The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
My Article on Defining the Term "Victim" in Crime Victims' Rights Enactments
The article explains how the federal Crime Victims' Rights Act and other crime victim protections contain a broad definition of the term "victim."
Today, I posted on SSRN my new, co-authored law review article regarding how to define the term "victim" in the Crime Victims Rights Act and other crime victims' rights enactments. Here's a summary:
Who qualifies as a "victim" is the critical foundational question for the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and other crime victims' rights laws. This article provides the first comprehensive exploration of this "victim" definition question. It traces out how the CVRA (and many states) define the term "victim" as broadly covering anyone who has been harmed as the result of a crime.
This article begins by reviewing how issues surrounding the definition of "victim" have evolved in the criminal justice system since the Nation's founding. In the last several decades, as crime victims' rights protections have proliferated, it has become necessary to define "victim" with precision. The definition of "victim" has gradually evolved from a person who was the target of a crime to a much broader understanding of a person who has suffered harm as the result of a crime.
The CVRA provides a good illustration of the expansive contemporary definition of "crime victim"—a definition whose implications frequently are not fully appreciated by courts, prosecutors, and other actors in the federal criminal justice system. The Act defines victim as a person "directly and proximately harmed" by a crime. This definition extends crime victims' protections to many persons who may not have been the target of a crime. This article also analyzes important categories of crimes—violent, property, firearms, environmental, and government process crimes—where "victim" definition issues often occur. It also takes a close look at a significant recent case involving the CVRA's crime victim definition: the Boeing 737 MAX crashes case.
The article concludes by arguing that legislators should adopt, and courts should enforce, a far-reaching conception of a "crime victim" as anyone who suffers harm from a crime. This conception is needed to ensure that important victims' rights are extended to all who need their protection.
This issue of who qualifies as a "victim" is increasingly being litigated in cases around the country. For example, in my case involving Boeing's two 737 MAX crashes, I prevailed on the "crime victim" issue discussed in this article. As I blogged about earlier, last October, Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the families whose loved ones were killed in the crashes were "victims" of Boeing's crime of conspiring to deceive the FAA about the safety of its aircraft. There have been some new developments in the case that I hope to blog about shortly.
If you are interested in cases reviewing who qualifies as a "victim," you can download and read the whole article here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Finally, something prosecutors and defense lawyers can agree on - curtailing victims' rights in the criminal justice process.
They ran the system so effectively for years, why are all these victims'-rights people suddenly butting in?
I suppose it's necessary to add /sarc.
When everyone is a "victim" no one is a victim.
I would argue that this paper is not quite exclusive enough.
Terrorist groups often attack one or a few individuals, or their property, for the purpose of scaring a much larger number of similarly vulnerable persons into complying with the terrorists’ demands. In such a situation the law ought to recognize the entire class of people being bullied as (indirect) victims.
I hope you're aware that's the very basis of Hate Crime enhancements, a part of law much derided as "thought crime" in these parts.
No, that's the very basis of anti-terrorism laws. The very basis of (anti-)hate-crime laws is the idea that hatred of some group is an unusually bad reason to commit a crime.
Only if you ignore legislative history, explicitly stated legislative intent (as in it's in the preamble of many of the laws), repeated discussions of the purpose and effect of such laws for decades, and so-on.
But sure, if you ignore all that, hate crime laws are just because "hatred of some group is an unusually bad reason to commit a crime."
Seems like if you expand crime victims' rights sufficiently, you risk a situation where the aggregate good done by vindicating rights could outweigh all the harm done by the crime. At that point, crime literally would pay, and criminal practice might become an esteemed profession.
I hope you mentioned in the full thing how these "victim's rights" laws are already being abused... by cops.
There have been more then a few cases where cops used victim's rights laws to shield their identity from the press after egregarious cases of police violence. I believe the trick is to claim that the person (whom normally they brutally murdered) was "resisting arrest" (by bleeding on them), and that they're the victim of the "resisting arrest", and as a result anything that identifies them to the public can't be released without their consent.
Moving forward, these laws, should they continue to proliferate, need to be written to avoid (as well as they're able) such abuses.
Is that in the *federal* vicims-rights law?
To my knowledge, the federal level hasn't seen that kind of abuses yet. But Cassell explicitly said the article was also about "other crime victims' rights enactments".
So yeah, still relevant.
But, in the end, aren’t we all victims?