The victims' movement is seen as providing much needed support for victims of crime by some but as manipulating victims by providing symbols but no substance by others. Explain the arguments on each side of this issue. Which side do you support? Why?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

After a long period of neglect, aiding victims has become good politics. Victim advocacy groups have become a powerful political voice. These grassroots operations function loosely under the national umbrella organization, the National Organization of Victim Assistance. Today, the victims' rights movement involves a loose coalition of local, state, and national organizations with wide-ranging interests. These differing goals explain why victims' rights laws and constitutional amendments are so contradictory. Everyone agrees that victims and witnesses should be treated better during the court process. Although enthusiasm for helping victims is clearly growing, the willingness to pay for the necessary services is not always present. Moreover, it is unclear how much aid victims and witnesses receive from these programs. Once enacted, programs do not always work as intended. Victim/witness assistance programs appear to be important first steps in providing better services to citizens who find themselves thrust into the criminal court process, but not all agree that these programs actually benefit the victim. Some victims do not wish to become involved. An important question is, at whose expense should victims be compensated? Some versions emphasize protecting the rights of victims by denying privileges and benefits to suspects, defendants, and prisoners. Other versions emphasize improving the welfare of victims at the expense of the privileges and options enjoyed by members of the courtroom work group (Karmen 2010).