The Crime Victims’ Rights Movement
Starting in the 20th century, the victim’s role in justice had eroded to the point where many victims had no legal rights or say in the case (National Crime Victim
Law Institute, 2011). Stemming from the changes in public discourse because of the Civil Rights and Women’s Rights Movements, the rights of victims became an important part of the social change narrative. The goal of the victim’s rights movement was to give victims a more prominent role in their cases and ensure the recognition of their legal rights. A major catalyst was the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (410 U.S. 614) where the Court ruled that the complainant did not have any legal standing in a child support case. The specific aspect of the case that began the movement was that a crime victim cannot compel a criminal prosecution because they lack a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution and have “no formal legal status beyond that of a witness or piece of evidence” (National Crime Victim Law Institute, 2011). Thus, victims were nothing more than evidence for the state.
This movement has mostly occurred through legal actions to get the courts and legislators to write laws to ensure that
• victims’ rights are included in the legal process, • victims have legal standing in cases, • victims have the right to be informed about cases, and • victims have the right to privacy.
The movement has been incredibly effective in getting 33 states to include victims’ rights into their constitution and the rest to create victims’ rights laws (National Crime Victim Law Institute, 2013). In 1982, Congress passed the Victim and Witness Protection Act, as well as additional acts, to ensure the legal rights of victims at the federal level.
The courts have also played a role in increasing the legal rights of victims. For instance, in Payne v. Tennessee, the U.S. Supreme Court stated clearly that victims were not anonymous victims but needed to be clearly recognized as important players in the legal process. The victims’ rights movement continues to increase the voices of victims within the criminal justice system, engaging in victims’ advocacy and working through national nonprofit victims’ rights organizations to promote victims’ legal rights and social changes around victimization.
Overall, social movements have been effective in bringing attention to a variety of types of victimizations, promoting the voices and protections of victims, and increasing the legal avenues for victims to recover. The continuation of social inequalities, structural inequalities in the criminal justice system, and the slower than desired social changes around victimization leaves room for improvement. In order to continue helping victims, there needs to be continued improvement in the understanding of victimization.
Sources
Adams St. Pierre, E. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5), 477–515.
Allen, N. (1980). Homicide: Perspectives on prevention. New York: Human Sciences Press.
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.
Almasy, S., Hanna, J., Vercammen, P., & Park, M. (2018, Jan 18). ‘This is depraved conduct,’ DA says of California couple accused of torturing kids. Retrieved from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/us/turpin-family- investigation/index.html
Ben-David, S. (2000). Victimology at the transition from the 20th to the 21st century. 10th International Symposium on Victimology.Montreal, Canada.
Blackwell, M. (2011). ¡Chicana Power!: Contested histories of feminism in the chicano movement. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Brunell, L. (2008). Feminism re-imagined: The third wave”. Encyclopædia Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Daigle, L. (2015). Victimology. In M. Maguire, & D. Okada (Eds.), Critical issues in crime and justice: Thoughts, policy, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 67–90). Washington, DC: Sage.
Derene, S., Walker, S., & Stein, J. (2007). The history of the crime victims movement in the United States. 2007 National Victim Assistance Academy, Track 1. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.598.3276&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Dussich, J. (2006). Victimology–past, present and future. 131st International Senior Seminar, (pp. 116–129).
Friedman, G. (2014).March of the mill children. Retrieved from The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia: http://philadelphiaencyclopedia.org/archive/march-of-the- mill-children/
Karmen, A. (2012). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Mégret, F. (2010). Justifying compensation by the international criminal court’s victims trust fund: Lessons from domestic compensation schemes. Brooks Journal of International Law, 36(1).
Mendelsohn, B. (1937). Methods to be used by counsel for the defense in the researches made into the personality of the criminal. Revue de Droit Penal et de Criminologie.
Mendelsohn, B. (1956). Une nouvelle branch de la science biopsycho-social: La victimology. Review international de criminologie et de police technique, 105–108.
Mendelsohn, B. (1976). Victimology and contemporary society’s trends. Victimology, An International Journal, 1, 8–28.
Meyers, J. (2008). A short history of child protection in America. Family Legal Quarterly, 42, 449–463.
Miller, L. (2016). A Second Look at the Second Wave: It’s fashionable to critique the myopia of 1970s feminists. But it’s also wrong. Slate, June 21, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/06/ second_wave_feminism_gets_a_bum_rap.html
National Crime Victim Law Institute. (2011). Fundamentals of victims’ rights: A brief history of crime victims’ rights in the United States. Victim Law Bulletin.
Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Sobol, J. (1997). Behavioral characteristics and level of involvement for victims of homicide. Homicide Studies, 1(14), 359–376.
Shneidman, E. (1996). The suicidal mind. New York: Oxford University Press.
Timmer, D., & Norman, W. (1984). The ideology of victim precipitation. Criminal Justice Review, 9(2), 63–68.
von Hentig, H. (1941). Remarks on the interaction of perpetrator and victim. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 31, 303–309.
von Hentig, H. (1948). The criminal & his victim: Studies in the sociobiology of crime. Cambridge, NJ: Yale University Press.
Wolfgang, M. (1957). Victim precipitated criminal homicide. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 48(1), 1–12.
Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Oxford, England: University Pennsylvania Press.
Wolfgang, M., & Singer, S. (1978). Victim categories of crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69(3), 379–394.
1.2 Theories of Victimization
• Differentiate the major theoretical frameworks used in the field of victimology and their impact.
Now that you have some understanding of the categories of victims and social movements that have affected how we think about victimization, we turn to a discussion of several of the broad theoretical frameworks of victimization.