In November 1996, North Carolinians voted to add the Victims' Rights Amendment to the state constitution, this follows 21 other states that already have amendments. The experiences of these other states indicate that victims' rights fail to be protected under the broad umbrella of constitutional wording alone. Noticeable improvements in victim services occurred only in those communities which had existing programs or in those states which adopted enabling legislation to guide and enforce implementation of victims' rights.
Accordingly, the Governor's Crime Commission resolved by unanimous vote on December 13, 1996 to give its full support to enactment of enabling legislation within the spirit of the Constitutional Rights for Crime Victims' Amendment, and for the North Carolina General Assembly to appropriate and allocate sufficient resources so that the enabling legislation is not an undue burden on the state's criminal justice system.
Without accompanying legislation which addresses the key issues of the amendment, rights for victims in North Carolina will be in the same state as before the amendment's passage. Legislating the amendment's practical application is vital to ensure: that appropriate victims must be reached without burdening the system with frivolous cases; that some mechanism of compliance must exist to guarantee victims have enforceable rights; and, that this transition is managed fiscally in a criminal justice system which is commonly overworked and understaffed.
To ensure the Victims' Rights Amendment effectively protects and supports victims, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends the following:
To ensure the Victims' Rights Amendment effectively protects and supports victims, the Governor's Crime Commission recommends that the General Assembly pass legislation which defines:
The enabling legislation should define "victim" within the context of the amendment's application to target those victims for whom the bill was intended: victims who suffer direct physical or emotional injury.
Most states with amendments define victims in legislation in three ways:
A. victims of any criminal offense currently covered in statute,
B. victims of any felony or violent offense, or
C. victims of any physical or emotional injury.
With 245,000 victims of crime identified last year in North Carolina, this definition creates a physical and fiscal burden too large for the criminal justice system. It defeats the intention of the amendment by including minimal offenses like shoplifting and worthless checks. Additional personnel would be necessary at all levels of the criminal justice system in order to properly notify and inform all victims. The effect would be less time with truly needy victims in order to accommodate all victims. Additional time in court would further burden an already back-logged docket and more money would be spent on a less efficient system.
Limiting victims to the felony level creates a smaller workload but still includes drug offenses and other cases which are considered victimless crimes. More importantly, many domestic violence victims who most desperately need assistance would be excluded.
The total number of violent crime victims -- 45,000 last year -- would be manageable in the current system. This categorization does include domestic violence cases, but it excludes other critical cases which require special attention and support. Sexual offenses involving children are often not physically violent crimes. DWI cases which result in death or injury would also fall outside these parameters.
This definition targets those victims who most need victim services. However, the language of the legislation must be strong enough to be meaningful in execution. Some states have strengthened this type of definition by classifying the crimes or detailing victims and crimes for each right.
Colorado statutes laboriously list the various crimes that are applicable for the amendment. (COGS 24-4.1-302) Theoretically, this rigid definition provides explicit guidelines, but in practice, it allows for no interpretation by the courts or for the ever-changing nature of the law. Colorado legislates amendments to the statutes when any new law which should be included is passed.
Florida, which has one of the oldest Victims' Rights Amendments (passed in 1988), meticulously defines "victim" for each of the rights guaranteed by the amendment. The statutes clearly identify the agency responsible for the delivery of services and the means to execute them. The legislation even details how rights would be invoked for incarcerated victims and in the case of juvenile offenders. The law requires the participating agencies to target those victims who suffer physical or emotional injury; however, the statute does not outwardly exclude anyone. This wording leaves room for court interpretation should an unidentified victim request services.
Although Florida's example is the most time-consuming for legislators, their clearly defined approach keeps the spirit of the law intact without frustrating the criminal justice system with frivolous cases, continuous legislation or litigious controversy.
The enabling legislation should ensure that victims' rights are enforceable rights by creating a mechanism of compliance.
Once the victims are targeted and the services are delegated, victims are still not guaranteed protection of their rights. What recourse do victims have for the violation of their rights? Monetary liability suits for violating agencies are already excluded, but the wording of the North Carolina amendment allows the legislature to devise some remedies for violations, such as:
Florida allows a victim to file an injunction with the governor to order the violating agency to comply. In the entire history of Florida's victim rights movement, an injunction has never been filed. Simply the threat of that possibility empowered victims.
In Colorado a specific office was created by the governor to oversee the affected agencies and to pursue violations on behalf of victims. The agency meets with any victim who wishes to file a complaint and attempts to address the grievance. Some expectations of the victims have been found to be unreasonable, but by and large, this enforcement method has been successful in addressing systemic problems identified by the victims. Working through this office may be preferable to the injunction; the informal process may appear less intimidating and may in the end provide better service to victims.
The Governor's Crime Commission requests appropriations for innovative technology such as automated victim notification to combat the fiscal impact of the amendment and enhance the response of the criminal justice system as a whole.
Automated victim notification by telephone eliminates the need for an exorbitant number of additional criminal justice personnel to implement the amendment. The Governor's Crime Commission is already funding two pilot projects with the Wilson County Sheriff's Office and the Durham County District Attorney's Office to implement automated victim notification on a county basis. Plans for statewide information systems and victim notification through the Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN) and similar systems are in the blue print stage now and need further legislative support.
The added personnel, postage, and technology for proper statewide victim notification of criminal proceedings, releases, and general rights information is a very real cost that could soar into the millions if immediately mandated directly from the state budget. However, limiting the targeted victim groups in the statute as previously discussed dramatically decreases the costs to the state by excluding numerous inappropriate cases. Still, all aspects of the criminal justice system can expect a significant impact.
Judicial -- Prosecutors will probably feel the impact of the amendment most as that agency will be required to provide the following new services mandated by the amendment.
The rest of the judicial system, judges, magistrates and clerks, will be affected only in regard to court time and additional personnel to generate and distribute notifications.
Law enforcement -- Officers will be the first to inform the victims of their rights, and are responsible for initially collecting contact information for notification. Victim information must be captured at the time of the incident on the initial report to facilitate the entire victims' rights process. The impact will mainly be one of time spent on calls for service, slowing down the number of calls that can be answered in a given tour of duty.
Department of Corrections -- This agency will have to prepare for the same systems adjustment as the DA's office, but on an on-going basis as offenders may be in the correction system for multiple years. Correction will be responsible for the continual notification to the victim of any change in the status of the offender and allow victims the opportunity to make statements at any parole hearing.
Automated victim notification is the most efficient, cost-effective means of amendment implementation as it requires fewer personnel and provides a means of generating revenue to cover its costs of operation. However, the system would require interim support. Through the Governor's Crime Commission, North Carolina is currently expending Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funds to support victim notification in Durham and Wilson counties. North Carolina could further utilize VOCA and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) funds to support positions which are directly working with victims to provide them the services promised in the amendment. With this kind of immediate implementation through grant funding and other budget support throughout the criminal justice system, the state could focus its efforts and monies to move toward a long range solution like the Criminal Justice Information Network (CJIN) recommendations.
A North Carolina proposal to eliminate much of the annual cost of implementation and management is currently in the planning stages through a study commission sponsored by the Attorney General's Office. The proposed automated systems link into tracking systems of prosecutors' offices, courts, and jails through telephone lines. The planned system ensures that victims are notified when their offenders are released and of changes in court dates and resources available to help them through the judicial process. The victim notification system would reduce the work load significantly and provide other benefits. Protective orders could immediately be verified to assist officers in protecting victims. Beyond the efficient means of service provision, the automated system has the potential to eventually pay for itself with small fees taxed to a non-victim caller line for bondsmen, attorneys, or relatives of the offender who wish to access public information. The potential for an expansive system of this nature is endless.
Twelve states including Colorado and Kentucky introduced voice automated victim notification systems in different communities. The systems free up victim advocates to work directly with victims who require more time and assistance, and free up criminal justice professionals to concentrate on the job of arresting, prosecuting, sentencing, and punishing offenders; moreover, the systems have reduced the long range financial burden of victim notification.
The system has never been attempted in a statewide project. While the workload would be reduced in time spent directly with victims and other callers, data would have to be entered and updated in the system on a regular basis by criminal justice personnel. Other states have relied on individual counties to implement new technology as the county was capable. Not all facilities in North Carolina, especially in the more rural counties, have the proper equipment to accommodate a system of this kind nor is the information centralized in any one system.
The current information infrastructure of criminal justice agencies in North Carolina will not be able to support an integrated automation project like CJIN without significant improvements to the collection and assimilation of data between agencies. North Carolina will need a centralized information network whose development depends on comprehensive upgrades in technology for all agencies. New technology is pending with the development of the criminal justice information network; this technology promises exactly the kind of face-lift automated notification requires.
The Criminal Justice Information Network Study Committee was created by the General Assembly in 1994 to explore alternatives for implementing an integrated statewide criminal justice network. Once implemented all criminal justice agencies will have ready access to information regardless of its location in national, state, or local databases. In 1996, the General Assembly appropriated funds for a CJIN governance board which will guide the development of the statewide network. This new system would create a statewide automated fingerprint identification system, magistrate system, identification index, criminal history repository, warrant repository and courtroom automation; all of which would eliminate wasted staff time on redundant data-entry and create a more efficient and safer criminal justice response. The Statewide Identification Index (SII) is a master index that allows users to perform a single name query. This index would create the cohesive and consistent architecture needed to implement automated victim notification on a statewide level with little additional cost.
The Governor's Crime Commission would like to see appropriations for the first phase of developing and implementing the statewide identification index. Phase I includes the development of all data entry screens and reports that provide user interface for access to SII information. This includes the development of an inquiry database and software that will run data query screens based on suspect name, aliases, and other demographic information.
North Carolina does not have an integrated, automate statewide identification index based on the State Identification Number (SID) that links all records of a subject's involvement with the criminal justice system. Many state and local criminal justice information systems are already able to perform automated name searches. The Administrative Office of the Courts' Criminal Information System (CIS), the Department of Correction's Prison Information System, and many county jail information systems contain this function and allow users to perform name-based queries. However, users must first determine which systems contain the types of information they need and then query each individual system one at a time.
The output information of the SII will provide the user with a list of every criminal justice database that contains information about a person. This automated name index is the key to rapidly and accurately obtaining a complete record of a suspect's involvement with the entire criminal justice system. It will also provide automated or manual links to every source database or document that possesses information about the person in question.
The CJIN Study Committee's final report recommends that the statewide identification index be person-based; that is, it should consolidate all criminal activity records of an individual into a single SII record. The Committee advocated an SII database that will link incidents, arrests, court cases, depositions, inmates, treatments, victims, custody status, and release data.
The SII will provide a central inquiry and identification point that will allow users to immediately access all information about an individual's involvement with the entire criminal justice system . The SII will allow users to immediately access all source documents from multiple criminal justice agencies' databases and systems. Accessing a centralized index will save valuable time and eliminate the current situation of hunting and pecking through numerous and varied criminal history databases. The state identification index will allow criminal justice professionals to effectively track individuals as they progress through the criminal justice system. Consequently, practitioners will be able to efficiently compile complete and up-to-date criminal histories within a much shorter time while expending less effort in the process. As a result, victims can be notified of the exact status of the offender in their case and can access any other needed information through an automated system which could tap into this centralized database.
Without defining who the amendment should address and creating a means to enforce the rights, the potential fiscal impact may deter individual communities from complying with the amendment. The immediate fiscal impact of victims' rights can be addressed with VOCA and VAWA assistance. However, the state should plan for a long term solution such as the automation technology expected with the CJIN study recommendations.