Page 1 of 5 Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman U.docx

of 5
Victims’ Rights
Cory P. Haberman
University of Cincinnati
INTRODUCTION
During the early period of the criminal justice system, crime
victims were responsible for bringing their
cases before the court for prosecution. Eventually, prosecutors’
offices were created and became
responsible for representing the state during court proceedings.
Prosecutor’s offices were developed for
three reasons: (1) it demonstrated that crimes are committed
against all of society and not just the
victim, (2) it removed the value of vengeance from criminal
justice process, and (3) it meant that
specially trained professionals are responsible for the legal
process in which in return ensures fair and
effective prosecutions take place. After the development of
modern prosecutors’ offices, victims

essentially became excluded from the criminal justice process
[1]. The Victims’ Rights Movement sought
to change that. In the remainder of this lecture we will discuss
the Victims’ Rights Movement, the
policies that resulted from it, and the impacts of those policies
on criminal justice outcomes.
THE VICTIMS’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT
The Victims’ Rights Movement (VRM) began in the 1970s.
Young and Stein suggest the VRM was
jumpstarted due to: (1) an increase in criminological research
on victimology, (2) the introduction of the
idea that states should supply victims with financial
compensation after victimization, (3) women’s rights
movements, (4) the rise of crime throughout the 1960s (and on)
and the perception that the criminal
justice system was ineffective, and (5) the growth of activism
and the founding of activity groups by
crime victims (e.g., Parents of Murdered Children or Mothers
Against Drunk Driving). First, researchers
began to question why some people became victims of crime or
failed to report crimes to the police.
Second, after some states began to copy programs in other
countries that supplied compensation to
crime victims, the seed was planted for thinking about what

could be done to assist crime victims. Third,
women’s rights activist began to question the lack of attention
that was paid to sexual assault crimes
and domestic violence. Fourth, after crime rates began to rise
throughout the 1960s, many people
questioned the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and
particularly the fact that many
prosecutions failed because victims refused to move forward in
the cases. Fifth, a number of crime
victims started advocacy and support groups for crime victims,
and those groups began to lobby
legislatures for support for crime victims. With the help of
federal funding, most states had adopted at
least some victims’ services programs by the end of the 1970s
that focused on crisis intervention,
counseling, support during the criminal justice process, victim
compensation, and victim restitution [2].
The VRM continued in the 1980s. In 1984, the Victims of Crime
Act (VOCA) was passed. VOCA
established the National Crime Fund which collects money from
criminal fines, forfeitures, or special
assessments from the federal criminal justice system and gifts
or donations and then distributes those
funds to the states to run programs that support victims of crime

[3]. Additionally, “Bills or Rights were
Page 2 of 5
adopted in every state by 1990; at present 32 states have
adopted constitutional amendments, and
there are more than 32,000 statutes that define and protect
victims’ rights nationwide [2].”
Work in the 1990s solidified the VRM and many efforts were
made to produce research and programs to
provide additional assistance to victims. Efforts to assist
victims have expanded to victims of child abuse,
child sexual abuse, domestic violence, stalking, identify theft,
and other cybercrimes. For example, the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 and
provided federal funds to provide training
for criminal justice personnel to understand crimes against
women, created the National Domestic
Violence Hotline, as well as assisted states with other programs.
VAWA also strengthened federal
penalties for rape and repeat sex crimes, established that
victims’ past sexual activity could not be used
against them in court, established rape exams would not be the

cost of the victim, and established
protection orders would be extended across all states and
territories in the US, among other provisions
[3]. In 2004, the Crime Victims Act was passed and guaranteed
the following rights to victims in the
federal criminal justice system:
1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any
public court proceeding, or any
parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or
escape of the accused.,
3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court
proceeding, unless the court, after
receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that
testimony by the victim would be
materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that
proceeding.
4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in
the district court involving release,
plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the
Government in the case.
6. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.

7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the
victim’s dignity and privacy.
To date, many advocates and advocacy agencies continue to
work towards increasing victims’ rights.
Nonetheless, many policies are in place and we can review their
effectiveness.
VICTIM-FOCUSED POLICIES
Walker notes that crime victims’ policies can be evaluated on
three criteria:
1. Impact on Crime Victims: What impact does the policy have
on victims? Does it help them?
2. Impact on the Criminal Justice System: How does the policy
impact the criminal justice
process? Does it make case processing longer or shorter, more
or less efficient, etc.?
3. Crime Reduction: Does the policy have any measurable
impact on overall crime levels?
Victim Notification
Victim notifications programs notify victims when the case for
the crime in which were victimized
moves through the different stages of the criminal justice
process: bail setting, preliminary hearing,

plea bargaining, trial, sentencing, post-conviction appeals, and
parole hearings. Walker argues there is
absolutely no reason why victims should not be informed of
their case, but points out two flaws of the
policy. First, it creates a substantial resource burden on local
criminal justice agencies to adopt and
Page 3 of 5
operate a victim notification program (impact on the criminal
justice system). Second, some victims do
not want to be notified and there is no evidence to suggest that
victim notifications make offenders less
fearful (impact on the victim) [1].
Victim/Witness Assistance Programs
Victim/witness assistance (VWA) programs can vary across
jurisdictions. Walker suggests that nearly all
VWA programs help the victim understand his/her role as a
witness in the criminal justice system, such
as educating the person about criminal justice processing,
notifying them of court dates, helping them
get to and from court, and making their day at court go
smoother (i.e., escorting them through the

courthouse or providing childcare) as well as provide support
services to the victim. Additionally, most
programs provide counseling and many programs help with
emergency services (shelter, financial
services, etc.) and insurance claims forms or restitution.
Nonetheless, Walker suggests that most
programs operate for the benefit of the local criminal justice
system by ensuring the victim follows
through with their duties as a witness (impact on the criminal
justice system) and rarely meets the
needs of the victim (impact on the victim) [1].
Protecting Victims from Harm
Many victims may fear their assailants will victimize them
again if they go through with prosecution.
These victimizations may occur at the court proceedings or
another setting. Some jurisdictions have
created secure waiting rooms for victims, ensure victims’ home
addresses are not released in court
documents, withhold victims or witnesses identities from the
public, and even allow the victim to
confidentially request the offender take an HIV test. If
offenders would victimize the victim or
witnesses, then these programs may have an impact on crime.
The size of that impact, however, will

depend on how often offenders target their previous victims or
witnesses [1].
Victim Voice
Many jurisdictions also have policies that allow victims to
speak at bail hearings, plea bargains,
sentencing, and parole hearings. These policies are rationalized
based on the idea that allowing victims
to participate will reduce their feelings of isolation and
alienation which has been argued to increase
peoples’ perceptions of and satisfaction with the criminal
justice system. Additionally, it is argued that
victims can act as a check on the criminal justice system and
ensure offenders receive harsh sentences
as they are likely to object to sentences they deem to lenient.
On the other hand, opponents of victim
voice policies suggest they introduce vengeance into the
criminal justice system (rather than justice).
Research on victim voice policies makes a number of key
points. First, not all victims are contacted by
the criminal justice system to participate. Second, of the victims
contacted, victims are more likely to
participate at the sentencing stage with very few victims
participating at bail and parole hearings.
Additionally, victims are most likely to participate in serious
(violent) crimes. Third, a majority victims

who do participate at the sentencing stage ask for the offender
to be incarcerated; however, there is no
evidence prison reduces recidivism so it is unlikely these
polices have substantial impacts on crime [1].
Victim Compensation
Finally, every state operates victim compensation programs that
provide financial support to victims to
compensate them for the losses they suffered due to
victimization. After the passage of the 1984
Victims of Crime Act, these funds are provided to the states
from the federal government (National
Crime Fund). While the idea of compensating victims is not a
bad idea, it is difficult to achieve in
Page 4 of 5
practice. Often times victims’ requests for compensation are
turned down because they fail to provide
proper documentation. Nonetheless, there is really no reason to
believe these programs have any
impact on crime [1].
The Overall Impact of Victim-Focused Policies
So what does the evidence say about the victim-focused policies

we discussed above?
Walker concludes:
Some of the crime victim laws and programs are good ideas,
providing valuable
assistance to people who have been harmed by crime. Some
others, however, are bad
ideas that promise to help crime victims and reduce crime but in
fact do neither. Some
may reduce crime, but there is no persuasive evidence that they
do.
SUMMARY
The Victims’ Right Movement began in the early 1970s.
Numerous factors converged to demonstrate
that victims were the forgotten part of the criminal justice
system. Many individual and advocacy groups
pushed for legislation that improves victims’ experiences in the
criminal justice system. The federal and
state governments responded by passing laws that would lead to
various victims’ rights policies. These
policies included: (1) victim notification policies, (2)
victim/witness assistance policies, (3) protecting
victims from harm policies, (4) victim voice policies, and (5)
victim compensation policies. Undoubtedly

these programs are important on the grounds of improving
victims’ experiences with the criminal justice
system. We will learn in Module 7 that peoples’ positives
experiences with the criminal justice system
can go a long way in improving their perceptions of and
satisfaction with the criminal justice system.
Nonetheless, at this point, there is very little evidence to
suggest these policies have had a substantial
impact on overall crime levels.
Page 5 of 5
REFERENCES
1. Walker, S., Sense and Nonsense About Crime, Drugs, and
Communities: A Policy Guide, 8th
Edition2015, Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
2. Young, M. and J. Stein, The history of the Crime Victims'
Movement in the United States, Office
for Victims of Crime, Editor 2004, Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice,:
Washington, DC.
3. Office for Victims of Crime. Crime Victims’ Rights Laws.
2014 01/01/2015]; Available from:
http://www.ovc.gov/rights/legislation.html.

http://www.ovc.gov/rights/legislation.html
Victims' Rights
, i,i I t:ii.,i.-^r i, l'' ,,'l'i '
During the early period of the criminal justice system, crime
victims were responsible for bringing their
cases before the court for prosecution. Eventually, prosecutors'
offices were created and became
responsible for representing the state during court proceedings.
Prosecutor's offices were developed for
three reasons: (1) it demonstrated that crimes are committed
against all of society and not just the
victim, (2) it removed the value of vengeance from criminal
justice process, and (3) it meant that
specially trained professionals are responsible for the legal
process in which in return ensures fair and
effective prosecutions take place. After the development of
modern prosecutors' offices, victims
essentially became excluded from the criminaljustice process
[1]. The Victims' Rights Movement sought
to change that. ln the remainder of this lecture we will discuss
the Victims' Rights Movement, the
policies that resulted from it, and the impacts of those policies
on criminal justice outcomes.
li-r; I.,.l;i r ii;,.-' ,.:,jl: :'r'_t ij:.-i,.,"rii1,,;,; 1;,.
The Victims' Rights Movement (VRM) began in the 1.97Os.
Young and Stein suggest the VRM was

jumpstarted due to: (1)an increase in criminological research on
victimology, (Zl the introduction of the
idea that states should supply victims with financial
compensation after victimization, (3) women's rights
movements, (4) the rise of crime throughout the 1960s (and on)
and the perception that the criminal
justice system was ineffective, and (5) the growth of activism
and the founding of activity groups by
crime victims (e'g', Parents of Murdered Children or Mothers
Against Drunk Driving). First, researchers
began to question why some people became victims of crime or
failed to report crimes to the police.
Second, after some states began to copy programs in other
countries that supplied compensation to
crime victims, the seed was planted for thinking about what
could be done to assist crime victim s. Third,
women's rights activist began to guestion the lack of attention
that was paid to sexual assault crimes
and domestic violence. Fourth, after crime rates began to rise
throughout the 19G0s, many people
questioned the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and
particularly the fact that many
prosecutions failed because victims refused to move forward in
the cases. Fifth, a number of crime
victims started advocacy and support groups for crime victims,
and those groups began to lobby
legislatures for support for crime victims. With the help of
federal funding, most states had adopted at
least some victims' services programs by the end of the 1970s
that focused on crisis intervention,
counseling, support during the criminaljustice process, victim
compensation, and victim restitution [2].
The VRM continued in the 1980s. tn 1g84, (vocA) was passed.
vocA
established the which collects money from criminal fines,

forfeitures, or special
assessments from the federal criminal justice system and gifts
or donations and then distributes those
funds to the states to run programs that support victims of crime
[3]. Additionally, "Bills or Rights were
Page 1 of 5
adopted in every state by 1990; at present 32 states have
adopted constitutional amendments, and
there are more than 32,000 statutes that define and protect
victims' rights nationwide [2]."
Work in the 1990s solidified the VRM and many efforts were
made to produce research and programs to
provide additional assistance to victins.,.Efforts to assist
victimghave expanded to victims of child abuse,
child sexual abuse, domestic violence, Stalking, identify theft,
and other cybercrimes. For example, the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994 and
provided federal funds to provide training
for criminal justice personnel to understand crimes against
women, created the National Domestic
Violence Hotline, as well as assisted states with other programs.
VAWA also strengthened federal
penalties for rape and repeat sex crimes, established that
victims' past sexual activity could not be used
against them in court, established rape exams would not be the
cost of the victim, and established
protection orders would be extended across all states and

territories in the US, among other provisions
[3]. In 2004, the Crime Victims Act was passed and guaranteed
the following rights to victims in the
federal criminal justice system:
1. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
2. The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any
public court proceeding, or any
parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or
escape of the accused.,
3. The right not to be excluded from any such public court
proceeding unless the court, after
receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that
testimony by the victim would be
materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that
proceeding.
4. The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in
the district court involving release,
plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
5. The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the
Government in the case.
5. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
7. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
8. The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the
victim's dignity and privacy.
To date, many advocates and advocacy agencies continue to
work towards increasing victims' rights.
Nonetheless, many policies are in place and we can review their
effectiveness.

UCflM.FOCUSED POLICIES
Walker notes that crime victims' policies can be evaluated on
three criteria:
L. tmpdct on Crime Victims: What impact does the policy have
on victims? Does it help them?
2. tmpoct on the Criminol lustice System; How does the poliry
impact the criminal justice
process? Does it make case processing longer or shorter, more
or less efficient, etc.?
3. Crime Reduction: Does the policy have any measurable
impact on overall crime levels?
Victlm Notification
Victim notifications programs notify victims when the case for
the crime in which were victlmized
moves through the different stages of the criminal Justice
process. bail setting, preliminary hearing,
plea bargaining, trial, sentencing, post-conviction appeals, and
parole hearings. Walker argues there is
absolutely no reason why victims should not be lnformed of
their case, but points out two flaws of the
policy. Firct, it creates a substantial resource burden on local
criminal justice agencies to adopt and
Page 2 of 5
operate a victim notification program (impact on the
criminaljustice system). Second, some victims do

not want to be notified and there is no evidence to suggest that
victim notifications make offenders less
fearful (impact on the victim) [1].
t.,',l. ,r"i.',.t,,.',...:,:., .,,:;:, . ', l,-.. , 'rt., ^. -:.
Victim/witness assistance (VWA) programs can vary across
jurisdictions. Walker suggests that nearly all
VWA programs help the victim understand his/her role as a
witness in the criminol justice system, such
as educating the person about criminal justice processing,
notifying them of court dates, helping them
get to and from court, and making their day at court go
smoother (i.e., escorting them through the
courthouse or providing childcare) as well as provide support
seruices to the vidim. Additionally, most
programs provide counseling and many progroms help with
emergency services (shelter, financial
services, elc.) ond insurance claims forms or restitution.
Nonetheless, Walker suggests that most
programs operate for the benefit of the local criminal justice
system by ensuring the victim follows
through with their duties as a witness {impact on the criminal
justice system) and rarely meets the
needs of the victim (impact on the victim) [1].
Many victims may fear their assailants will victimize them
again if they go through with prosecution.
These victimizations may occur at the court proceedings or
another setting. Some jurisdictions have
created secure woiting rooms for victims, ensure victims' home
addresses dre not releosed in court
documents, withhold victims or witnesses identities from the
public, ond even allow the victim to
confidentially request the offender take an HIV test. lf

offenders would victimize the victim or
witnesses, then these programs may have an impact on crime.
The size of that impact, however, will
depend on how often offenders target their previous victims or
witnesses [1].
.,'.... ''. i' .t --
Many jurisdictions also have policies lhat dllow victims to
speok at bail hearings, plea bargains,
sentencing, and parole hearings. These policies are rationalized
based on the idea that allowing victims
to participate will reduce their feelings of isolation and
alienation which has been argued to increase
peoples' perceptions of and satisfaction with the criminal justice
system. Additionally, it is argued that
victims can act as a check on the crirninal justice system and
ensure offenders receive harsh sentences
as they are likely to object to sentences they deem to lenient.
On the other hand, opponents of victim
voice policies suggest they introduce vengeance into the
criminal justice system (rather than justice).
Research on victim voice policies makes a number of key
points. First, not all victims are contacted by
the criminal justice system to participate. Second, of the victims
contacted, victims are more likely to
participate at the sentencing stage with very few victims
participating at bail and parole hearings.
Additionally, victims are most likely to participate in serious
(violent) crimes. Third, a majority victims
who do participate at the sentencing stage ask for the offender
to be incarcerated; however, there is no
evidence prison reduces recidivism so it is unlikely these

polices have substantial impacts on crime [1].
Finally, every state operates victim compensation programs that
provide linanciol support to victims to
compensate them lor the losses they suffered due to
victimization. After the passage of the 1984
Victims of Crime Act, these funds are provided to the states
from the federal government (National
Crime Fund). While the idea of compensating victims is not a
bad idea, it is difficult to achieve in
Page 3 of 5
practice. Often times victims' requests for compensation are
turned down because they fail to provide
proper documentation. Nonetheless, there is really no reason to
believe these programs have any
impact on crime [1].
So what does the evidence say about the victim-focused policies
we discussed above?
Walker concludes:
Some of the crime victim laws and programs are good ideas,
providing valuable
assistance to people who have been harmed by crime. Some
others, however, are bad
ideas that promise to help crime victims and reduce crime but in
fact do neither. Some
may reduce crime, but there is no persuasive evidence thdt they
do.
t, i.l.1i,I:

:r.,r;rl1,l,
-,,
The Victims' Right Movement began in the early 1970s.
Numerous factors converged to demonstrate
that victims were the forgotten part of the criminaljustice
system. Many individual and advocacy groups
pushed for legislation that improves victims' experiences in the
criminal justice system. The federal and
state governments responded by passing laws that would lead to
various victims' rights policies. These
policies included: (1) victim notification policies, (2)
victim/witness assistance policies, (3) protecting
victims from harm policies, (4) victim voice policies, and (5)
victim compensation policies. Undoubtedly
these programs are important on the grounds of improving
victims' experiences with the criminaljustice
system. We will learn in Module 7 that peoples' positives
experiences with the criminal justice system
can go a iong way in improving their perceptions of and
satisfaction with the criminal justice system.
Nonetheless, at this point, there is very little evidence to
suggest these policies hove hod a substantial
impact on overoll crime levels.
Page 4 of 5
REFERENCES
1. Walker, S., Sense and Nonsense About Crime, Drugs, ond
Communities: A Policy Guide, *th
Editionl0L5, Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

2- Young, M. and J- Stein, The history of the Crime Victims'
Movement in the lJnited States, Office
for Victims of Crime, Editor 2004, Office of Justice Programs
U.S. Department of Justice,:
Washington, DC.
3. Office for Victims of Crime. Crime Victims' Rights
Laws.2Ot4 OUOUAIL||; Available from:
http: /lwww.ovc.eov/riehis/!esislation. htm l.
Page 5 of 5
Victim Reporting
-': r .l '1 ",.: : 'i"r..l
The last module described the criminal justice system as a
series of discretionary decisions on the
processing of cases by different criminal justice actors at
different stages of the criminal justice process.
The first decision in the crimindl justice process is the victim's
decisions to report a crime. The focus of
his first lecture is how often and why victims report crimes to
the police. The focus of the next lecture is
then on the Victims' Rights Movement and the policies adopted
by the criminal justice system in
response to it. Remember to pay extra attention to whether or
not those policies achieved their goals.
', -,.-. :,,.,.,.-.'.._.;,:-..i, ::.',;',i'.t-,.'_' i " .
ln their seminal book, Decision Making in Criminal Justice:

Toward the Rationol Exercise of Discretion,
Gottfredson and Gottfredson point out that three decisions have
to occur before a case can potentially
enter the criminal justice system. First, a victim must notice an
act has occurred and decide that it is a
crime. Second, the person must decide the crime follows under
the purview of the criminal justice
system. Third,the victim must decide to report the crime to the
police. This lecture focuses on the third
decision, victims' decisions to report crimes to the police [1].
While many people give the label of gatekeepers to the police,
vlctims are the true gatekeepers of the
criminal justice system [1]. lf a victim doesn't report a crime,
then that case will most likely not enter
the criminal justice system. In fact, 95% of cases processed by
the police ore referred to them by victims
[2]. Therefore, victims'decisions to report crime can have an
important impact on the criminal justice
system's ability to control crime. ln other words, if crime
control policies require that the criminal justice
system comes into contact with offenders in order to be
effective, then victims essentially determine
the effectiveness of the criminal justice system because they
serve as the first filter for who that policy
will act upon. Additionally, victims' decisions to report crimes
to the police may impact the equity of the

criminal justice system. lf victims only report offenses
involving offenders with certain characteristics,
such as minority offenders, then the criminal justice system will
be disproportionately dominated by
cases involving defendants with those characteristics. in sum,
victims have o profound impact on which
coses the criminal justice system ultimately processes.
Page 1 of 6
2013 UCflMIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES
The following statistics were provided by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics from the 2013 National Crime
Victimization Survey [3J.
Violent Victimization (Rape or sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, & simple assault)
o An estimated 6.1 million yiolent vistimizations occurred
o 45.6Yo of violent crime victimizations were reported to the
police
Table 1. The percentage of individualviolent crimes reported to
the potice
68.O%
64.3%
38.5%

56.9%
Robberies
Aggravated assault
Simple assault
Domestic violence
Property victimizations (Residential burglary, theft, & motor
vehicle theft)
o An estimated 16.8 million property victimizations occurred
o 36.L% of property crime victimizations were reported to
police
Table 2. The percentage of individual property crimes reported
to the police
Percent Crime
57.3%
75.5%
28.6%
Household burglary
Motor vehicle theft
Theft
Overall, we can say that only about half of all crimes are
reported to the police, but some crimes, such as
motor vehicle theft, are reported much more often than other
crimes, such as rape/sexual assault.
WHY ARE CRIMES REPORTED?
Recall one strength of the NCVS is that it is not susceptible to

undercounting of crime like official crime
statistics. lf the NCVS is a valid measure of crime and crime
reporting levels, then the question becomes,
"why don't victims report crimes to the police?" There are two
ways to figure out why people report
crimes to the police. First, researchers can look for statistical
relationships between different factors and
whether or not victims reported a crime to police. Second,
researchers can ask victims directly why they
did or did not report a rime to the police [1].
Page 2 of 6
Statistical Correlates of Reporting Crimes to the Police
Researchers who have analyzed victimization data statistically
have found a number of factors that are
most likely to predict whether or not someone reports their
victimization to police [1, 4].
1. Crime Seriousness: Crimes that involve serious bodily harm
or great financiol loss are more
likely to be reported. Crimes committed with o weapon are more
likely to be reported. Crimes
that are octuolly completed are more likely to be reported than
attempted crimes.
a. An exception to this rule is that auto-thefts are frequently
reported. This is likely due to
the fact victims must report auto-thefts to the police and obtain
a police report in order
to be able to file an insurance claim.

2. Victim-Offender Relationsh4o: Crimes perpetrated by
strangers are more likely to be reported
than crimes committed by family members or friends.
3. Victim Characteristlcs: One has to be careful of making too
broad of conclusions regarding which
victim characteristics impact crime reporting because some of
the research is mixed, but it is
generally believe that Iemqles, the elderly, blocks, ond the poor
arc more likely to report
vi olent vidi mizotion l4l.
4. Offender Charocteristics: The same caveats for the findings
on victims' characteristics hold for
offender characteristics, but generally violent crlmes involving
block, older, under the influence
of drugs/alcohol, or multiPle otfenderc are more likely to be
reported [4]'
Reasons for Not Reporting Crimes to the Police in the NCVS
(2006 to 2010)
For example, the NCVS asks respondents to report the most
important reason why they did not report
victimizations to police. ln the 2006 through 2010 NCVS,
respondents were given five options:
1. Dealt with another way or personol motter: This option
involved rationales that involved the
victimization was reported to another official, such as a teacher,
or the victim was dealing with
the victimization personally.

2. Not importont enough; This option involved rationales that
concluded the victimization was a
minor or unsuccessful, the loss was small or the property was
recovered, a child offender was
involved or it was just "kid's stuff', it was not clear that it was a
crime or harm was intended,
and the loss was less than the insurance deductible.
3. Police would not or could not help: This option involved
rationales that concluded the
victimization was discovered too late, the police could not
recover property, the police could not
identify offender or there was a lack of proof, the police would
not think it was important
enough, the police would be inefficient or ineffective, the police
would be biased or could cause
respondent trouble, or the offender was a police officer.
4. Fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble: This option
involved rationales that concluded
the victim was afraid of reprisal by the offender to the victim
did not want to get the offender in
trouble with the law.
5. Not one most important reason / other: This option involved
rationales that concluded the
victim was advised not to report to the police, reporting the
victimization would be inconvenient
Page 3 of 6

or take too much time, do not know why, not one reason more
important than the others, other
reasons.
Figure 1. Percentage of victims who did not report their
victimization to police across five reasons for
not reporting for violent and property crimes
50
40 36
34
I
Dealt another way
or personal matter
18
I
Not
important
enough
t6
I
Police would not
or could not help
13
I3

Fear of reprisal
offender in trouble
18
It6
Other
r Violence Property
Source: 2006 - 2010 Nationai Crime Victin'lization Survey [3]
Notes: Violence inciudes rape/sexua! assault, robbery,
aggravated assauit, and simple assauit. Property
inciudes burgiary, motor vehicle theft, ancitneft.
As Figure 1 shows, victims' reasons for not reporting crimes to
police were different depending on
whether or not they were a violent or property crime victim.
Violent crime victims who did not repott
their victimization to police were most likely to deal with
violent crime onother woy or consider it a
personal matter F %); whereas, property crime victims who did
not report their victimization to
police were most tikely to believe the police would not or could
not help (36%).lt is also important to
note that 30% of the property crime victims who did not report
their victimization to police did not do
so because they didn't believe it was important enough
compared to 18% percent for non-reporting
violent crime victims. Finally, 13%of violent crime victims who
did not report their victimization to the
police rationalized their decision based on fear of reprisal or not

wanting to get the offender in trouble,
but this rationale only held for 3% of non-reporting property
crime victims.
Page 4 of 6
30
Reasons for Reporting Crimes to the Police in the NCVS (1992
to 2000)
Timothy Hart and Callie Rennison conducted an analysis of the
NCVS data for the years 1992 to 2000
and found that victims gave the following reasons for reporting
violent crime victimization [4]:
Reasons for reporting violent crime in general:
a. To "prevent future violence" (19%)
b. To "stop the offender" (17%)
c. To "protect others" (9%)
Reasons for reporting robbery:
a. To "recover property" (1,6%.
Hart and Rennison also found that victims gave the following
reasons for not reporting violent crime
victimization:
L. lt was a "private/personal matter" (20%),
2. lt was considered "not important enough" ll7Yo)
3. lt was "reported to some other official" (L4%

Note that Hart & Rennison's results are quite similar to those
listed above from the 2013 NCVS.
,.,1,-; ii i 'i. , .:- : ,.] i,;
This lecture opened by illustrating the importance of victims'
decisions to report crime to police. ln
short, if victims do not report crimes to police, then that may
undermine the criminal justice system.
Crime control can be negatively impacted if crime control
policies operate under the assumption the
criminal justice will come into contact with and then be able to
act upon offenders. Equity will be
undermined if victims report crimes against certain types of
offenders more often. Overall, we learned
that roughly half of all crimes are reported to police, but
reporting levels vary by crime type. Crimes are
most likely to be reported to be police if they involve serious
bodily harm or financial loss and if they are
committed by someone the victims doesn't know. We learned
that victims typically don't report violent
crimes because the report dealing with them or their own or
consider them to be a personal issue.
Victims are unlikely to report property crimes if they believe
the police cannot or will not do anything
about it; however, there is some indication that victims will
report crimes, such as auto-theft, in order to
be able to make an insurance claim later. One important reason
for not reporting crimes that only
applied to violent crime was that victims' feared reprisal or
getting the offending in trouble. Finally,
when asked why some victims report violent crime, many of
them reported rationales that related to

catching the offender and stopping him/her from offending in
the future or getting their property back.
ln the next lecture we will examine some recent policies that
have been focused on improving victims'
involvement in the criminaljustice system.
Page 5 of 6
1..
2.
,'1 1-,'l; ; i 1; 1',,1 ::.i
L. Gottfredson, M.R. and D.M. Gottfredson, Decision Moking
in Criminol Justice: Toword the
Rotional Exercise of Discretion, Second Edition. Law, Society,
and Policy, ed. J. Fienberg, et al.
Vol. 3. 1989, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
2. Reiss, A.J., The Police ond the Publicl97t, New Haven: Yale
University Press'
3. Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCVS Victimization Anolysis
Tool,201.5, US Department of Justice,:
Washington, DC.
4. Hart, T.C. and C. Rennison, Reporting crime to the police,
1992 - 2000, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Editor 2003, US Department of Justice,: Washington,
DC.
Page 6 of 6

By Timothy C. Hart
and Callie Rennison, Ph.D.
BJS Statisticians
In 2000 about half the violent crimes —
rape, sexual assault, robbery, and
simple and aggravated assault —
committed against persons age 12 or
older were reported to the police,
according to the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS). About a
third of both property crimes —
burglary, motor vehicle theft, and
property theft — and pocket pickings or
purse snatchings were also reported.
Thirty-nine percent of the 25.4 million
crimes estimated from victims’ survey
responses were reported to law
enforcement authorities.
On average from 1992 through 2000,
57% of robberies and 55% of aggra-
vated assaults were reported to police.
Thirty-one percent of rapes/sexual
assaults were brought to the attention
of the police.
Overall violent crimes, rapes/sexual
assaults, simple assaults, and serious
violent crimes were reported to the
police in higher percentages for 2000
than for the period 1992 through 1999.

The reporting to police of violent crime
victimizations overall increased from an
annual average 43%, 1992-99, to 49%
for 2000. The reporting of simple
assaults increased from 37% to 44%.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report
March 2003, NCJ 195710
! In 2000, 39% of the 25.4 million
violent and property crimes were
reported to the police according to
the National Crime Victimization
Survey. Violent crimes were reported
at a higher percentage than property
crimes.
! Violence against females was more
likely to be reported than violence
against males. Higher percentages of
violence against older persons than
younger persons were reported to law
enforcement.
! Overall violent crime was more
likely to be reported to the police if the
victim perceived that the offender was
under the influence of drugs/alcohol.

! When violent crime was committed
by an armed offender, it was more
likely to be reported to the police.
! A higher percentage of violence in
which the victim was injured was
reported to the police. Ninety percent
of violence in which the victim was
shot was reported to the police.
! Overall violent crime committed by
strangers was reported to police at a
higher percentage than was violent
crime committed by nonstrangers.
! Robbery was less likely to have been
reported to the police when the victim
thought the offender was a gang
member (46% for gang members and
59% for nongang members).
! Violent crime was most often
reported in an effort to “prevent future
violence,” “stop the offender,” or to
“protect others.”
! Violent crime was most often not
reported to police because it was
deemed a “private/personal matter,”
was considered “not important
enough,” or because it was “reported
to another official.”
Reporting to the police of violent crime increased from an
annual
average of 43%, 1992-99, to 49% in 2000

Highlights
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
Percent reported to the police
Serious violent crim e
Violent crim e
Sim ple assault
Note: Serious violent crime includes rape,
sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated
assault and excludes simple assault.
Reporting Crime to the
Police, 1992-2000
BJS
Publications that are referenced in this report have web links to
the abstracts.
Data and definitions

The NCVS collects data on nonfatal
crimes against persons age 12 or
older, reported and not reported to the
police, from a nationally representative
sample of U.S. households. Because
NCVS interviews persons about their
victimizations, murder and manslaugh-
ter cannot be included in NCVS
estimates.
Overall violent victimization refers to
rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggra-
vated assault, and simple assault taken
as a whole. Serious violent victimiza-
tion refers to overall violent crime
without simple assault. Property crimes
include household burglary, motor
vehicle theft, and theft.
Reporting crime to the police is often
characterized and thought of as an
action of the victim of the crime.
However, violent crimes can come to
the attention of police through persons
other than the victim. Witnesses,
relatives, neighbors, or other house-
hold members can report crimes to the
police. Any one of these people could
have been the source of information
of reported crimes, unless otherwise
specified. (See Third Party Involvement
in Violent Crime, 1993-99, BJS Special
Report, NCJ 189100.)
Reporting crime to the police, 2000

In 2000, 39% of the approximately 25.4
million violent and property victimiza-
tions against persons age 12 or older
were reported to the police according
to the NCVS (table 1). Violent crime
was reported to the police at a higher
percentage than personal theft (pocket
picking and purse snatching) and
property crime (49%, 36%, and 36%
respectively).
During 2000 robbery (60%) and aggra-
vated assault (58%) were reported to
the police at percentages higher than
simple assault (44%). Robbery was
reported to the police at percentages
somewhat higher than rape/sexual
assault (48%). Other apparent differ-
ences between the percentage of rape/
sexual assault and other violent crimes
reported to the police were not statisti-
cally significant. (See the discussion of
significance, especially as it pertains to
the NCVS, in Criminal Victimization
2001: Changes 2000-01 with Trends
1993-2001, NCJ 194610.)
Motor vehicle theft (81%) was reported
to the police at a higher percentage
than burglary (53%) and theft (29%).
Burglary was reported to the police
at a higher percentage than theft
during 2000.

2 Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000
*Based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
aIncludes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and
aggravated assault.
37548,300Attempted
2914,084,990Completed
29%14,633,290Theft
57289,540Attempted
92658,330Completed
81%947,870Motor vehicle theft
43480,800
Attempted forcible
entry
411,795,000
Unlawful entry
without force
771,049,490Forcible entry
542,844,490Completed
53%3,325,290Household burglary
36%18,906,450Total property crime
28%211,640 Pocket picking
28*9,150 Attempted
6755,290 Completed
62%64,440 Purse snatching
36%276,080Total personal theft
44%3,972,830Simple assault

58%1,206,710Aggravated assault
46259,610Attempted
68478,230Completed
60%737,830Robbery
48%254,870Rape/sexual assault
49%6,172,250Total violent crime
57%2,199,420Serious violencea
39%25,354,780
Violent, personal
and property crime
Percent
reported
Total of
all crimes Type of crime
2000
Table 1. Number and percent of
crimes reported to the police, 2000
aIncludes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.
454354Other
48631*6Police (at scene)
899779An official (not police)
111011101711Other household member

201422171216Someone else
53%54%48%60%59%54%Victim
Serious
violent
crimea
Simple
assault
Aggra-
vated
assaultRobbery
Rape/
sexual
assaultAll
The person who reported the
violence to the police
Violent crimes, 1992-2000
The victim reported about half of all violence known to the
police,
1992-2000
When the police learn about violent crimes, the knowledge
comes from a variety of
sources. Victims were more often the source of reports to the
police for rapes, sexual
assaults, and robberies, than for aggravated assaults. “Someone
else,” such as a
bystander, a relative, or an acquaintance, informed the police in
about a fifth of the
aggravated assaults and serious violent crimes. Officials other

than law enforcement
personnel, such as persons in authority at a hospital or school,
reported about 9% of
the violence that came to the attention of the police.
The National Crime Victimization
Survey
The NCVS is the Nation's primary
source of information on the
frequency, characteristics, and
consequences of criminal victimiza-
tion. One of the largest continuous
household surveys conducted by the
Federal Government, the NCVS
collects information about crimes
both reported and not reported to
police. The survey provides the
largest national forum for victims to
describe their experiences of victimi-
zation, the impact of crime, and the
characteristics of violent offenders.
For the most current estimates of
criminal victimization in the United
States, see Criminal Victimization
2001: Changes 2000-01 with Trends
1993-2001 (NCJ 194610).
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/tpivc99.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv01.htm
Victim characteristics and type
of crime, 1992-2000

Serious violent crime (53%), which
excludes the verbal threats and minor
injuries (such as cuts and bruises)
of simple assault, was reported to the
police at a higher percentage than
overall violent crime (43%) (table 2).
Robbery (57%) and aggravated assault
(55%) were reported to the police at
higher percentages than simple assault
(38%) and rape/sexual assault (31%).
Gender of victim Overall violence,
robbery, aggravated assault, simple
assault, and serious violent crimes
were more likely to be reported to the
police when the victim was female.
Apparent differences in percentages
of reporting of rape/sexual assault
for male and female victims were
not statistically significant.
Race of victim Overall violence
against black victims (49%) was
reported at a significantly higher
percentage than violence against white
victims (42%) and at a somewhat
higher percentage than violence
against Asian victims (40%).
Serious violent crime and aggravated
assault against blacks was reported in
higher percentages than comparable
crimes against whites. Regardless of
the type of victimization, apparent
differences in reporting percentages
among American Indians and all other

racial groups were not significant.
Hispanic origin of victim Robbery
of non-Hispanic victims (58%) was
reported to the police at a higher
percentage than robbery of Hispanics
(48%).
Age of victim The specific relation-
ship between victims’ ages and the
percentages of crime reported to the
police varied by the type of crime. For
violent crime overall, adults were more
likely than teenagers to have experi-
enced crimes reported to the police.
Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000 3
aIncludes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault.
6146517230*5365 or older
60435865334950-64
60456364325035-49
59466264295125-34
53395659284520-24
44324749273716-19
37%20%37%32%47%25%12-15
Age
533855583243Non-Hispanic
50%39%55%48%28%44%Hispanic
Hispanic origin
5031515516*40Asian
5543594547*48American Indian

584161593549Black
51%37%54%56%31%42%White
Race
554361663247Female
51%34%52%52%27%40%Male
Gender
53%38%55%57%31%43%Total
Serious
violent crimea
Simple
assault
Aggravated
assaultRobbery
Rape/sexual
assaultAll
Characteristic
of victim
Violent crimes
Table 2. Violent victimizations reported to the police, by the
gender, race,
Hispanic origin, and age of the victims, 1992-2000
*The increase in the percentage of rapes/sexual assaults
reported to police, 1999-2000, was
based on a difference of 10 or fewer sample cases.

575156555352505153Serious violence
444040393736363536Simple assault
585457595654515354Aggravated assault
605562565455565559Robbery
482533312731322932Rape/sexual assault*
%49%44%45%45%43%42%42%41%42Violent crime
200019991998199719961995199419931992Reported
Percent of violent crime reported to police, 1992-2000
The higher percentage of violent crimes reported to the police
in 2000,
compared to 1992, resulted from a decrease in the number not
reported
From 1992 to 2000 violent crime decreased. The overall number
of crimes
reported to the police decreased somewhat, while the number of
crimes
not reported to police decreased to a greater extent. As a result,
the
overall percentage of crime reported to police increased from
1992 to 2000.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
0
3
6
9
12

15
M illions
C rim e s o f vio le n c e -- R e p o rte d to p o lic e
C rim e s o f vio le n c e -- N o t re p o rte d to p o lic e
Annual household income of victim
The relationship between annual
household income and the percentage
of violence reported to the police varied
by the type of crime (table 3). In
general, percentages of violence and
simple assault reported to police
declined as victims’ annual household
incomes increased.
With one exception, reporting aggra-
vated assault to the police did not differ
based on the victim’s annual house-
hold income. Victims in households
with annual incomes of less than
$7,500 were slightly more likely to
report aggravated assaults than those
in households with incomes between
$50,000 and $74,999.
Among the categories of annual house-
hold income considered, there were
no differences in the percentages
of rape/sexual assault, robbery, or
serious violent crime reported to the
police.

Marital status of victim Overall
violence, robbery, aggravated assault,
simple assault, and serious violent
crime against those who never married
was reported to the police at lower
percentages than for such crimes
against married persons.
Residence of victim Regardless of
the type of violence, the percentage of
violence reported to the police did not
differ based on where the victim lived,
with one exception. A higher percent-
age of overall violent crime against
urban residents (45%) was reported to
the police than similar crimes against
suburbanites (42%).
Injuries and treatment of victims,
1992-2000
Crimes resulting in injuries are more
likely to be reported to police. Fifty-six
percent of victimizations in which the
victim was injured, compared to 40% of
violence in which the victim emerged
uninjured, were reported to the police
(table 4).
Seventy-five percent of all violent
victimizations in which the victim was
seriously injured and 90% of violence
in which the victim sustained a gunshot
wound were reported to the police,
1992-2000.

All victims of completed rape are
considered injured by NCVS definition.
Thirty-two percent of victimizations in
which the victim was raped/sexually
assaulted without additional injury were
reported to the police.
Victimizations in which victims received
treatment for their injuries were
reported to the police in a higher
percentage (70%) than those instances
when treatment was not received
(46%).
aIncludes rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault.
554057604245Rural
513754542842Suburban
53%38%55%58%30%45%Urban
Residence
555361652554Separated
584860653452Divorced
6346597051*54Widowed
634464673951Married
47%31%49%50%30%37%Never married
Marital status
533053632137$75,000 or more
513352533839$50,000 to $74,999
513853572242$35,000 to $49,999
533753612843$25,000 to $34,999
523955582844$15,000 to $24,999

544357544148$7,500 to $14,999
56%41%60%57%38%48%Less than $7,500
Annual household
income
53%38%55%57%31%43%Total
Serious
violent crimea
Simple
assault
Aggravated
assaultRobbery
Rape/sexual
assaultAll
Characteristic
of victim
Violent crimes
Percent of violent victimizations reported to the police
annual household
income, marital status, and residence of the victims, 1992-2000
1,351,220Injured
2,741,180Not injured
4,092,400Violent victimizations
Average annual —

57Other location
89Admitted
86Not admitted
86Hospital
62Doctor’s office or clinic
55At scene/home
70Injured, treated
46Injured, not treated
56%Injured
55Minor injuries
32
Rape/sexual assault
without additional injury
62Other serious injuries
74Internal injuries
79Knocked unconscious
76Broken bones
67Knife wound
90Gunshot wound
75Serious injury
56%Injured
40%Not injured
Percent of violence
reported to police
Table 4. Violence reported to the
police, by victim injury and treatment,
1992-2000

Offender characteristics and type
of crime, 1992-2000
As with victims, characteristics of the
offender were related to the likelihood
that a violent victimization was reported
to the police (table 5).
Gender of offender Regardless of the
type of crime examined, the percent-
age of violent crime reported to the
police did not differ when the offender
was male or female.
Race of offender Higher percentages
of overall violent crime and serious
violent crime were reported to police
when the crimes were committed by
black offenders than by white
offenders. Somewhat higher percent-
ages of aggravated assault were
reported to police when committed by
black offenders than by white
offenders.
Age of offender In general the
younger the offender, the lower the
percentage of crime reported to police.
For example, robbery, simple assault,
and serious violent crime committed
by offenders age 12-14 were reported
to police in smaller percentages than
similar crimes committed by older
offenders.
Number of offenders A significantly

higher percentage of violence was
reported to the police when it was
committed by more than a single
offender. For example, 55% of overall
violence was reported to the police
when committed by 2 offenders,
compared to 42% committed by a
single offender.
Victim-offender relationship With
two exceptions, there was no differ-
ence in the percentage of violence
reported to the police when committed
by persons known to the victims and
when committed by strangers (table 6).
The two exceptions were overall violent
crime and rape/sexual assault. When
committed by a stranger, the percent-
age reported to police was higher for
both types of crime. For every type of
violence except rape/sexual assault, a
higher percentage of victimization by
an intimate than by a friend/acquain-
tance was reported to the police.
Note: Offender characteristics are based on the victim’s
perception.
594262572851Three or more
644464654455Two
50%38%53%55%31%42%One

Number of offenders
604662593753Mixed age group
57456264324930 or older
55445563334821-29
47345149194018-20
43274545253215-17
30163225401912-14
19%17%22%11%*0%*18%Less than 12
Age
503054532340Race unknown
5543605237*49Mixed races
493549562841Other
583859593947Black
50%38%54%55%29%42%White
Race
5831586626*46
Unknown number
of offenders
61256063100*44
Offender(s) gender
unknown
7456757459*63Both
5337555513*40All female
52%38%54%56%32%43%All male
Gender
53%38%55%57%31%43% Total
Serious
violent crimea

Simple
assault
Aggravated
assaultRobbery
Rape/sexual
assaultAll
Characteristic
of offender
Violent crimes
gender, race,
and age of the offenders, 1992-2000
Note: Offender characteristics are based on the victim’s
perception.
553755583945Don't know
433047502333Not using drugs/alcohol
55%48%60%58%32%51%Using drugs/alcohol
Drug/alcohol use
543453574143Don't know
514055592843Not a gang member
53%39%57%46%34%46%Gang member
Gang membership
5532536239*43Don't know relationship

553955564145Stranger
483152552736Friend/acquaintance
574761534850Other relative
555363722454Intimate
51%37%55%59%27%41%Nonstranger
Relationship to victim
violent
crimea
Simple
assault
Aggravated
assaultRobbery
Rape/sexual
assaultAll
Characteristic
of offender
SeriousViolent crimes
Table 6. Violent victimizations reported to the police, by
characteristics
of the offender, 1992-2000
Offender’s gang membership
Except for robbery the percentage of
violent crime reported to the police did
not differ based on whether the victim

perceived the offender(s) to be gang
members. The rate of reporting a
robbery to the police was lower for
crimes perceived to have been
committed by gang members (46%
for gang members and 59% for
nongang members).
Offender’s drug/alcohol use For all
crimes except rape/sexual assault and
robbery, violent crimes were reported
to the police in higher percentages
when the victim believed the offender
was under the influence of drugs/
alcohol.
Presence of weapons Violent crimes
committed by armed offenders were
more likely to be reported to the police
across all types of crimes (table 7).
For example, 56% of all violent crimes
committed with a weapon present
compared to 38% of those committed
by an unarmed offender were reported
to the police.
Similarly, 49% of all rapes/sexual
assaults committed by an armed
offender compared to 28% of those
committed by an unarmed offender
were reported to the police.
Except for rape/sexual assaults,
violent crimes committed by an
offender armed with a firearm were

more likely to be reported to police
than violence by an offender armed
with a knife. Apparent differences in
the percentages of rapes/sexual
assaults reported to the police when
the offender was armed with a firearm
versus a knife were not significant.
National crime measures
National measures of crime come from two sources of
data: the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and
the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR program
collects information on crimes and arrests reported by
law enforcement authorities to the FBI.
The figure, using data from <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
glance/cv2.htm>, shows that about half of all serious
violent crime is reported to police. The three lines in the
chart are described below:
Total serious violent crime
The number of homicides recorded by police plus the
number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults
from the victimization survey whether or not they were
Victimizations reported to police
The number of homicides recorded by police plus the
number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults
from the victimization survey that victims said were
Crimes recorded by police

The number of homicides, forcible rapes, robberies,
and aggravated assaults included in the Uniform Crime
Reports of the FBI excluding commercial robberies and
crimes that involved victims under age 12.
*NCVS numbers include homicide from the UCR.
Serious violent crime includes rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, and homicide. (For related data about homicide
trends, see Homicide Trends in the United States: 2000
Update, January 2003, NCJ 197064.) The redesign of
the NCVS was put into place in 1993; prior year data are
adjusted to make them comparable with data collected
afterwards. Post-redesign data are denoted by the darker
segments of the graph lines.
For more information, see U.S. Department of Justice,
The Nation's Two Crime Measures, a statement by BJS
and the FBI, NCJ 122705, August 2002 version; Effects
of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates, BJS Techni-
cal Report, NCJ 164381, April 1997; and "True Crime
Stories? Accounting for Differences in Our National
Crime Indicators," Chance Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2002.
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998
M illions
C rim e s re c o rd e d
b y p o lic e (U C R )
To ta l s e rio u s vio le n t c rim e (N C V S )*
5
4

3
2
1
0
V ic tim iz a tio n s re p o rte d
to p o lic e (N C V S )*
40484242Don't know
476953*51Type unknown
506232*51Other
51484250Knife
63706265Firearm
54634956Weapon
38%51%28%38%No weapon
AssaultRobbery
Rape/sexual
assaultAllWeapon presence
Table 7. Reporting to the police and the presence of a
weapon during violent crimes, 1992-2000
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/ntcm.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/erve.htm

Reasons violence was and was not
reported to the police, 1992-2000
NCVS asks crime victims why they
reported or did not report the crime to
law enforcement authorities.
Reasons for reporting violence In
general, the most common reason for
reporting violence to the police was
to “prevent future violence” (19%),
to “stop the offender” (17%), or to
“protect others” (9%) (table 8). The
most common reason for reporting
robbery to the police was to “recover
property” (16%).
Reasons for not reporting violence
The most common reasons for not
reporting violence to the police were
because it was a “private/personal
matter” (20%), because the violence
was considered “not important enough”
(17%), or because it was “reported to
some other official” (14%) (table 9).
Survey methodology
The NCVS collects data on nonfatal
crimes against persons age 12 or
older, reported and not reported to the
police, from a nationally representative
sample of households in the United
States. Between 1992 and 2000
approximately 464,740 households and

872,320 individuals age 12 or older
were interviewed. For the NCVS data
presented, response rates varied
between 93% and 96% of eligible
households, and between 89% and
94% of eligible individuals.
For discussions of standard errors and
trend analysis, see Criminal Victimiza-
tion 2001: Changes 2000-01 with
Trends 1993-2001 (NCJ 194610).
202020221420No other reason
597467Other reason
11110*1Collect insurance
2%1%2%2%4%2%Needed assistance
423443Improve police surveillance
711161*4Recover property
8371055Catch offender
8%7%8%7%12%8%Punish offender
657656A duty to tell police
108118159Protect others
13211591717Stop offender
15%22%18%11%19%19%Prevent future violence
Reasons for reporting
Serious
violent

crimea
Simple
assault
Aggra-
vated
assaultRobbery
Rape/
sexual
assaultAll
Violent crimes
Percent of reasons why violence was reported to the police
Table 8. Reasons why violence was reported to the police, by
type of crime,
1992-2000
Note: In instances where all types of crime accounted for less
than
3% for a reason, that reason was included in the “other reason”
category.
302328333425Other reason
4%3%4%5%3%3%Inconvenient
334163Protect offender
7261024Lack of proof
343134Not clear a crime occurred
7%4%6%6%12%5%Fear of reprisal
757946Not important to police

81697714Reported to other official
14191518617Not important enough
17%22%18%11%23%20%Private/personal matter
Serious
violent
crimea
Simple
assault
Aggra-
vated
assaultRobbery
Rape/
sexual
assaultAll
Reasons for
not reporting
Violent crimes
Percent of reasons for not reporting to the police
Table 9. Reasons why violence was not reported to the police,
by type of crime, 1992-2000
Note: See text for a discussion of factors
associated with reporting crime to the police.
Not under
the influence
Under the

influence
Drug/alcohol use
NonstrangerStrangerRelation to victim
OneMore than
one
Number
YoungerOlderAge
WhiteBlackRace
Offender
Never
married
MarriedMarital status
HigherLowerIncome
Under 25Age 25+Age
WhiteBlackRace
MaleFemaleGender
Victim
Not presentPresentWeapon
Not injuredInjuredVictim injury
AttemptedCompletedCompletion
PropertyViolentType
Crime
DecreasedIncreased
Characteristic
of —

Likelihood of reporting
to the police
Appendix. Factors associated with
reporting crime to the police,
1992-2000
Other NCVS reports
Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting
to Police and Medical Attention,
1992-2000, BJS Selected Findings,
NCJ 194530, 8/02.
Criminal Victimization 2001: Changes
2000-01 with Trends 1993-2001, BJS
Bulletin, NCJ 194610, 9/02.
Hispanic Victims of Violent Crimes,
1993-2000/Víctimas Hispanas de
Crímenes Violentos, 1993-2000, BJS
Special Report, NCJ 191208, 4/02
This report and additional data,
analyses, and graphs about criminal
victimization in the United States are
available on the Internet at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
For questions or comments about
this or any BJS report, e-mail to

[email protected]
Data presented in this report can be
obtained from the National Archive of
Criminal Justice Data at the Univer-
sity of Michigan, 1-800-999-0960.
The archive can also be accessed
through the BJS Web site. When at
the archive site, search for dataset
ICPSR 3140.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics
is the statistical agency of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
Lawrence A. Greenfeld is director.
Timothy C. Hart and Callie M. Renni-
son wrote this report under the
supervision of Michael Rand. Cathy
Maston provided statistical review.
Tom Hester produced and edited the
report. Jayne Robinson administered
final production.
March 2003, NCJ 195710
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvvc00.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsarp00.htmusdoj.govBur
eau of Justice Statistics Third-Party Involvement in Violent
Crime, 1993-99The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization
Estimates

of 5 Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman U.docx

Page 1 of 5 Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman U.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Page 1 of 5 Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman U.docx

Similar to Page 1 of 5 Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman U.docx (14)

More from alfred4lewis58146

More from alfred4lewis58146 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Page 1 of 5 Victims’ Rights Cory P. Haberman U.docx