91172.pdf

Victim Compensation Programs 185

is not a shared perception of victim compensation. Many still feel that victims are
not receiving the recognition that they deserve (Marion, 1995). The reality of the
situation is that victims receive only minimal aid, compensation programs being
one example. Further, the extent of such aid to victims varies significantly from
state to state. Perhaps the biggest problems include the lack of funding for such
programs and the lack of information available for victims ot crime.
It is likely that many persons have never heard of victim compensation programs.
It is even less likely that, if victimized, these persons would know how to go
about applying for compensation. In fact, the actual application information is
often difficult to obtain and victims are rarely made aware of such programs upon
their entrance into the justice system (Elias, 1986). As a result, few victims apply for
benefits. McCormack (1991) reports that only about 6% of violent crime victims
apply for compensation. The number that actually receive compensation is closer
to 4%.
Given that very few victims are aware of the presence of compensation programs
and even fewer actually receive compensation, we must question whether every-
thing possible is being done to aid the victims of crime. We have already noted
that such programs, despite being funded in part by the federal government, are
drastically underfunded. Certainly funds do not exist to compensate all victims of
crime. The question, then, becomes where do we draw the line? Certainly per-
sons such as Regina Palmer, whose entire lives have been devastated as a result of
their victimization, should be compensated. As we consider less severe crimes it
becomes increasingly difficult to draw the line. Many persons may suffer far more
from being the victim of a minor crime than others would from being the victim of
a more serious crime. These psychological differences are difficult to ascertain, even
for the trained psychologist. The role of the forensic psychologist in determining
"emotional suffering" for the purpose of compensation is one of the more highly
debated areas of law and psychology today. Again, we must ask ourselves where the
line is drawn and how we are to determine who suffers and to what extent.

General Welfare Perspective

As McCormack (1994) notes, the victims' movement has always been influenced by
a retributive philosophy. That is to say, the offender has been the primary concern.
Victims' rights essentially mean harsher punishments and the like. This philosophy
has caused a great deal of debate within the general field. In particular, strong state-
ments are made by those favoring reform of the entire system. The "general welfare"
perspective argues that attention should also be paid to "offender/victims," in other
words, those offenders who are also victims "of discrimination, racism, poverty, and
related conditions" (McCormack, 1994, p. 216). Thus, programs that assist such
high-risk persons are arguably consistent with the more general goals of the victims'
rights movement and victim advocacy in that they prevent victimization. In short,
the general welfare perspective encourages us not to forget that offenders are often
themselves victims.