183A concern for victims' rights emerged from the civil rights and women's move-
ments of the 1960s (B. Smith, Sloan, & Ward, 1990). Initially, the victims' rights
movement was successful in lobbying for financial compensation and restitution,
These demands and successes have expanded in recent years to include lessening
the often traumatic effects of court appearances by victims and the implementation
of laws that allow victims to influence the disposition of the case (i.e., sentencing
and parole decisions regarding the offender).
Early demands of the victims' rights movement were generally focused on chang-
ing the way that victims were treated by the justice system. The very concept of
criminal justice itself has been attacked, as it often neglects the notion of victim
justice that must, it is argued, be a part of the administration of justice (B. Smith
ct al., 1990). Thus, one of the primary concerns of victims' rights advocates is "sec-
ondary victimization" (Hagan, 1982), which occurs when victims are mistreated
by the police, attorneys, judges, and so on while the case progresses through the
system (B, Smith et al., 1990).
As for allowing victims to impact the sentencing of offenders, there are generally
two ways in which this occurs: victims' impact statements and victim allocution or
formal statements made by the victim regarding his or her loss or injury (B. Smith
et al., 1990). A majority of states have passed legislation allowing (or, often requiring)
victim impact statements, while slightly fewer have passed laws allowing victims the
right to make a statement at the sentencing phase of the justice process.
The first government initiative to drastically alter the way in which victims of
crime were treated was California's 1965 victim compensation program. Initially,
California was to provide financial compensation to victims of violent crimes and
to the dependents of murder victims (McCormack, 1991, 1994). Shortly thereafter,
New York (1966), Hawaii (1967), Massachusetts (1968), and Maryland (1968), and
New Jersey (1971) all passed similar legislation. By 1991, 45 states had established
some sort of program for the compensation of crime victims (McCormack, 1991).
For the most part, these programs reimburse victims for the losses they suffered as a
result of their victimization. These losses may include medical expenses, long-term
care for serious injuries, burial expenses, and other services.
Nearly all states have established victim compensation boards that function to
reimburse victims for financial losses they incur as a result of crime. Additionally,
all states provide some sort of assistance to victims of sexual assault and domestic
violence. Victim compensation has remained, for the most part, a state issue. While
the federal government has consistently supported victim assistance, its perspective
has remained: "public safety and assistance to crime victims are ultimately state
concerns" (McCormack, 1994, p. 214).
The most significant federal involvement in victim assistance is its 1984 Victims
of Crime Act (VOCA). The VOCA established a federal office that was respon-
sible for developing the general rights of victims. In particular, it would provide
a degree of federal funding for state agencies and programs that dealt with victim
assistance through the Crime Victim Fund. In addition to the federal funding, state