Victims Rights and Vengeance

Victims Rights and Vengeance

Cynthia Molina
May 2, 2016
University Of Phoenix
CJS 211
Kristopher Crowley

Victims Rights and Vengeance

The current state of victims rights is vastly different than in prior decades. Currently,
there is a large number of victims rights which cover a number subjects. All states have some
form of legislation which encompasses victims rights. The core of these rights includes:
The right to attend criminal justice proceedings;
The right to apply for compensation;
The right to be heard and participate in criminal justice proceedings;
The right to be informed of proceedings and events in the criminal justice
process, of legal rights and remedies, and of available services;
The right to protection from intimidation and harassment;
The right to restitution from the offender;
The right to prompt return of personal property seized as evidence;
The right to a speedy trial; and
The right to enforcement of these rights (Offices of the United States Attorneys,
2015).
Prior to the inception of these rights, victims were treated more like witnesses and there
was little consideration given to them during the criminal justice process. Today, victims have
more rights but their place within the criminal justice process is still controversial. While
victims have the right to attend criminal proceedings, this right is often confused with the ability
to participate in the proceedings in the form of victim impact statements.
According to Mesmaecher (2010) victims often are displaced in the justice process and
their views lean more towards punitive justice rather than restorative. Often the victim elicits
emotions such as anger and outrage which is arguably biasing to the sentencing process. Impact
statements have become increasingly more present in criminal procedures and in the minds of
many victims this is a right rather than a function of the process. This confusion highlights the
lack of understanding of victims rights by victims and society in general. The result of this
confusion is that the victims position is confused and the justice process leans heavily towards
being punitive rather than rehabilitative and is less objective (Mesmaecker, 2010).
Despite this issue of not understanding the role of the victim, there have been

Victims Rights and Vengeance

from large strides in victim rights. The 2004 Crime Victims' Rights Act (CRVA) solved a
tremendous imbalance that existed between defendant rights and victim rights. Another benefit
of this Act was that there has been a tremendous increase in victim and witness participation in
criminal proceedings (Offices of the United States Attorneys, 2015).
One of the major issues with Crime Victims Rights is that the ignorance of these rights
leads groups like Survivors Network to act in vengeful ways and justify their actions by taking a
moral high ground.
When local members of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests
(SNAP) discovered Dudzinski's location, they went door-to-door in his
neighborhood distributing a file of documents with the title "Community
Notification: Protect your children from a credibly accused serial sex offender,"
which they believed established Dudzinski's identity as a sex offender. Dudzinski,
however, has never been convicted of, or even charged with, a sexual-abuse crime
(Sargent, 2012).
It is clear that acting in this manner is now in line with victims rights. However, because
of the emotional nature of such crimes many actions are performed in this way which seems to
press constitutionality. For example, restricting people from living in certain areas based on prior
criminal acts is really constitutional. Also it seems extremely invasive when child molesters have
their faces posted on the Internet or that they should be restricted from living in certain areas.
(Perhaps during probation this would be acceptable.) Clearly this action is in violation of a
persons rights because once a person has served time in prison they should not continue to be
punished. The larger argument is based on the idea that if a person is so dangerous to society that
society needs to mark them in a manner that we can distinguish them, perhaps they should not be
allowed out in the first place. For these reasons, there must be a balance obtained when
weighing defendant and victim rights.

Victims Rights and Vengeance

4
References

Mesmaecker, V. D. (2010). Building social support for restorative justice through the media: is
taking the victim perspective the most appropriate strategy?. . Contemporary Justice,
239-267.
Offices of the United States Attorneys. (2015). Victims Rights. Retrieved from Department of
Justice: http://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/victims-rights-services/victims-rights
Sargent, M. A. (2012). When Abuse Victims Squander Their Moral Authority. Commonweal, 1215.
References
Mesmaecker, V. D. (2010). Building social support for restorative justice through the media: is taking the victim perspective the most appropriat e strat egy?. . Contemporary Justice, 239-267.
Offi ces of the United States Attorneys. (2015). Victims Rights. Retrieved from Department of Justice: http://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/victims-rights-services/victims-rights
Sargent, M. A. (2012). When Abuse Victims Squander Their Moral Authority. Commonweal, 12-15.