US law enforcement’s role in victim compensation dissemination

Abstract

Victim compensation programs seek to alleviate adverse effects of victimization and repay victim losses. A few studies have concluded that US compensation programs are under-utilized because victims are unaware of such programs and police officers overlook sharing the information. The present study sought to further explore this issue from the perspective of state compensation directors and police executives. Survey respondents were asked their opinions about police officers’ basic knowledge of victims’ compensation programs, reasons for under-utilization of the programs, and the most effective ways to inform victims of their right to compensation. Surveys were administered to 38 state compensation directors and 23 law enforcement executives from across the US. Survey results confirmed the belief that many eligible victims are not receiving compensation and that better training of patrol officers on compensation eligibility and benefits was needed. However, just one in 10 of the state directors implicated police failure to notify victims as a major reason for victims not filing claims. The consensus of both police administrators and state compensation directors was that, while patrol officers should be tasked with providing basic notification of compensation availability, it is important that victim advocates and police detectives follow up with more detailed information in the days following victimization. Policy implications and future directions for research are discussed in light of the findings.

“I Want That Money Saved for ‘Real’ Victims”: Homicide Detectives’ Perceptions of Victims and Impacts on Advocacy and Services for Loss Survivors

“…Crime victims and their families have rights, and most states require criminal justice officials to inform crime victims of those rights, but homicide loss survivors tend to be a unique and underrepresented group when it comes to receiving related assistance and compensation (Goodrum, 2007; Johnson & Zitzmann, 2020; Vincent et al, 2015). The present study’s findings are consistent with literature on how investigators’ perspectives can reinforce constructs of good/true and bad/guilty homicide victims, with guilty homicide victims to blame for their own demise because of engaging in risky behavior or high-risk lifestyles, associating with criminals, or being criminals themselves (Davis et al, 2021; Hawk & Dabney, 2014; Miers, 2014; Stretesky et al, 2010). Many participants used examples that neatly bifurcated homicide victims into categories of good victims deserving of VOCA support and bad victims underserving of that same support, which is concerning given that the majority—80%, according to Detective Coulter—of homicide cases investigated by this department involve a victim with a criminal history.…”

“…Nonetheless, like all crime victims, homicide loss survivors have a right to services and compensation per VOCA (Warnken, 2018). Crime victims tend to generally be unaware of these rights, or otherwise face myriad barriers when attempting to pursue these services (Danis, 2003; Davis et al, 2021; Herman & Waul, 2004). These barriers are compounded for homicide loss survivors, whose secondary victim role often relegates them to a bystander status (Englebrecht et al, 2014), creating additional complications to receiving advocacy and services.…”

Exploring the roles and challenges of the servant leadership: A critical examination of the Bangladesh police

“…These findings also endorsed by several previous studies also [ 161 , 162 ]. Similarly, uncompetitive compensation package along with some extent of biased promotion and performance appraisal system lead to decreased motivation of police [ 163 , 164 ]. The findings of [ 165 , 166 ] also expressed the similar results.…”

Development of a Restitution Model Based on Justice and Legal Certainty for Crime Victims in Indonesia

“…At the investigative level, it has been observed that based on interviews and observations, several police officers at the Banyumas Police Resort still exhibit confusion in distinguishing between restitution and compensation. Compensation represents the state's accountability for its failure in safeguarding its citizens (Goldscheid, 2004), hence the state bears the cost of victims' losses (Davis et al, 2021). The insufficient legal awareness among law enforcement officials regarding the mechanism of restitution ultimately leads to a domino effect: the absence of restitution claims during the investigation and prosecution stages, culminating in the absence of any restitution verdicts in the Purwokerto or Banyumas district courts.…”