Even with less crime there will, obviously, still be individual victims in individual cases. The best thing we can do FOR THEM in the contest of that particular case is not to have fewer other people be victims. They would still be a victim no matter how many few other victims might exist.

While I agree with Deconstructionist that even with less crime, there are still victims, I disagree with his sentiments as to what the best thing for them is.  Firstly, victims may belong to a group, but they are individuals and what is best for one may not be best for the others; that being the case, it is futile to set out in stone how victims should be treated or what should be done for them.

I have had the misfortune to have been the victim of violent crime.  I was the victim of an unprovoked attack in a park in daylight hours when I had three children in my care, the youngest of whom was 5 years old.  I was pushed to the ground and kicked repeatedly in the face.  From the moment the attack was over (and my safety therefore had ceased to be a priority) the most important thing to me in the context of my case and otherwise, was that no one else should be a victim.  My ordeal was over, but the same thing could happen to others.  This is why I reported it to the police.  If I had been offered either financial compensation or been told that the same sum could be put into crime prevention, I would have chosen the latter.  

Although I acknowledge that it is often done with the best of intentions, I detest it when what the victim is perceived to want is given higher value than the justice system itself.  That in itself does victims and society a disservice.

Rather than loading more work and more expectations on courts and prosecutors, we need more education, more drug addiction treatment and more alternatives to imprisonment that enable defendants to work.

Indeed, providing the victim with a role in the prosecution assumes a crime has been committed, despite the bedrock constitutional proposition that the accused is presumed innocent.

  The amendment to Rule 32 and new Rule 60 would essentially implement this statute:

18 U.S.C. § 3771. Crime victims' rights

(a) RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS.--A crime victim has the following rights:

(1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.

(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

(3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

(5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.

(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.

(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.

(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.

(b) RIGHTS AFFORDED.--In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). Before making a determination described in subsection (a)(3), the court shall make every effort to permit the fullest attendance possible by the victim and shall consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of the victim from the criminal proceeding. The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record.

(c) BEST EFFORTS TO ACCORD RIGHTS.--

(1) GOVERNMENT.--Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).

(2) ADVICE OF ATTORNEY.--The prosecutor shall advise the crime victim that the crime victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the rights described in subsection (a).

(3) NOTICE.--Notice of release otherwise required pursuant to this chapter shall not be given if such notice may endanger the safety of any person.

(d) ENFORCEMENT AND LIMITATIONS.--

(1) RIGHTS.--The crime victim or the crime victim's lawful representative, and the attorney for the Government may assert the rights described in subsection (a). A person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter.

(2) MULTIPLE CRIME VICTIMS.--In a case where the court finds that the number of crime victims makes it impracticable to accord all of the crime victims the rights described in subsection (a), the court shall fashion a reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings.

(3) MOTION FOR RELIEF AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS.--The rights described in subsection (a) shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred. The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith. If the district court denies the relief sought, the movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals may issue the writ on the order of a single judge pursuant to circuit rule or the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed. In no event shall proceedings be stayed or subject to a continuance of more than five days for purposes of enforcing this chapter. If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.

(4) ERROR.--In any appeal in a criminal case, the Government may assert as error the district court's denial of any crime victim's right in the proceeding to which the appeal relates.

(5) LIMITATION ON RELIEF.--In no case shall a failure to afford a right under this chapter provide grounds for a 2263 new trial. A victim may make a motion to re-open a plea or sentence only if--

(A) the victim has asserted the right to be heard before or during the proceeding at issue and such right was denied;

(B) the victim petitions the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus within 10 days; and

(C) in the case of a plea, the accused has not pled to the highest offense charged. This paragraph does not affect the victim's right to restitution as provided in title 18, United States Code.

(6) NO CAUSE OF ACTION.--Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize a cause of action for damages or to create, to enlarge, or to imply any duty or obligation to any victim or other person for the breach of which the United States or any of its officers or employees could be held liable in damages. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction.

(e) DEFINITIONS.--For the purposes of this chapter, the term 'crime victim' means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. In the case of a crime victim who is under 18 years of age, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim or the representatives of the crime victim's estate, family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the crime victim's rights under this chapter, but in no event shall the defendant be named as such guardian or representative.

(f) PROCEDURES TO PROMOTE COMPLIANCE.--

(1) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this chapter, the Attorney General of the United States shall promulgate regulations to enforce the rights of crime victims and to ensure compliance by responsible officials with the obligations described in law respecting crime victims.

(2) CONTENTS.--The regulations promulgated under paragraph (1) shall--

(A) designate an administrative authority within the Department of Justice to receive and investigate complaints relating to the provision or violation of the rights of a crime victim;

(B) require a course of training for employees and offices of the Department of Justice that fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims, and otherwise assist such employees and offices in responding more effectively to the needs of crime victims;

(C) contain disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination from employment, for employees of the Department of Justice who willfully or wantonly fail to comply with provisions of Federal law pertaining to the treatment of crime victims; and

(D) provide that the Attorney General, or the designee of the Attorney General, shall be the final arbiter of the complaint, and that there shall be no judicial review of the final decision of the Attorney General by a complainant."

*

  I have problems with this legislation. my first concern is that it will complicate and hinder the reaching of reasonable plea agreements. Otherwise, I  particularly don't like   the requirement that in order to be granted sequestration a defendant would have the burden of showing by "clear and convincing evidence" that victim witness's testimony WOULD BE materially altered if not sequestered. That's an almost impossible burden if interpreted literally.

  The provision about unreasonable delay is also concern as it could potentially cause some defendants to be rushed to trial without adequate time to prepare.

   However, it is simply A LIE to say this Act makes a victim an equal and independent actor in judicial proceedings. It does no such thing. In fact, at trial it gives the victim no different standing (other than presence in the courtroom)  than he or she now has. It confers no right to testify-- let alone to address the jury --  no right to compel testimony from others, no right to introduce evidence, make or argue against objections, submit jury instructions, no right to cross examine, no right to introduce evidence, no right to give an opening statement, no right to demand the prosecutor do or not do anything. It also gives  no right to present evidence to a grand jury and ask for a true bill or to require the prosecutor to do so...

The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.

Can someone explain how the above quote validates the quote below?  

Any rights provided to the victim must come at the expense of the rights provided to a defendant.

  Gee, less crime would be good? Whoda thunk it? while I think we can allget aboard that bandwagon (yes, despite the potential for less income)
it is nonsensical as proposed alternative here. Even with less crime there will, obviously, still be individual victims in individual cases. The best thing we can do FOR THEM in the contest of that particular case is not to have fewer other people be victims. They would still be a victim no matter how many few other victims might exist.

the last time i checked, it isn't the victim bringing the criminal action, it's the state. the victim is merely the originator of the complaint, and a potential witness for the state, nothing more.

the state, not the victim, is the final arbiter for sentencing, per the constitution.

  This is another eexample of how when prople can't make a decent substantive argument against something (though they exist)  they just make up something.

  CP:

  Actually, criminal restitution long predates this act. this Act just restates (seemingly superfluo0sly and just "for effect") that victims should be given the right  of restitution granted by other statutes.

  I do not agree that what a victim might say should never have anything to do with a sentence. Within the parameters of a lawful setence term, a court SHOULD consider all relevant factors and the degree of harm causes would seem to be a relevant factor and the victim would seem often to be well situated to provide a court with insight into the harm caused.  victims might also have particular relevant facts about the total circumatances surrounding an event. The judge should not be beholden to a victim's personal opinion as to the appropriate punishment, but thats far from saying a victim's statement should have no influence on a judge in deciding a sentence.

Its package of government-guaranteed entitlements for crime "victims" for an opportunity to fully participate and object to bail and plea bargains at the accusatory stage of the proceedings, before a defendant has been found to be the perpetrator of the crime, effectively undermines the presumption of innocence which lies at the very core of our criminal justice system. It greatly adds to the powers of accusation against which the unpopular citizen accused must defend -- governmental and private -- and substantially increases the risk of injustice.

It constitutionally and inflexibly forbids judicial deployment of the ancient rule of witness sequestration. Of course, this rule is a crucial protection measure against the tailoring of witness testimony to statements heard from a previous witness, and is a crucial aid in detection of testimony that is less than candid. Wigmore himself refers to sequestration in his famous treatise on evidence as ". . . one of the greatest engines that the skill of man has ever invented for the detection of liars in a court of justice."

The article by Boss, linked above, is about some proposed changes to the current law.  He states that:

Under the act, victims have the right to be heard in court on questions of bond, plea agreements and sentencing, and they have the right to confer with prosecutors about a case. If victims are unhappy with how a prosecutor or trial court has treated them, they are permitted to seek relief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, and the appellate court must rule on their application within 72 hours (an unprecedented remedy).

Boss asserts, with some examples, that the law is currently working against the accused & that the proposed changes will make things worse for defense counsel.

And last year, the issue reached the Supreme Court in a murder case in which the victim's supporters had attended the trial wearing buttons that displayed a picture of the victim (the court avoided addressing whether such conduct is prejudicial).

  What troubles me is the thoughtless inhumanity expressed by some of you here. I'm a defense attorney but I don't believe (and certainly would not be foolish enough to say in public even if I did) that a victim's thoughts, emotions and and circumstances should be irrelevant to a court at sentencing because "they don't matter" to the system and decisions should be made without consideration of the humanity of people involved.

 That's wrong when it is done to defendants (as w/ the sentencing guidelines)  and it's wrong when applied to victims. The whole reason we have a legal system is because the acts of some human beings affect other human beings. If the human effect is factored out of the equation that is not justice for anyone.

 What kind of system would it be where the very individuals most affected are considered not to matter? It's just a mechanical system processing limited information and spitting out results.

    Any limitation on the information used to decide cases should be met first and foremost with great distrust and skepticism. Only where the information is so UNFAIRLY prejudicial in comparison to its probabtive value should it be excluded from use in court. Moreover, where it is THE JUDGE and not the jury making a particular determination any rules of exclusion (the formal rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing)  should be very sparingly applied. If we cannot trust judges to properly evaluate weigh, evaluate and use information then the problem is the judges not the nature and source of the information.

  I don't trust anyone whose first reaction is to seek to hide information from decision makers. In some instances with certain types of information being used to reach certain types of decisions by certain types of actors, some limited exclusion of information is desirable because despite the "good" use to which that information could be put the danger of it being put to a "wrong" uses is too high.

(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding

would be interpreted to allow a judge to limit a victim to a written submission. It would take some artful dancing around the common understanding of the the words "heard at any public proceeding" to reach that result.

  And, yes, the point of these victim right's statutes (state and federal) is to give the victim the opportunity to be heard (and heard on what they want to be heard not what the prosecutor believes needs to be heard) regardless of the prosecutor's desires.

  Much of what is written here though begins from a misunderstanding of the fact that victims have frequently addressed courts as to sentencing from the beginning. The thing these statutes do is remove the discretion from the judges (who could always allow it) and prosecutors.

The latest manifestation of our "tough on crime" policy comes in the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which will implement the 2004 Crime Victims' Rights Act. One U.S. district judge ruled that the statute renders victims "independent participant[s] in the proceedings" and "commands that victims should be treated equally with the defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor."

It seems as if a non-expert, lay reader of this website needs to choose between the knowledge of the quoted statement from the Washington Post & the assertions of a commenter:

However, it is simply A LIE to say this Act makes a victim an equal and independent actor in judicial proceedings. It does no such thing. In fact, at trial it gives the victim no different standing (other than presence in the courtroom)  than he or she now has.

  That you would rather let someone else feed you false propaganda than read and think for yourself is (one) reason why you don't understand and why you are so easily manipulated and thge kind of person who proves the sad truth that we train many and educate few. in your case, i won't balme the education system because you seem to refuse to learn if it might challenge your preconceived notions based on lies people tell you but that you want to believe.