood from a stone; why bother? And the system then turns into a 

data entry system, so you have a tickler and you have to make entries at every, you know, certain intervals, and the time and energy 

is spent tickling the system as opposed to making concerted efforts 

to collect. I think there’s a tremendous amount of training that 

needs to be done in order to determine what’s collectible and what’s 

not and to really go after it. 

Mr. SCOTT. And a criminal court judge can jail somebody for not 

paying what they can actually pay. You can’t jail somebody for paying what they don’t have, but you can revoke parole, probation if 

you have the ability to pay and don’t. 

Ms. LEARY. That’s correct. But it is not a crime to willfully fail 

to pay restitution, and maybe it should be. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, yes, but you can condition probation and parole 

on a good faith effort. You don’t make the good faith effort, they 

can revoke parole, which has, back door, about the same impact. 

Ms. LEARY. Right. 

Mr. SCOTT. You mentioned the victims’ fund. Do I understand 

that to be the source of the funds to be totally funds from convicted 

prisoners? 

Ms. LEARY. The VOCA money, yes. The crime victims’ fund, it all 

comes from offenders. 

Mr. SCOTT. Should we not put some general fund money in 

there? 

Ms. LEARY. I think that victims should be getting as much from 

the country as they possibly can. I think that the system, the criminal justice system is not balanced, and I believe that the only way 

that victims will get true justice is if they have their own parallel 

path. Their rights should not be derivative of the defendant’s. They 

have their own set of rights, and general fund money would certainly help——

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you know, if you’re talking about general fund 

money, you’re not even discussing whether or not you’re affecting 

defendants’ rights or not, and when you start talking, as I’ve mentioned, the constitutional amendment and balancing rights, you get 

into a debate. You don’t get into a debate if you just put general 

fund money in there to help the victim. 

Ms. LEARY. That’s true, but——

Mr. SCOTT. And if I could ask one other question, Mr. Chairman. 

You indicated for those who have a need, they can get up to 

$10,000? 

Ms. LEARY. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do they have to show a need? I mean if you have a 

wealthy person who has suffered a loss, as opposed to a person who 

has been financially devastated, would the person financially devastated be able to get the money, whereas a person that would like 

it but doesn’t really need it, would that be a factor? 

Ms. LEARY. I think that fund is available regardless, up to the 

amount of 10,000. 

Mr. SCOTT. Up to the amount of actual loss? 

Ms. LEARY. No, up to the amount of 10,000. 

36

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, but——

Ms. LEARY. Right, or the actual loss, whichever is less. 

Mr. SCOTT. But your subjective need is not a factor? 

Ms. LEARY. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LEARY. And that’s just one model. You know, you can work 

from that. We’d be happy to work with the Committee to help you 

learn about various State models. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. 

The distinguished gentleman from Ohio, who is no stranger to 

this issue, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

it. 

I want to once again thank all the witnesses for their testimony 

here this morning, and also the courage that they’ve shown in dealing with their own personal occurrences which have happened 

within their own families and to themselves. 

As I had mentioned in my opening statement, because of our involvement with Deborah Culberson, we’ve been very involved relative to the DNA testing when there are unidentified remains, and 

one might not be sure who the victim actually is, and they might 

be in a different State. Right now it’s not particularly coordinated 

in this country, and the remains might be—there are literally thousands of incidences of remains somewhere that have never been 

tested. And so, that’s someone’s loved one, and somebody else is 

looking for a person. So you just—we’ve been remiss in dealing 

with this issue. 

Now, my question is, as I’ve mentioned before, in the previous 

bill, we were able to get some funding in there to encourage States 

to do the DNA testing, but at this point, it’s not mandatory that 

they do the testing. And I would just like to see if any of the panelists have any opinion relative to the DNA testing, whether this is 

an important issue, if you have any ideas relative to how we might 

make this more effective, or anything that you would like to comment about. I’d be happy to hear from any of the witnesses that 

might want to weigh in on the issue. 

We’ll start with Ms. Leary. 

Ms. LEARY. Yes, thank you. I’m a great believer in the utility of 

DNA, both to protect the innocent and to convict those who are 

guilty. And I think that the potential for DNA is really untapped 

in many respects, certainly in the arena of missing persons, certainly in the arena of using DNA for less serious crimes, which I 

think would be very cost effective, burglaries and so on. You know, 

you could save a lot of investigative time up front if you used that 

technology. 

I think if the Government—if we could have public-private partnerships with some of these companies that are moving—that have 

moved into the DNA arena and are doing a lot of research and development with DNA, and if they can partner with public entities, 

we could make a lot more headway. 

There are a lot of issues for victims I think with DNA. You know, 

for instance, when you have a family with a missing person, when 

do you approach the family to try to get DNA samples from them, 

and how do you approach the family in a way that’s sensitive, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:12 Apr 19, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\021606\26054.000 HJUD1 PsN: 26054
37

clusive, and respectful of them. All of those things matter so much. 

You know, any of those contacts a victim has with the system can 

mean the difference between recovery and continuing trauma. So 

we need to be really sensitive about that. But we can do that. And 

I think that it behooves victims for this country to make much 

more aggressive and expansive use of DNA. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Ms. Leary, if I could just follow up with you on another issue 

that you already talked about to some extent, but that’s the issue 

of restitution. Is there anything that can be done on the Federal 

level to help the States collect the victim restitution that’s been ordered? Is there anything that you can think of that we might be 

able to do in that area? 

Ms. LEARY. Yeah, I think that there are a number of things that 

could be done. First of all, the States, I believe, ought to be able 

to intercept Federal income tax refunds for purposes of State restitution orders. They can already do that for child support, but they 

should be able to do the same thing with Federal tax refunds. 

In Colorado, their State tax refund intercept program gave them 

$3 million in collections in 2005. And when we talked to some of 

the folks in Colorado who run their really successful State restitution program, they said, ‘‘I can only imagine what intercepting Federal tax returns would yield.’’

And it’s amazing how many of these defendants file joint returns 

with their spouses, and even when money is taken from the refunds, they continue to file joint returns. There’s potential there 

and it needs to be tapped. 

The other thing is that restitution orders—well, in the Federal 

arena, restitution orders right now are not final until all the appeals are settled in Federal cases, and I think that those restitution orders should be immediately enforceable. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Let me ask a quick question about the victims’ rights constitutional amendment. It’s always been disturbing to me that the 

rights of the defendant are right there in the Constitution, a whole 

series of things, but the victims are nowhere there, and they’re protected through statutes, either Federal or State, but sometimes the 

Constitution that’s protecting the defendant is in conflict with the 

constitutional rights of the accuser. You had mentioned, I think 

your testimony was you don’t necessarily—I think you’re opposed 

to the constitutional amendment, correct? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I’ve grappled with it over the last 10 years, having worked for NOVA, which is one of its major advocates, and felt 

for a while it was necessary. But I think when we look first about 

why the constitutional issues are there is to deal with governmental abuse, and that’s why the protections are there, to avoid 

somebody being wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted. 

Mr. CHABOT. But I thought in your testimony that——

Ms. LAWRENCE. Yeah, victims are not in that boat. I won’t say 

I’m entirely against it. I just think all the energy that goes into trying to get these individual victims’ rights enforced, even though it’s 

important, should go into trying to transform a system that’s been 

failing all along and will continue to fail if we do not do something 

major to change our basic approach. 

38

Mr. CHABOT. Since you had just touched on it, basically in opposition, I thought perhaps we ought to have somebody else, maybe 

Ms. Campbell, who might want to give her opinion relative to the 

victims rights constitutional amendment, whether or not we ought 

to at least at some point still push for that. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I can’t imagine any country, or anyone, feeling 

that a criminal should have more rights than the honest, law-abiding situation. It absolutely—looking at every single angle, I cannot 

imagine supporting something like that. 

Mr. CHABOT. When you say supporting something like—you 

mean, in other words——

Ms. CAMPBELL. Supporting that the criminals have more rights. 

I’m sorry. I didn’t explain that well. 

Mr. CHABOT. No, that’s okay. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I mean we’re like this. When I walk into a courtroom today—and it depends what State you’re in—every State in 

America should be covered by constitutional rights for the honest 

law-abiding citizen, not just the criminal having the rights. 

Mr. CHABOT. So you do still believe that we should at some point 

move forward——

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely, absolutely. 

Mr. CHABOT [continuing]. With the victims rights constitution? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Yeah. Yesterday in the courtroom——

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. I think we have a vote on. I think we have time for 

Mr. Gohmert to examine the witnesses. Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I’ll be brief and just say thank you. As a 

former judge and chief justice, I’m well familiar with the plight. 

And, Ms. Lawrence, thank you for not allowing the felon, the 

criminal to assault you twice. As you know, as all of you know, so 

often some violent criminal thug not only commits an assault on 

a person and that person’s family, but also allows that assault to 

victimize them the rest of their lives, through the grief, hate, 

anger, fear, combination of those that just overshadows everything. 

So, obviously, you wouldn’t be doing what you were doing unless 

you knew that your actions helped bring people out of the valley 

of the shadow of fear and anger and hate and grief. So thank you 

for what you’re doing. I believe in what you’re doing. I’ve seen firsthand. 

I believe in our adversarial system. You know, with all its faults, 

it is the best there is, but it doesn’t mean we can’t improve it. And 

Texas has adopted a victims’ bill of rights and that helped some, 

but there’s still work to be done, not only in Texas but everywhere. 

I applaud your efforts with regard to money. People need to 

know there’s not only a price to be paid by incarceration, but also 

financially, and, you know, Ms. Leary, I think you’re right, even if 

they’re in prison they can work, and even if it’s pennies, the family 

knows they’re having to earn and work and remember why it is 

they’re doing that, and to pay back. But as you all know, there’s 

no amount of money that replaces what a victim or the victim’s 

family’s been through, but it still helps, and it helps with recovery. 

So I applaud you, as someone who’s been a witness to destruction 

and sometimes as a judge, you know, your heart just aches for the 

39

victim’s family, and I would never, as a judge, hold it against someone that they utilized their constitutional rights. They have a right 

to the best defense they can get. However, if someone is guilty and 

found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then that means that what 

they put an innocent victim through was an additional offense, and 

they knew it as it occurred, and so that often found its way into 

the additional sentence that may have been more harsh than if 

they had put up a great defense, but not attacked a victim they 

knew was not at fault. 

So anyway, there are judges that think like that, and so, you 

don’t necessarily verbalize it so the victim understands that the assault that occurred in the courtroom added to what the sentence 

is, but it happens, for what that’s worth. 

But anyway, thank all of you for your work. I do think that, Mr. 

Chairman, I applaud your having the hearing and pushing this 

issue. I think that as a Federal Congress, we ought to do something—and as you all talked about, and it really makes me feel 

good to see you get the big picture too. It’s not only helping victims, 

but it’s doing something to try to keep that person from coming out 

of prison with nothing but hate and additional knowledge about 

how to hurt people. So we need to do a better job there. 

I do have concerns about a Federal Congress dictating to States 

what they have to do, because I am an advocate of States’ rights 

as well, but would hope that those States would work on their own, 

and also look at our model, what we create and do through our actions here. 

But thank you. Obviously, a vote’s on. But I can’t tell you adequately with words how much I appreciate what you’re doing for 

people an for victims. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Texas. 

We have conclude this——

Mr. SCOTT. If I may, Mr. Chairman. The tax returns, there’s also 

lottery tickets. If you owe fines, you can get your lottery tickets—

in fact, there was a report where a gentleman who won a lottery 

ticket, went to cash it in, and just before he went in, remembered 

he owes the State fines, so he had his buddy go in and cash in the 

ticket. Unfortunately, as soon as the buddy cashed it in, he owed 

child support. [Laughter.] 

Ms. LEARY. Great. You ought to be able to curtail what they buy. 

Mr. COBLE. Folks, on that note, we’ll conclude. Ladies, we’ve got 

to go vote and I don’t want to keep you all here. Ms. Campbell, you 

have some other points to mention, and will list them here. Thank 

you all for your contribution. 

In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of 

this important issue, the record will be left open for additional submission for 7 days. So any written questions by the Members to 

you also must be submitted within that 7-day timeframe. 

So you had other measures you wanted to share with us, Ms. 

Campbell. If you don’t mind, send those to us in writing, if that 

would be okay with you. 

This concludes the oversight hearing on Victims and the Criminal Justice System: How to Protect, Compensate and Vindicate the 

Interests of Victims. 

40

Thank you all for your appearance today, and pardon us for our 

abrupt departure, but we have to go vote. The Subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ