[PASSED] Rights of Crime Victims

[Frisbeeteria]

Rights of Crime Victims
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

Convinced that crime victims deserve a meaningful role in the criminal justice system;

Committed to affording crime victims the dignity, respect, and access to justice that they are due;

Resolved that criminal proceedings should be conducted to ensure a fair balance between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants;

Hereby enacts the following provisions:

Defines the following terms for the purposes of this Act:

• "crime victim" as "a person who as part of a criminal prosecution is alleged to have suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm (actual or threatened) as a result of the criminal conduct of another, who is not simultaneously accused of criminal conduct of their own arising out of the same incident or occurrence." In the event that the crime causes the death or incapacitation of the crime victim, member nations may permit the crime victim's immediate family to exercise the rights afforded under this Act.
• "the accused," as "a person who has been formally charged with a crime based on probable cause that they have committed a criminal offense."
• "critical stage of the prosecution," as "any date or event at which a substantive or procedural element of the case is resolved or decided," including release hearings, hearings relating to the scheduling of trial, pre-trial evidentiary hearings, plea hearings, trials, sentencings, probation and parole hearings, and any other events deemed critical within the relevant national judicial system.

Mandates that member nations shall provide crime victims with the following rights:

1. Notice: crime victims shall be notified in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution, and shall be duly notified of any important developments in the case;
2. Participation: crime victims shall have the right to be present at any critical stage of the prosecution, to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered;
3. Protection: crime victims shall have the right to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process, including but not limited to:
   • the right to prevent the accused from accessing the crime victim's address and personal identifying information without a court order,
   • the right to an order restraining the accused and known associates of the accused from harassing, threatening, stalking, or otherwise harming the crime victim,
   • the right to prevent the accused from directly contacting the crime victim outside the presence of law enforcement officers, and
   • the right to be tested at no cost for sexually transmitted infections and other serious communicable diseases if the crime victim may have been exposed to those illnesses during the commission of the crime;
4. Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;
5. Representation: crime victims shall have the right to exercise their rights in-person or through a personal representative or attorney. Member nations are encouraged, but not required, to provide crime victims with an attorney;

Urges member nations to provide crime victims with additional rights not enumerated above where those rights would serve the interests of fairness and justice;

Crime Victims' Bill of Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

Convinced that crime victims deserve a meaningful role in the criminal justice system;

Committed to affording crime victims the dignity, respect, and access to justice that they are due;

Resolved that criminal proceedings should be conducted to ensure a fair balance between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants;

Hereby enacts the following provisions:

Defines "crime victim," for the purposes of this Act, as "a person who is alleged to have suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm (actual or threatened) as a result of the criminal conduct of another, who is not simultaneously accused of criminal conduct of their own arising out of the same incident or occurrence."

Defines a "critical stage of the prosecution," for the purposes of this Act, as "any date or event at which a substantive or procedural element of the case is resolved or decided," including release hearings, hearings relating to the scheduling of trial, pre-trial evidentiary hearings, plea hearings, trials, sentencings, probation and parole hearings, and any other events deemed critical within the relevant national judicial system.

Mandates that member nations shall provide crime victims with the following rights:

1. Notice: crime victims shall be notified in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution, and shall be immediately notified of any important developments in the case;
2. Participation: crime victims shall have the right to be present at any critical stage of the prosecution, to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered;
3. Protection: crime victims shall have the right to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process, including but not limited to:
   • the right to prevent the accused from accessing the crime victim's address and personal identifying information without a court order,
   • the right to prevent the accused from harassing, threatening, or stalking the crime victim,
   • the right to prevent the accused from directly contacting the crime victim outside the presence of law enforcement officers, and
   • the right to have the accused tested for STDs and other communicable diseases if the crime involved the transmission of body fluids;
4. Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;
5. Representation: crime victims shall have the right to exercise their rights in-person or through a personal representative or attorney. Member nations are encouraged, but not required, to provide crime victims with an attorney;

Urges member nations to provide crime victims with additional rights not enumerated above where those rights would serve the interests of fairness and justice;

Crime Victims Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Cowardly Pacifists

The World Assembly:

Convinced that crime victims deserve a meaningful role in the criminal justice system;

Committed to affording crime victims the dignity, respect, and access to justice that they are due;

Resolved that criminal proceedings should be conducted to ensure a fair balance between the rights of crime victims and the rights of criminal defendants;

Hereby enacts the following provisions:

Defines "crime victim," for the purposes of this Act, as "a person who is alleged to have suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm (actual or threatened) as a result of the criminal conduct of another."

Defines a "critical stage of the prosecution," for the purposes of this Act, as "any date or event at which a substantive or procedural element of the case is resolved or decided," including release hearings, hearings relating to the scheduling of trial, pre-trial evidentiary hearings, plea hearings, trials, sentencings, probation and parole hearings, and any other events deemed critical within the relevant national judicial system.

Mandates that member nations shall provide crime victims with the following rights:

1. Notice: crime victims shall be notified in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution, and shall be immediately notified of any important developments in the case;
2. Participation: crime victims shall have the right to be present at any critical stage of the prosecution, to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered;
3. Protection: crime victims shall have the right to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process, including but not limited to:
   • the right to prevent the accused from accessing the crime victim's address and personal identifying information without a court order,
   • the right to prevent the accused from harassing or directly contacting the crime victim, and
   • the right to have the accused tested for STDs and other communicable diseases if the crime involved the transmission of body fluids;
4. Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;
5. Representation: crime victims shall have the right to exercise their rights in-person or through a personal representative or attorney. Member nations are encouraged, but not required, to provide crime victims with an attorney;

Urges member nations to provide crime victims with additional rights not enumerated above where those rights would serve the interests of fairness and justice;

[Weed]

I, in general, like the idea!

What would you think about altering the definition slightly so that this covers victims who are not accused of misdoings in the same act? The reason I think this may be worth considering, is in the case of a physical fight, or gun battle between gang members or such, both people are going to be charged with assault or attempted murder, and both would also be considered victims. But, perhaps, given the situation: they shouldn't be brought together for safety and also so that they can't hear what one person testifies to put their own story together.

Just an initial thought!

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Cowardly Pacifists]

What would you think about altering the definition slightly so that this covers victims who are not accused of misdoings in the same act? The reason I think this may be worth considering, is in the case of a physical fight, or gun battle between gang members or such, both people are going to be charged with assault or attempted murder, and both would also be considered victims. But, perhaps, given the situation: they shouldn't be brought together for safety and also so that they can't hear what one person testifies to put their own story together.

Well, in point of fact you rarely see two people in a fight/gun battle both being charged with a crime. Usually one of them has a self defense claim (even if they're both bad guys). That said, I wouldn't mind adding something like this if folks think it's a good idea:

Clarifies that notwithstanding the above provisions member nations may exclude from the category of "crime victims" any person who is charged with a crime arising out of the same circumstances that would otherwise make them a crime victim;

Would that work?

[Titicaca]

Good idea, hopefully it will be voted on.

[United Federation of Canada]

Please do explain how this has become an international issue? Are nations to stupid to pass laws of this nature on their own? Do we really need the WA to hold our hands on this?

OPPOSED

[Auralia]

the right to prevent the accused from...directly contacting the crime victim

What about the right to face one's accuser? Cross-examination?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Please do explain how this has become an international issue? Are nations to stupid to pass laws of this nature on their own? Do we really need the WA to hold our hands on this?

As with most human rights proposals, the simple answer to your questions is "yes." Just like there are some nations "too stupid" to pass laws outlawing child labor, slavery, and torture, there are some nations who don't provide crime victims with a meaningful role in the criminal process (other than as a witness for the prosecution.)

(OOC: In fact, that is still the rule in most countries. The modern victims rights movement in the US started around the 1970s, and the European Union only just recently got on the bandwagon itself.)

the right to prevent the accused from...directly contacting the crime victim

What about the right to face one's accuser? Cross-examination?

Good point. Will adding "outside of court" to the end of that provision fix the problem? I certainly don't mean to erode due process rights, but it's certainly reasonable to prevent a bailed criminal defendant from "having a chat" with the victim.

Best Regards,

[Louisistan]

Mr. John McGyver, Associate Counsel for the Louisistanian Delegation
Overall this is a nice idea. However, we have a problem with the provision that calls for restitution:

Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;

If the accused has not yet been convicted (thus: not proven guilty), I see no reason why restitution should be in order. Restitution should only be provided if the accused has been proven guilty.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Mr. John McGyver, Associate Counsel for the Louisistanian Delegation
Overall this is a nice idea. However, we have a problem with the provision that calls for restitution:

Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;

If the accused has not yet been convicted (thus: not proven guilty), I see no reason why restitution should be in order. Restitution should only be provided if the accused has been proven guilty.

I agree. Edit: I'll work on an appropriate change.

[Skelk]

I am having trouble understanding why the WA should be allowed to intervene in these instances. How a country handles their justice system is their own business. Unless the crime somehow became an international incident the WA as no real right to mess with these things.

[Ossitania]

I am having trouble understanding why the WA should be allowed to intervene in these instances. How a country handles their justice system is their own business. Unless the crime somehow became an international incident the WA as no real right to mess with these things.

There's a general consensus that the WA has a right to intervene to protect the rights of citizens, as they transcend all borders.

[Ainocra]

Provided this proposal only applied to crimes that are international in nature I would see no issue.
Micromanaging a nations judicial system on such domestic issues is not only an over reach but a waste of resources better spent elsewhere.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Provided this proposal only applied to crimes that are international in nature I would see no issue.
Micromanaging a nations judicial system on such domestic issues is not only an over reach but a waste of resources better spent elsewhere.

Like any other group that the World Assembly has seen fit to protect from time to time, crime victims are a class of individuals whose interests and concerns transcend national boundaries. If marriage rights, or convict rights, or the rights of the accused are worth protecting with international law, then why not the rights of those who are the victims of crime?

In any case, whether or not this is micromanagment or a waste of resources sound's like a question for the voters to me.

[Ossitania]

I'm waiting for the next edit to make a specific response to the draft but I'm okay with the general idea. I dunno about the title though. I'm generally iffy on using nouns as adjectives, I think.

[Point Breeze]

the right to prevent the accused from...directly contacting the crime victim

What about the right to face one's accuser? Cross-examination?

Good point. Will adding "outside of court" to the end of that provision fix the problem? I certainly don't mean to erode due process rights, but it's certainly reasonable to prevent a bailed criminal defendant from "having a chat" with the victim.

Best Regards,[/quote]

Be careful, as this limits any attempt to create a plea bargain. I think we can all agree open court is not the necessary area to discuss a defendant's admission of guilt in exchange for leniency.

There is usually legal representation for both victim and offender present at these bargaining meetings, and the defendant has a lot to lose, given the prosecution is even considering giving them a bargain.

I also fail to see how this is an international issue. I have some other reservations about this resolution as well. Victims do indeed deserve a place at the table, but I do not agree that they should be able to interrupt the court whenever they want. I also would caution any statements made by an emotional victim in a high-profile trial. That kind of incriminating and prejudicial language is hell for defendants.

[Skatara]

But does it address the victim's right to testify?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

New draft up. Auralia's point about confrontation rights has been addressed, as has Topid's request for a "gang fight" exception.

Be careful, as this limits any attempt to create a plea bargain. I think we can all agree open court is not the necessary area to discuss a defendant's admission of guilt in exchange for leniency.

There is usually legal representation for both victim and offender present at these bargaining meetings, and the defendant has a lot to lose, given the prosecution is even considering giving them a bargain.

I also fail to see how this is an international issue. I have some other reservations about this resolution as well. Victims do indeed deserve a place at the table, but I do not agree that they should be able to interrupt the court whenever they want. I also would caution any statements made by an emotional victim in a high-profile trial. That kind of incriminating and prejudicial language is hell for defendants.

I've modified the language to allow for plea bargains like those you suggest. Clearly, some folks objected to a blanket "no contact" provision so I've amended the draft in a way that everyone should find reasonable under the circumstances.

But does it address the victim's right to testify?

I think the right to make a statement is all that I'm willing to propose as a universal "right." Whether or not to call the victim to testify is a tactical decision made by the prosecutor (with the understanding that, often, the victim must testify or violate due process rights of the accused established by other resolutions). The victim shouldn't have the right to force the state to call them as a witness, any more than the victim should have the right to force the state to refuse plea negotiations or seek the death penalty. The victim should have the opportunity to make a statement on those issues and have that statement heard and considered, but they don't have the right to impose their will on the prosecution.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Updated title for Oss

[Discoveria]

Mandates that member nations shall provide crime victims with the following rights:

1. Notice: crime victims shall be notified in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution, and shall be immediately notified of any important developments in the case;
2. Participation: crime victims shall have the right to be present at any critical stage of the prosecution, to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered;
3. Protection: crime victims shall have the right to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process, including but not limited to:
   • the right to prevent the accused from accessing the crime victim's address and personal identifying information without a court order,
   • the right to prevent the accused from harassing, threatening, or stalking the crime victim,
   • the right to prevent the accused from directly contacting the crime victim outside the presence of law enforcement officers, and
   • the right to have the accused tested for STDs and other communicable diseases if the crime involved the transmission of body fluids; I would go for more medically precise terminology and remove the abbreviation, thus: "sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases". It might be appropriate to limit testing to "diseases which the victim may reasonably be considered to be at risk for as a result of the crime", rather than all diseases. I must also voice a concern over the way this provision overrides the accused's autonomy by removing their ability to consent to testing. Testing may impose a risk to the accused's health which the accused should normally have the right to make an informed decision on. It may contradict Patient's Rights Act clause IV depending on how you interpret that clause.
   I'm wondering whether this section should be more tightly written or not. Having the right to do something isn't the same thing as that something actually coming to pass - for example, even though the defendant has the right to prevent the accused from threatening them, this resolution does not guarantee that protection will actually be implemented.
4. Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;
5. Representation: crime victims shall have the right to exercise their rights in-person or through a personal representative or attorney. Member nations are encouraged, but not required, to provide crime victims with an attorney;

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I would go for more medically precise terminology and remove the abbreviation, thus: "sexually transmitted infections and other communicable diseases". It might be appropriate to limit testing to "diseases which the victim may reasonably be considered to be at risk for as a result of the crime", rather than all diseases.

I'll make the following change to address this concern:

the right to have the accused tested for STDs sexually transmitted infections and other serious communicable diseases if the crime involved the transmission of body fluids the crime victim may have been exposed to those illnesses during the commission of the crime

I must also voice a concern over the way this provision overrides the accused's autonomy by removing their ability to consent to testing. Testing may impose a risk to the accused's health which the accused should normally have the right to make an informed decision on. It may contradict Patient's Rights Act clause IV depending on how you interpret that clause.

Frankly, I'm willing to override the accused's autonomy under these circumstances. I believe a majority of WA voters will agree with me. A rape victim should have the right to have her accused rapist tested for sexually transmitted diseases. If this turns out to be a hot button issue for some, I'll include "minimally invasive" language to ensure that the accused isn't being poked and prodded needlessly. But demanding a blood sample to test for STDs from an accused rapist is no more an affront to their autonomy than holding them pending trial, or requiring that they post bail as a condition of release.

I certainly don't think it contradicts the Patient's Rights Act. Testing for STDS and other illnesses is not treatment: by definition, you need to be tested and diagnosed before you can begin receiving treatment. Even if it were treatment, the PRA does not allow patients to refuse in cases where their refusal might endanger the health of others. Early testing for a communicable illness may mean life or death to the crime victim.

I'm wondering whether this section should be more tightly written or not. Having the right to do something isn't the same thing as that something actually coming to pass - for example, even though the defendant has the right to prevent the accused from threatening them, this resolution does not guarantee that protection will actually be implemented.

I'm certainly open to suggestions, but I don't think tightening up the language is necessary. The right will exist and it will be up to nations to implement it in the way that is best for them. Nations may decide for themselves how to ensure the victims right not to be threatened by the accused.

Edits: Fixed horrible formatting

[Discoveria]

OOC: I'm happy with your response to my other concerns. Pursuing this one further:

Frankly, I'm willing to override the accused's autonomy under these circumstances. I believe a majority of WA voters will agree with me. A rape victim should have the right to have her accused rapist tested for sexually transmitted diseases. If this turns out to be a hot button issue for some, I'll include "minimally invasive" language to ensure that the accused isn't being poked and prodded needlessly. But demanding a blood sample to test for STDs from an accused rapist is no more an affront to their autonomy than holding them pending trial, or requiring that they post bail as a condition of release.

In RL, even something as simple (to you and me) as a blood test may be a big deal for certain groups - off the top of my head, Christian Scientists or people with needle-phobias. Also, one could argue that the testing is irrelevant since (1) the victim will need to be tested for STIs independently of the accused (2) any medical treatment required for the victim will be guided by the results of the victim's tests and only marginally by the results of the accused's tests (3) it is likely that the victim would be given prophylactic (preventative) or pre-emptive treatment while awaiting results.

On balance - as you imply, there is a pretty obvious and persuasive ethical argument in favour of forced testing in this situation so I will not continue this objection.

[Quelesh]

Based on only the title, prior to reading the draft, I expected to oppose this proposal due to concerns about the erosion of the rights of the accused. However, after a casual reading, I don't see much to oppose here, and most of this seems very beneficial and common-sense to me. However, I do have a couple comments:

the right to prevent the accused from directly contacting the crime victim outside the presence of law enforcement officers,

Initially, I was prepared to oppose this clause, but after consideration I think it's acceptable. The clause merely gives the alleged victim the right to prevent contact, so any prevention of contact will be at the discretion of the alleged victim. It does not automatically impose a no-contact order, even against the wishes of the alleged victim, which I would have opposed. It also seems to respect the rights of the accused to confront his accuser in court and to cross-examine witnesses against him, assuming that "law enforcement officers" are present in court.

the right to have the accused tested for STDs and other communicable diseases if the crime involved the transmission of body fluids;

I agree with Ambassador Turing here that testing for the alleged victim is much more important than testing of the accused. There may also be privacy considerations attendant upon the forced drawing of a blood sample (think DNA databases), especially from someone who has not been convicted of any crime. I don't think that forced testing of the accused is necessary, as what is important is whether the alleged victim has the disease, not whether the accused has it.

Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;

This seems to give alleged victims the right to seek restitution before the resolution of the criminal trial, or even if the accused is acquitted. It makes sense to me to wait for the proper determination of actual guilt before proceeding to the restitution phase.

The issues I have raised are relatively minor, however, and I congratulate Ambassador Scardilocks for drafting a quality proposal on this topic that also generally respects the rights of the accused.

Leonard Roku
Quelesian Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Bahanesia WA Mission]

Response

---

The Bahanesian Delegation of the World Assembly hereby motions to APPROVE this proposal.

Concerns

---

Regarding the proposal, should in the event that the victim of the crime was killed and presumed dead before or during the course of the trial, would the rights of the victim presented in the proposal be extended to a member(s) of the victim's immediate family (if present)?

An amendment is recommended to address this concern due to the fact that crimes involving murder or the death of others usually results in the death of the victims in the process.

[Quelesh]

Regarding the proposal, should in the event that the victim of the crime was killed and presumed dead before or during the course of the trial, would the rights of the victim presented in the proposal be extended to a member(s) of the victim's immediate family (if present)?

An amendment is recommended to address this concern due to the fact that crimes involving murder or the death of others usually results in the death of the victims in the process.

It doesn't seem to me that this is a concern for the proposal. Obviously, only living victims are able to take advantage of the rights accorded to them by this proposal.

Leonard Roku
Quelesian Minister of Foreign Affairs

[Cowardly Pacifists]

New Draft up. In addition to the changes made in response to input from other ambassadors (addressed below), I added a definition of "accused" to try to get ahead of folks who are worried about due process. An "accused" person is someone who has been formally accused by the state, based on probable cause.

OOC: I'm happy with your response to my other concerns. Pursuing this one further:

Frankly, I'm willing to override the accused's autonomy under these circumstances. I believe a majority of WA voters will agree with me. A rape victim should have the right to have her accused rapist tested for sexually transmitted diseases. If this turns out to be a hot button issue for some, I'll include "minimally invasive" language to ensure that the accused isn't being poked and prodded needlessly. But demanding a blood sample to test for STDs from an accused rapist is no more an affront to their autonomy than holding them pending trial, or requiring that they post bail as a condition of release.

In RL, even something as simple (to you and me) as a blood test may be a big deal for certain groups - off the top of my head, Christian Scientists or people with needle-phobias. Also, one could argue that the testing is irrelevant since (1) the victim will need to be tested for STIs independently of the accused (2) any medical treatment required for the victim will be guided by the results of the victim's tests and only marginally by the results of the accused's tests (3) it is likely that the victim would be given prophylactic (preventative) or pre-emptive treatment while awaiting results.

On balance - as you imply, there is a pretty obvious and persuasive ethical argument in favour of forced testing in this situation so I will not continue this objection.

Actually, you've convinced me. I did some more research, and usually the accused is tested as part of the prosecution, as a means to prove the case. In a rape case, for instance, if the accused has an STI and the victim suddenly has that STI also, that would be strong circumstantial evidence that the accused committed the crime.

That said, this act is about victims rights, not helping the prosecution. I changed the "testing" provision to make it more victim-centric. Hopefully Discoveria (and others) will approve the change.

I agree with Ambassador Turing here that testing for the alleged victim is much more important than testing of the accused. There may also be privacy considerations attendant upon the forced drawing of a blood sample (think DNA databases), especially from someone who has not been convicted of any crime. I don't think that forced testing of the accused is necessary, as what is important is whether the alleged victim has the disease, not whether the accused has it.

Agreed. As I mention above, the new draft has refocused the testing provision on the needs of the victim.

Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action;

This seems to give alleged victims the right to seek restitution before the resolution of the criminal trial, or even if the accused is acquitted. It makes sense to me to wait for the proper determination of actual guilt before proceeding to the restitution phase.

The idea is that victims must have the right to seek restitution. That can either be part of the criminal process (i.e. restitution ordered as part of a guilty sentence) or as an independent civil action.

It makes sense to allow the victim to seek restitution even from a person who has not been found guilty (or even has been acquitted). In many legal systems, the state's burden in criminal cases is higher than the burden on a civil plaintiff (i.e. guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a much higher standard than the "more likely than not" standard applied in civil court). Folks who are acquitted of criminal charges are often held accountable for damages in civil court (see O.J. Simpson)

Still, Quelesh is not the first nation to express concern about the restitution right. I'm very interested in ways to preserve the right of the victim to be made whole while also ensuring that this provision cannot be used against a truly innocent person.

Regarding the proposal, should in the event that the victim of the crime was killed and presumed dead before or during the course of the trial, would the rights of the victim presented in the proposal be extended to a member(s) of the victim's immediate family (if present)?

An amendment is recommended to address this concern due to the fact that crimes involving murder or the death of others usually results in the death of the victims in the process.

Agreed. An appropriate change has been made to the definition of "crime victim."

All of the comments and suggestions received so far are greatly appreciated.