Type of Victimization Awareness Time
National Slavery and Human Trafficking Month January National Stalking Awareness Month January National Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week early February National Youth Violence Prevention Week late March National Child Abuse Prevention Month April National Sexual Assault Awareness Month April National Crime Victims Week late April National Peace Officer’s Memorial Day mid-May National Missing Children’s Day late May World Elder Abuse Awareness Day mid-June National Night Out Against Crime early August National Campus Safety Awareness Month September National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims late September National Crime Prevention Month October National Domestic Violence Awareness Month October National Bullying Prevention Awareness Week early October Days of Activism Against Gender Violence late November Identity Theft Prevention and Awareness Month December National Drunk and Drugged Driving Prevention Month December
SOURCES: Office for Victims of Crime, 2014; and Congressional Victims’ Rights Caucus, 2012.
210 CH APT ER 7
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
state legislature has passed packages of statutes called a “Victim’s Bill of Rights.” The common threads running through these amendments and Bill of Rights packages were these promises to victims: to be handled with fairness, respect, and dignity; to be notified in a timely manner about, to be pres- ent and to be heard at important judicial proceed- ings; to promptly get back stolen property that was recovered and held as evidence; to be protected from intimidation and harassment; and to receive restitution or compensation (NCVC, 2011c).
A large but insufficient number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate over the years have voiced support for adding to the wording of the Sixth Amendment, as have Presi- dents Bill Clinton and George Bush.
Proponents of this movement to update the Bill of Rights argued that these federally backed promises would rectify a constitutional imbalance—its enu- meration of many rights for suspects, defendants, convicts, and inmates versus its silence on victims’ issues. A reworded Sixth Amendment could serve as an equalizer that could end institutionalized second-class treatment. However, the degree of opposition is substantial, even from pro-victim quarters. Civil liberties groups voice a different set of concerns. Adding pro-victim measures to the Sixth Amendment could undermine the presumption of innocence before the defendant’s guilt has been estab- lished. Empowering victims actually strengthens the coercive powers of the government (police, prosecu- tion, corrections) to detain, punish, imprison, and even execute its citizens. (Senate Committee, 2003).
In 2004, advocates in Congress of a constitu- tional amendment adopted a compromise strategy and passed the Crime Victim’s Rights Act (CVRA) by a vote of 96 to 1. Also known as the Justice for All Act, the CVRA was anticipated to be a formula for success and a model for the states. It resembled the proposed amendment but applied only to the federal criminal code. The act stated that victims of federal offenses have the right to be treated with fairness and with respect for their dignity, privacy, and safety. It pledged that victims would have the right to confer with prosecutors, to be notified about proceedings, and to be heard on issues
involving release, negotiated pleas, and sentences. Victims also would have the right to full and timely restitution. Employees of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies as well as federal judges must undertake their best efforts to ensure that these enumerated rights are made known and implemented. The CVRA has the potential to bring about fundamental changes in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that would thor- oughly integrate victims into all stages of the justice system’s decision-making process, if it is vigorously enforced. If the CVRA proves to be ineffective in the years ahead, then the campaign to amend the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution would resume, its backers vowed (Senate Committee, 2003; Morgenstern and Fisher, 2005; Wood, 2008; and Cassell, 2010).