Victimology concepts and applications

Criminal Justice- Victimology

For something so seemingly innocuous, the idea of a bill of rights for crime victims has raised an amazing amount of controversy. Those against the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment believe that it is the first step towards eroding the constitutional protections guaranteed to those accused of a crime in the United States. Such a belief displays a basic misunderstanding of both the U.S. Constitution and the proposed Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment is aimed at offering protections towards those victims whose offenders have been convicted. This idea is not contrary to the United States Constitution, which offers little protection for convicted criminals beyond the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Before one can determine whether the proposed Crime Victims' Rights Amendment is contrary to the United States Constitution, one must look at those provisions of the Constitution aimed at preventing over-reaching by law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and prohibits any search or seizure that is not based upon probable cause. The Fifth Amendment provides a criminal defendant to the right to an indictment by a grand jury, prohibits forced self-incrimination, prohibits double jeopardy, and guarantees people the right to due process of law before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. The Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to confront their accusers and the right to a speedy trial. In addition, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to consult with an attorney; this right has been expanded to include the right to a court-appointed attorney for those defendants accused of significantly serious crimes. Finally, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment once an accused has been convicted of a crime. Looking through the Constitutional provisions that relate to the rights of criminal defendants, it is clear that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Government from offering some type of protection to the victims of crime.

In fact, the types of protections proposed in the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment are not contrary to any element of the United States Constitution. The main goals of the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment are: (1) victims should be provided with reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime or the release or escape of the accused; (2) victims are not to be excluded from public proceedings involving the crime; (3) victims are to be reasonably heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and (4) requires that decisions duly consider the victims' safety, right to restitution, and interest in avoiding an unreasonable delay in the criminal proceedings (President). Taking a closer look at each of the proposed provisions, it becomes clear that none of them violate an accused's constitutional rights.

The first proposed victims' right is that victims should be notified if an accused is no longer in custody, whether by escape or release. Looking at the guarantees contained in U.S. Constitutional Amendments Four through Six, it is clear that nothing in those amendments prohibits a crime victim from receiving such notice. The notice is not a search or seizure, nor does it require an accused to serve as a witness against himself. Furthermore, the notice would occur outside of a trial setting, which means that it would not affect any of the rights aimed at guaranteeing an accused criminal a fair and speedy trial.

The third proposed right is that victims are to be reasonably heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings. Only the Eighth Amendment truly applies to the post-conviction treatment of a criminal defendant, by prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. There is nothing about being confronted with victim impact statements that is either cruel or unusual. When committing a crime, it is certainly reasonable for society to expect a criminal to understand that their actions will impact people. In addition, there is nothing in this provision of the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment that infringes upon a defendant's right to confront his accuser; these hearings occur post-conviction and are all related to some form of early release, which would relieve a defendant of some portion of his sentence.

The fourth element of the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment provides that decisions in criminal cases duly consider the victims' safety, right to restitution, and interest in avoiding an unreasonable delay in the criminal proceedings. This provision does not threaten a defendant's constitutional rights; in fact, it is merely a codification of the procedures currently applied by most criminal court judges. Judges already consider a victim's safety, from early decisions regarding bail, to sentencing decisions, and when imposing conditions on probation or parole. Furthermore, defendants are not entitled to unlimited delay in their criminal prosecutions; in fact, there are numerous decisions providing that the State has an interest in avoiding unreasonable delay. The only difference in giving the victims' an interest in avoiding unreasonable delay would be that it might permit victims to approach a judge, with due notice to a defendant and the prosecution, if they felt that the defense and the prosecution were permitting unreasonable delay.