umuii Order Code IB74014 COMPENSATION FOR CRIME VICTIMS “ ff;;;0“ Y‘ -7_. 1:: 7:‘ _\ * ~.;zv 05m? UPDATED O3/19/85 i*57 Uiffigdg F :9: ”“*0:§ F3: :4 3 ‘h._ E .: ‘, I‘ 4" .0 E 1 F: \L‘ O °m’*".v§_\x.r ' BY M 0 Suzanne Cavanagh Government DiVi,SiOI1 Congressional Research Service G E‘SSlONAL% niversit Il(jLlLflWflIIMiflsi’1'iWlfimuiiflii 03860207 ia mm or CONGRESS . CR8“ 1 IB740l4 UPDATE”O3/l9/85 ] §UE DEFINITION There has been a growing interest in recent years in providing compensation for the innocent victims of violent crime through programs financed by the Federal and/or State Governments. At issue have been the general propriety, desirability, and feasibility, as well as the cost, of Federal support of such programs. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS The idea that a society should assist those of its citizens victimized by crime has been traced back to the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (c. 2038 B.C.), which provided that when a man was robbed or murdered the city in which the crime occurred should compensate the victim or his heirs for their losses. Modern law, by contrast, has sharply distinguished between criminal and civil proceedings, so that criminal prosecutions deal only with punishment of offenders, while victims are left to find their personal remedies in private tort actions. Recent dissatisfaction with this modern dichotomy began with English penal reformer Margery Fry, who in 1955 called for the establishment of more effective remedies for crime victims. The first contemporary jurisdiction to set up a crime victim compensation program was New Zealand, which did so in late 1963. Great Britain followed suit in 1964, and since then several other British Commonwealth and European lntries have adopted such legislation. The first State in this country to establish a victim compensation program was California in 1965. Since that time at least 30 States and the Virgin Islands have adopted programs providing for some form of governmental compensation for crime victims: California (1965); New York (1966); Hawaii (1967); Massachusetts (1967); Maryland (1968); Virgin Islands (1968); New Jersey (1971); Alaska (1972); Illinois (1973); Washington (1973); Minnesota (1974); Delaware (1975); North Dakota (1975); Ohio (1975); Kentucky (1976); Michigan (1976); Pennsylvania (1976); Tennessee (1976); Virginia (1976); Wisconsin (1976); Montana (1977); Oregon (1977); Kansas (1978); Indiana (1978); Connecticut (1979); Nebraska (1979); Texas (1979); Colorado (1981); New Mexico (1981); Oklahoma (1981); West Virginia (1981); and the District of Columbia ‘(1982); Alabama (1984). Rhode Island has passed a law which will establish a program if Federal funding becomes available. Nevada and Georgia have "Good Samaritan" programs which award compensation to victims only if they are injured while attempting to prevent a crime. Many States are facing serious budgetary problems and are finding it difficult to continue to fund, or to start to fund, victim compensation programs. For instance, the Washington program is not providing. compensation to individuals injured on or after July 1, 1981. Proponents of governmental compensation for crime victims base their arguments on various rationale. One justification is "society's failure to protect." This theory holds that when an individual has been injured by a criminal act, society has failed to carry out its responsibility to protect that person. tsince civilized society forbids a person to take the law into o“e's own hands and seek private vengeance, it should compensate that person 1 ;n it has failed to protect. A second rationale behind crime victim compensation programs is the need to combat the individual citizen's sense of alienation and anger at society and to encourage citizen participation with law enforcement agencies. Finally, proponents argue that if there is a CBS" 2 IB740l4 UPDATE-O3/19/85 Federal interest in helping States to prevent crime, to apprehend, try, and imprison criminals, and to house and facilitate the rehabilitation of prisoners, then there should also be a Federal interest in helping States to assist the victims of those criminals. Opponents of Federal assistance to State victim compensation programs argue first that although compensating crime victims can be a legitimate governmental activity, such programs are essentially charitable in nature and not the result of any absolute governmental liability to its citizens. Second, since the Federal Government has no responsibility for the enforcement of a State's criminal laws, it therefore has no responsibility for compensating its victims. And third, opponents are also concerned about the long-range costs of such a program. No precise estimate is available, but Congressional Budget Office projections estimated that the cost to the Federal Government in outlays would be $8 million in FY80, and $13 million, $16 million, $17 million and $18 million in fiscal years 1981 through l984, respectively. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration issued a report concluding that total costs for a national program could range from $l44 million to $26l million. Legislative activity in this area until recently centered in the Senate. Since the 92d Congress, the Senate has passed victim compensation legislation on seven separate occasions. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice held hearings in the 94th Congress, and a bill (H.R. l3l57) was favorably reported by the full committee (H.Rept. 94-1550), but no further action was taken. Legislation similar to that approved by the House Judiciary Committee in the 94th Congress was passed by both the House and the Senate in the 95th Congress (H.R. 70l0), but the bill died when the Ho°-e failed to agree to the conference report. In the 96th Congress, legislation was introduced by Senator Kennedy, then Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and by Representative Rodino, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (S. 190/H.R. 1899). Following mark-up of H.R. 1899 by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, a clean bill (H.R. 4257) was introduced and favorably reported, amended, by the full Judiciary Committee on Feb. 13, 1980 (H.Rept. 96=753). S. 190 and H.R. 4257 as reported were substantially similar. Both would have provided for grants to qualifying State victim compensation programs in an amount equal to 25% of the cost of compensating victims of State offenses and 100% of the cost of compensating victims of Federal offenses. Neither would have provided funds for administrative costs and certain other expenses. The maximum award to any one victim or his dependents that would have been federally reimbursable under the Senate bill would have been $35,000; the maximum reimbursable award under the House bill would have been $25,000. The Senate bill would have required that States could not base eligibility for compensation on the financial means of the claimant; the House version had no such requirement. The House billl would have required States to set up escrow accounts to benefit victims of crime from book royalties and similar profits accruing to criminals; the Senate bill had no such requirement. Authorized appropriations under the Senate bill would have been $30 million for FY80, $40 million for FY81, and $50 million for FY82. The House bill would have authorized $15 million for FY80, $25 million for FY81, and $35 million for FY82. The Carter Administration indicated that t did not support the legislation because of budgetary considerations. In the 97th Congress, Chairman Rodino again introduced victim compensation legislation (H.R. 2855). This bill would have provided grants for qualifying CR8“ 3 IB740l4 UPDATE-O3/19/85 estate programs in an amount equal to 50% of the cost of compensating victims of State offenses and 100% of the cost of compensating victims of Federal soffenses. The maximum award to any one claimant that would be federally 7 Lmbursable was $50,000. ‘Authorized appropriations would be $15 million for 1-82, $25 million for FY83, and $35 million for FY84. Companion legislation (S. 1046) was introduced in the Senate Apr. 29, 1981, by Senator Sasser and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill was identical to H.R. 2855. Three other bills (H.R. 2284, H.R. 2776, and H.R. 6057) also would have helped States provide assistance to victims of crime. Two related bills (S. 2420 and S. 2433) provided respectively that the defendant pay restitution of a violent crime committed in a Federal jurisdiction, and that a Victim Compensation Fund be established and administered by a Victim Compensation Board which would be located in the Department of Justice. S. 2420, the Victim and witness. Protection Act of 1982, which provided for the payment of restitution and for the revocation of bail under certain circumstances and required a sentencing report to include a "victim impact statement" was signed into law on Oct. 12, 1982 (P.L. 97=291). Title II of S. 2572, introduced by Senator Thurmond on May 26, 1982, was similar to S. 2420. S. 2572 passed the Senate on Sept. 30, 1982, as an amendment to H.R. 3963, the Contract Services for Federal Drug Dependent Offenders Act of 1978. The Victim-Witness Protection provisions were deleted from the final version of H.R. 3963 which was passed by both chambers on Dec. 20, 1982. The President vetoed the bill on Jan. 14, 1983. Two other bills (H.R. 6115 and H.R. 6448) would have amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to provide that the excise tax on handguns be transferred to a trust fund to be used for purposes of providing compensation to victims of crime. President Ronald Reagan on Apr. 15, 1982 announced the creation of a task force to examine the problems encountered by victims of crime. The final V report Of the Presidents‘ Task Force 011 Victims Of Crime was released on De. 31: 1982. In the 98th Congress bills that would provide compensation to victims of crime were introduced, and one measure was finally passed. On Mar. 8, 1983 Senator Heinz introduced S. 704 the Federal Crime Victims Compensation Act. The bill would have established a victims compensation fund and would have provided financial support for Federal and State victims and witness assistance programs. In the House, Representative Russo introduced H.R. 2470, which provided that the excise tax from handguns be transferred to a trust fund to be used for providing compensation to victims of crime, and H.R. 2661, the Federal Criminal Victims and Witnesses Assistance Act which would have established a Victims Compensation Commission in the Department of Justice. On June 30, 1983 Mr. Rodino introduced the Victims of Crime Act of 1983, which authorized the Attorney General to make grants to States for support of victim assistance programs. On Oct. 6, 1983 Senator Specter introduced S. 1941 which established a crime victim's assistance fund to provide Federal assistance to State and local programs to aid juvenile and adult victims of crime. The Hearings began on several victims‘ bills on Feb. 2, 1984 in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. The Administration's victims‘ bill, S. 2423 was introduced C” Mar. 13, 1984 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A victim compensation and assistance provision was incorporated as an amendment to H.J.Res. 648, (P.L. '98—473) a resolution for continuing appropriations for FY85. Both chambers agreed to the amendment on Oct. 10, CRS~ 4 IB74014 UPDATE=O3/19/85 1984 and it was signed into law on Oct. 12. The version accepted was similar to S. 2423. LEGISLATION N/A HEARINGS U.S. Congress.~ House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice. Compensating crime victims. Hearings, 96th Congress, lst session, on H.R. 1899. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 228 p. Hearings held Feb. 28 and Apr. 3, 1979. Crime victim compensation. Hearings, 94th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 1285 p. Hearings held Nov. 4, 18; Dec. 9, 15, 1975; Feb. 7, 13, and 27, 1976. Victims of crime. on H.R. 8777 and S. Govt. Print. Off., "Serial no. 13" Hearing, 93d Congress, 300. Aug. 1, 1973. 1973. 108 p. lSt session, Washington, U.S. 0 Victims of crime compensation. Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 7010 and related bills. Mar. 29, Apr. 22, 25 and 27, and May 5, 1977. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 372 p. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the JUDICIARY. Subcommittee on Criminal Law., Omnibus Victim Protection Act. Hearings, 97th Congress, 2d session, on S. 2420. May 27, 1982. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 192 p. =--~- Subcommittee on Criminal Laws and Procedures. Victims of crime. Hearings, 92d Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 112 p. Hearings held Sept. 29; Nov. 30, 1971; and Mar. 27, 1972. REPORTS AND CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS 8U.S. Congress. Conference Committee. Victims of Crime Act of 1978; conference report to accompany H.R. 7010. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 15 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 95~1762). U.S. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Victims of Crime Act of 1976; report to accompany H.R. Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 20 p. 2d session. House. Report no. 94=1550). 13157. (94th Congress, Victims of Crime Act of 1977; report to accompany H.R. 7010. Washington, Congress, Victims of Crime Act of 1979; dissenting, CRS- 5 IB740l4 UPDATE=O3/19/85 U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 18 p. (95th lst session. House. Report no. 95-337). report together With separate dissenting, and separate views to accompany H.R. 4257. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 18 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96~753) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. The Omnibus Victims Protection Act of 1982; report to accompany S. 2420. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 45 p. (97th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 97-532). U.S. Congress. .Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Criminal Code Reform Act of 1977; report to accompany S. 1437. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. 1411 p. (95th Congress, lst session. Senate. Report no. 95-605). Victims of Crime Act of 1978; report to accompany S. 551. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 18 p. (95th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 95-963) —--~~ Victims of Crime Act of 1973; report together with additional views to accompany S. 300. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 27 p. (93d Congress, lst session. Senate. Report no. 93-83) CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS 10/12/84 ~— H.J.Res. 648 signed into law (P.L. 98-473). Chapter XIV authorized Federal assistance to State victims‘ programs and established a Crime Victim Fund to be allocated among the States for victims compensation and victims assistance. 07/29/83 ~- A Federal judge in Birmingham, Alabama declared the victim restitution provision of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (P.L. 97~291) unconstitutional. 07/ll/83 == Lois Haight Herrington, Assistant Attorney General for Justice Assistance, created an Office for Victims of Crime in the Office of Justice Assistance, Research, and Statistics. 07/ll/83 —- Attorney General William French Smith promulgated Federal A guidelines concerning the treatment of crime victims and witnesses by Department of Justice investigators and prosecutors. 12/31/82 == President's task force on violent crime issued its final report. 10/12/82 —— Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 signed into law P.L. 97-291. 04/15/82 =- President.Reagan announced that he was creating a CRS= 6 ' IB740l4 UPDATE-O3/19/85 special task force to examine the problems encountered by victims of crime. 01/13/80 —- House Judiciary Committee favorably reported H.R. 4275, Victims of Crime Act of 1979. (H.Rept. 96=753). 10/14/78 -- Senate adopted conference report on H.R. 7010, and House failed to agree to the conference report. 09/30/77 -— H.R. 7010 passed by the House. 09/11/78 -- H.R. 7010 passed by the Senate after amending it to contain the language of S. 551. ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES Edelhertz, Herbert, and Gilbert Geis. Public compensation to victims of crime. New York, Praeger, 1974. 309 p. (KFl328.E3) Garofolo, James, and Paul L. Sutton. Compensating victims of violent crime: potential costs and coverage of a national program. [Washington] U.S. National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, 1977. 41 p. (LRS77-21399) Lamborn, LeRoy L. The propriety of governmental compensation of victims of crime. George Washington law review, V. 41, March 1973: 446-470. (LRS73~8l97) Marcus, Marvin, and others. Victim compensation and offender restitution; a selected bibliography. [Washington] U.S. National Institute Of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1975. 29 Pa (LRS75'20934) Mueller, Gerhard 0. W., and H. H. A. Cooper. , The Criminal, society, and the victim. Washington, U.S. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, [l973?]. 19 p. Selected Topic Digest (STD), Number 2. National Association of Attorneys General. Committee on the Office of Attorney General. Legal issues in compensating victims of violent crimes. [Raleigh, N.C.] May 1975. 53 p. (KFl328.Z95N3) Newton, Anne. Aid to the victim -- part I: compensation and restitution. Crime and delinquency literature, v. 8, September 1976: 3368-389. R Schafer, Stephen. Compensation and restitution t0 ViCtiITlS Of I crime. Montclair, N.J., Patterson Smith, 1970. pa ' U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Compensation for victims of crime: a selected bibliography 1969-1972 [by] Nancy Davenport, Oct. 20, 1972. [Washington] 1972. 10 p. CRS Report 72=219 L (LTR72=1l27) CR3“ 7 IB740l4 UPDATE~O3/19/85 =~—=~ Compensation for victims of crime: a selected bibliography 1973~198O [by] Barbara McClure and Margaret Seiler septa 25, 19800 [Washington] 1980. 8 p. ' CRS Report 80~174 EPW Victim/witness legislation: considerations for policy makerso Washington, Victim/witness Assistance Project, Section of Criminal Justice, American Bar Association, 1981. 81 pi 1 _.r1%-31 Y O F \Ai.£3~..3é‘»*§:N¢3TON UN2‘=;:':::*er5::'%v ST. LOU2.i~;‘ — MQ_ {