Giving Crime Victims A Fighting Chance-A New National Victims Task Force

This article is available as a YouTube video.

Notes

I rarely use outside writers for this site, but Kurt Wolfgang, the Executive Director of the Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center, writes a compelling narrative advocating for a new National Task Force on Victims of Crime.

Kurt is reachable at kwolfgang@mdcrimevictims.org

As a former police officer, I witnessed firsthand the emotional and financial impact of criminal victimization. As the senior specialist for crime prevention for the US Department of Justice’s clearinghouse, and as the director of information services for the National Crime Prevention Council, I came into contact with state and national representatives of crime victims.

Crime victims are the unrepresented people in the criminal process. It’s heartbreaking to see people brutalized by crime revictimized by the justice system. We all have our causes, and we all like to believe that we are caring people willing to assist those in need. But this issue deserves our attention.

I can assure you that there is no category of people in need more worthy of your time and advocacy than victims of crime.  We within the justice system see it firsthand, and it stays with us for the rest of our lives.

Len Sipes, CrimeInAmerica.Net

Summation–Kurt Wolfgang

Forty-three years after President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime identified systemic failures in American justice, crime victims still largely lack a voice in the proceedings that affect their lives. This article offers two connected proposals to address that problem. First, the President should create a new Task Force on Victims of Crime to review what has changed since 1982, evaluate which reforms worked, and develop a clear plan for victim justice in the twenty-first century.

Second, and most important, the nation needs a comprehensive system of legal representation for crime victims—lawyers who formally represent victims during bail hearings, plea negotiations, trials, sentencing, and post-conviction processes. Rights without lawyers to enforce them are just words on paper, and this article argues that these two proposals are closely linked:

A new Task Force’s main goal should be to develop a funded, staffed, nationwide system of victim representation.

The article highlights the human toll of the current system through the stories of Lisa and Carla, whose experiences reflect documented, systemic failures across the country. It traces how victims have been gradually removed from their original role as key players in criminal prosecution, examines strong democratic support for victim rights demonstrated by ballot measures passing with over ninety percent approval, and notes the troubling trend of prosecutors cooperating with defendants against victim interests in resentencing and vacatur cases.

The Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center—the largest of its kind in the world—proves that a model of attorneys formally representing victims in criminal cases can work on a large scale. A new Task Force should study this
model and replicate it in every state, utilizing VOCA funding, state budgets, and court fees to ensure every crime victim in America has a lawyer who will stand with them and speak out when the system might otherwise silence their voice.

Article-Kurt Wolfgang

Empowering the Forgotten: Restoring Balance to American Justice. “The criminal justice system has lost an essential balance… The victims of crime have been transformed into a group oppressively burdened by a system designed to protect them.” – President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime.

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as
those who are.” — Benjamin Franklin

“A society that has lost its capacity for moral outrage is doomed.” — John Wolfgang.

I. Two Proposals to Transform Victim Justice

This Article advances two interconnected proposals that, together, would transform how America treats crime victims. These proposals are distinct but complementary—each necessary, neither sufficient alone.

First, the President should convene a new Task Force on Victims of Crime. In 1982, President Reagan established a Task Force that produced thefoundational document of the victims’ rights movement. Forty-three years later, that Task Force’s recommendations remain largely unfulfilled, and new challenges have emerged that its members could not have anticipated. A new Task Force should assess what has changed, evaluate which reforms have
succeeded and which have failed, and develop a concrete blueprint for victim justice in the twenty-first century.

Second, and most critically, the nation needs a comprehensive system of legal
representation for crime victims. Attorneys must be available to enter their appearance on behalf of victims in criminal cases—at bail hearings, plea negotiations, trials, sentencing proceedings, and post-conviction hearings. The prosecutor represents the state, not the individual victim. Victims need their own advocates, lawyers who will stand beside them in the courtroom and speak on their behalf when the system would otherwise silence them.

These two proposals are linked. The new Task Force should have as its central mandate the development of an implementation plan for national victim representation. The 1982 Task Force diagnosed the disease with remarkable clarity. What it lacked—and what a new Task Force must provide—is an operational cure: a funded, staffed, nationwide system of attorneys
representing victims in criminal proceedings.

Page 2 of 11

The following pages demonstrate why these reforms are urgently needed. They tell the stories of Lisa and Carla—composite victims whose experiences reflect the systemic failures documented nationwide. They trace the historical theft that stripped victims of their rightful role in the justice system. They examine the 1982 Task Force’s vision and its incomplete fulfillment. And they show why, in an era when prosecutors increasingly align with defendants against victim interests, independent victim representation has become not merely
desirable but essential.

II. The 1982 Task Force: A Roadmap Not Well Followed

In 1982, President Reagan’s Task Force on Victims of Crime laid bare the systemic failures that victimized crime victims a second time. In their letter to the President, the Task Force members reported: “The innocent victims of crime have been overlooked, their pleas for justice have gone unheeded, and their wounds—personal, emotional, and financial—have gone unattended.”

Chairman Lois Haight Herrington opened her Statement with a stark warning: “If we take the justice out of the criminal justice system, we leave behind a system that serves only the criminal.”

The Task Force saw what had happened to victims in the American system: “The victims of crime have been transformed into a group oppressively burdened by a system designed to protect them.” They did not mince words: “The neglect of crime victims is a national disgrace. The President is committed to ending that neglect and to restoring balance to the administration of justice.”

The Task Force urged Americans to confront the human reality of victimization: “You cannot appreciate the victim problem if you approach it solely with your intellect. The intellect rebels.” They gathered testimony from victims nationwide. One victim’s words captured the fundamental injustice:

They explained the defendant’s constitutional rights to the nth degree. They
couldn’t do this, and they couldn’t do that because of his constitutional rights.
And I wondered what mine were. And they told me, I haven’t got any.

The Task Force documented a system that had lost its way. Victims described being asked, in open court before strangers, “Are you the one who was raped?” They told of being forced to testify about the most traumatic moments of their lives while the defendant’s lawyer stared at them, while their attacker sat feet away. One mother testified that her daughter “had to sit alone and recount, as you did, each minute of the attack. You know how difficult it was for
you to speak of these things; you cannot imagine how it was for a child.”

President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime, Final Report, at vi (1982) [hereinafter Task Force Report].

Page 3 of 11

The Task Force demanded real fixes: mandatory restitution in all cases, victim impact statements at sentencing, notice to victims before any release, protection from intimidation, and prosecutors who fight for the survivor, not just the docket.

“For too long, the victims of crime have been the forgotten persons of our criminal justice system.” – President Ronald Reagan.

Most ambitiously, the Task Force proposed amending the Sixth Amendment itself to include: “Likewise, the victim, in every criminal prosecution shall have the right to be present and to be heard at all critical stages of judicial proceedings.” The Task Force concluded with a plea: “Our sole desire is to restore a balance to the scales of
justice.”

Forty-three years later, we need a new Task Force to finish what Reagan started. While tantalizing shreds of progress show—statutes in fifty states, constitutional amendments in thirty-three—victims still lack one critical thing that would make their rights enforceable: attorneys to represent them in court. The 1982 Task Force dreamed of justice. So far, victims have received many changes as paper promises. A new Task Force must deliver the reality:
among many other changes to cope with the vicissitudes of the 21st century, lawyers who enter their appearance on behalf of crime victims and fight for them in every courtroom in America.

“The American justice system suffers from too many protections for the accused and too few protections for the victims and potential victims of crime.” – Chief Justice Warren Burger.

III. Lisa’s Hallway: The Adult Offender’s Free Ride

Lisa Coan is twenty-nine years old. She is a nursing student with dreams of saving lives, but now she is the one who needs saving. Her husband, Mike, was her anchor. He had a steady job earning $100,000 a year and provided health insurance for their family. One night, a man in a ski mask kicked in their door. He tied Mike to a chair, forced him to watch as he raped Lisa, and then shot Mike through the temple. Lisa’s screams still echo in her dreams. She wakes up alone, with no health insurance, no income, and kids who ask where
Daddy is. She drives to the courthouse for the bail hearing, hands shaking on the wheel. The judge sets bail at $100,000. Lisa wants to scream, “He will come for me!” But the bailiff says, “You are not allowed to speak here.” The defendant’s cousin posts $10,000, and the killer walks free.

The stories of Lisa and Carla are composites of real cases. Each horrific experience listed occurred to clients of MCVRC and have been consolidated into the fictional characters of Lisa and Carla.

Page 4 of 11

If Lisa had an attorney, she could have been heard. A victim’s attorney would have entered an appearance on her behalf, presented evidence of the defendant’s dangerousness, and argued against release. Instead, Lisa sat silent while a dangerous criminal – an accused murderer walked out the courthouse door. “All we ask is that we be treated just like a criminal.” – Testimony of a crime victim before Congress.

The state rolls out the red carpet for the defendant. It provides him with two public defenders, each earning $115,000 annually.  It covers the costs of DNA experts, crime scene investigators, and psychiatric evaluators. The killer receives everything he needs as part of his defense package. Lisa gets a pamphlet about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. No one tells her it will take a year to see even a dime.

At trial, the court bars Lisa from the courtroom. “Your testimony might be tainted by hearing the testimony of others,” the prosecutor says. She sits on a hard wooden bench in the hallway for two weeks, asking strangers for updates. A janitor whispers, “They are arguing about gunshot residue.” She nods her gratitude, numb.

If Lisa had an attorney, she could have attended her husband’s murder trial. Federal law and most state laws now protect victims’ right to be present. But rights without lawyers to assert them are worthless. A victim’s attorney would have filed a motion, cited the statute, and ensured Lisa witnessed the proceedings that would determine her family’s fate. Lisa writes a victim impact statement, with her hands trembling.

She heard from a friend that she did not have to share it before sentencing, so she did not. The prosecutor is angry because she would not show it to him in advance. However, if he obtained it, he would be required to share it with the defendant’s lawyer. After all, the rights of the Defendant, even the convicted criminal, are paramount.

The judge allows her to read it, even though he has already decided the sentence after conferring informally with the attorneys in chambers. Lisa stands, with voice cracking, and tells them about the nightmares, the kids’ therapy bills she cannot pay, and the eviction notice. She tells them the world will never know the goodness embodied in her husband. Neither will her children get to appreciate how good their father was. They are so young that they probably won’t remember him. The judge nods politely. After hearing from the defendant, his mother, and his pastor, the judge imposes a life sentence, suspending all but twenty years.

The judge imposed a diminished sentence, citing the murderer’s tender
age of 24. (The judge states that individuals are not entirely responsible for their actions until their brains are fully developed at age 25.) By age 25, Lisa had completed five years in the Navy as a Nuclear Propulsion technician. Her job was to monitor the nuclear propulsion system on an aircraft carrier. 

This salary assumes more experienced public defenders, since the example case is a serious murder.

Page 5 of 11

No restitution is ordered because the prosecutor did not discuss it with her. No one tells Lisa about parole hearings. The killer receives free healthcare, mental health counseling, and a bed. Lisa buys a bus pass and carries $500 in monthly grocery debt. Twenty years later, the defendant files for mandatory resentencing—his right under recent law “reforms”. The original judge is retired, and the prosecutor teaches law school. Only Lisa remains.

The defendant claims the sex was consensual, and the shooting was self-defense. Lisa begs: “He tied Mike up. Made him watch. Do not let him rewrite this.”

If Lisa had an attorney, she would have had more than tears. A victim’s attorney, given some standing to fight, would have filed a brief opposing resentencing, subpoenaed records, and challenged the defendant’s false claims with evidence. Instead, Lisa stood alone against a defendant with court-appointed counsel, investigators, and experts—all free.

Lisa’s story illustrates why both proposals in this Article are essential. A new Task Force must document how the system has failed victims like Lisa and develop a plan for national victim representation, and the ability to participate, fight, where it is appropriate. And that representation must include attorneys who enter their appearance on behalf of victims and advocate for them at every stage—from bail to resentencing, from the first hearing to the last.

IV. Carla’s Silence: The Juvenile System’s Blind Spot

Carla Rivera waited years to emigrate to America legally. She crossed an ocean to save her boys, Miguel and Juan, from El Salvador’s gangs. She settled in Baltimore’s Pigtown—a neighborhood she picked for its quiet streets and its basketball court where her sons could play. Miguel, fourteen, was the dreamer—scholarship-bound. Juan, twelve, was his shadow.

One Saturday, Miguel and Juan are at the basketball court. Ricardo, fourteen, and Nikki, seventeen, roll up wearing gang colors. Ricardo has a Glock—no serial number, bought for $50. They want the court. Ricardo fires fourteen shots. Miguel’s head takes the first—he is gone before he hits the asphalt. Juan’s thigh and spine shatter; he will never walk again.

Under Davis v. State, Maryland’s highest court ruled that juveniles fourteen to seventeen should rarely be tried as adults, not even for murder. “Amenability to treatment is the ultimate factor; the offense is only context.” Ricardo and Nikki will be tried in juvenile court. Carla is told she may give a victim impact statement, but otherwise cannot participate.

If Carla had an attorney and some measure of standing, she could have fought for adult prosecution. A victim’s attorney could have filed motions, presented evidence of the premeditated nature of the attack, and argued that the juvenile system could not adequately protect the community or provide justice for a murdered child.

Page 6 of 11

Carla files for compensation, with a $25,000 cap. Miguel’s funeral costs $9,850. Juan’s medical bills total $27,874.92. His wheelchair costs $15,000; his meds cost $400 a month.24 The state spends $65,000 per child on Ricardo and Nikki’s rehabilitation, including therapy, art classes, and basketball. Carla sells her car to cover rent.

Five months later, Ricardo and Nikki are released. Three weeks later, their gang posts a YouTube video: Ricardo waving gang signs, the others rapping: “Miguel’s gone, Juan’s wheels spin, Pigtown’s ours, we always win.” A million views. Carla calls the police. They say the video is not a crime.

If Carla had an attorney, she could have sought consequences. A victim’s attorney could have moved for revocation of release, presented the video as evidence of continued gang affiliation and lack of rehabilitation, and argued that the juvenile system’s confidence in these offenders was misplaced.

Justice Hotten’s dissent in Davis predicted this: “The victim’s voice is a footnote while the offender’s brain scan is scripture.”

Carla’s case demonstrates why a new Task Force must address the juvenile system specifically, and why victim representation must extend to juvenile proceedings. The 1982 Task Force could not have anticipated the dramatic expansion of juvenile protections that now shield even murderers and rapists from meaningful accountability. A new Task Force should examine these developments and ensure that victim attorneys can enter their
appearance in juvenile cases just as they do in adult proceedings.

V. The Historical Theft: When Victims Held the Reins

The victim’s exclusion from criminal proceedings is a historical accident, not a logical necessity. For most of Anglo-American legal history, victims ran the show. In 1638, in Maryland, a widow named Mary Mathews dragged a thief before the Provincial Court and recovered double damages—no prosecutor needed. In England, victims could post bonds to pursue prosecution; the system belonged to the victims.

Then the state stepped in. By 1818, Maryland’s Judiciary Act handed prosecutorial power to the Attorney General. Victims became witnesses—compellable evidence. The prosecutor represented “the People,” a fiction that conveniently excluded actual people who had actually been harmed. Award-winning victim’s advocate – attorney Steve Twist summarized the
transformation: “The state turned justice into bureaucracy and the victim into a bystander.”

Page 7 of 11

This history matters for both proposals. A new Task Force should document how victims lost their historical role and develop a plan to restore it. And victim representation—attorneys entering appearances on behalf of victims—is the mechanism by which that restoration can occur. When victims had their own advocates in court, they had power. When the state took over prosecution, that power was lost. Providing victim attorneys would restore what was
taken.

VI. The Sovereign Roars: Public Demand for Victim Rights

The American people—the Sovereign—have spoken on victim rights with a near-unanimous voice. Maryland’s constitutional amendment passed with 92.5% support in 1994—the most significant margin for any contested ballot measure the author has found. California’s Proposition 9 passed with 91.4% of the vote. Florida’s Marsy’s Law passed with 85.8%.

These margins are extraordinary. In the modern polarized electorate, victim rights command support that clearly transcends partisan division. The democratic mandate is clear. Yet the system ignores the voters. Prosecutors cut deals without consulting victims. Judges impose sentences without ordering restitution. Parole boards release offenders without notifying
survivors.

The explanation is straightforward: victims have rights on paper but no lawyers to enforce them. Thirty-five states shut the door entirely to allowing victim attorneys to appear in criminal proceedings. Only six states allow victim attorneys from the beginning of a case. Nine more allow intervention only after rights have been violated. The defendant has a constitutional right to counsel under Gideon v. Wainwright.

The victim has no parallel right. This disparity is not constitutionally required—it is a policy choice. A new Task Force should recommend revising that policy, and the core of that change should be establishing a mechanism for attorneys to enter their appearance on behalf of victims nationwide.

VII. One-Tenth of One Percent: The Representation Vacuum

The Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center—forty-one dedicated souls, twenty-one attorneys—fights for any victim in any Maryland case: theft, rape, domestic violence, homicide. In 2024, MCVRC helped 1,300 new victims. Combined with our existing cases,we serve thousands of Maryland victims and survivors every year. Yet this reaches only one-tenth of one percent of Maryland’s crime victims.

MCVRC is exceptional—perhaps unique. It is the largest organization of its kind in the world, providing free legal services to crime victims in court during criminal proceedings against their offender. MCVRC attorneys enter their appearance on behalf of victims icriminal cases. They file motions, argue at hearings, and advocate for victim interests in adversarial proceedings. The model works. The problem is scale. Even though it represents
thousands of victims per year, MCVRC serves only a minuscule fraction of Maryland’s victims.

Page 8 of 11

Despite this fact, the plight of victims in many other states is worse. They have no one to represent them, and no legal mechanism for their views to be heard.

A new Task Force should study the MCVRC model and develop a plan to replicate MCVRC nationwide. Every state should have victim rights agencies staffed with attorneys who enter appearances on behalf of crime victims. Funding should come from VOCA grants, state appropriations, and court fees.

The 1982 Task Force lacked a working model to recommend. Now we have one. A new Task Force should scale it. 10 other organizations currently provide legal representation in criminal cases in the U.S., and many of them deserve
recognition for their work. But combined, those ten do not represent as many victims in a year as MCVRC. Those organizations should be strengthened and enlarged. In states where no help exists, we need new organizations.

VIII. When Prosecutors Side with Defendants

A development the 1982 Task Force could not have anticipated makes victim representation more essential than ever: prosecutors increasingly align with defendants against victim interests. In resentencing and vacatur proceedings, prosecutors and defense attorneys now frequently work together to file joint motions that orphan victims.

Professors Levine and Wright document this phenomenon: “Prosecutorial open-mindedness, in tandem with defense endorsement of a new forum to reduce some sentences, leads the groups to work alongside each other, to identify candidates for resentencing, and to present those candidates to judges for review.”

This collaboration is marketed as correcting “mass incarceration.” The costs are rarely mentioned. Violent offenders have a 66% rearrest rate within five years.36 Younger releasees reoffend at even higher rates. Early release creates future victims. The Syed v. Lee case illustrates the problem. The Baltimore prosecutor moved to vacate a murder conviction. The
victim’s family learned of the motion days before the hearing. They had no lawyer, no discovery, no meaningful opportunity to respond. When prosecutors switch sides, victims are orphaned.

In Syed, the victim’s family was treated scandalously by the prosecutor. The victim was told on a Friday that on Monday, the prosecutor intended to reverse the conviction of the murderer of their loved one after more than twenty years. It was only at this late stage that the family of the murder victim became represented and fought. 

Page 9 of 11

These developments make both proposals in this Article urgent. A new Task Force must examine how prosecutor-defendant alignment and other faddish “reforms” have changed the landscape and recommend safeguards. In my forty-plus years of representing the needs of crime victims, two of the most harmful changes affecting victims are faddish “reforms”.

Second Look, Second Chance laws allow convicted violent offenders to demand multiple resentencing proceedings.

Among other problems, this forces the survivors back to court
time and again to relive their horrors. The system has deliberately chosen to overlook the cruelty to the survivors in favor of perceived good for the convicted violent offender.

The other offensive “reform” is the trend of overloading juvenile justice processes with the most egregious offenses. In other words, the national trend is away from charging juveniles as adults in violent crimes. In short, the juvenile system was never intended to accommodate the most violent of offenders.

“Reformers” focus their efforts on forcing that square peg into the round hole. As a result, juveniles who commit the most heinous offenses experience alarmingly short periods of custodial accommodation. When they exit the juvenile system, they leave without consideration of parole or probation. They also retain their anonymity, so employers, friends, and romantic partners cannot learn that they have been adjudicated for heinous offenses.

Victim representation—attorneys entering appearances on behalf of victims—is the essential safeguard. Attorneys whose interests are the victims’ and survivors’ alone can give victims a fighting chance. When prosecutors cannot be relied upon to represent victim interests, victims must have their own advocates.

IX. A Twenty-First-Century Blueprint: Scholarly Support

Leading scholars support expanding victim participation in criminal proceedings. Professor Paul Cassell advocates for cost-of-crime accounting in every case and has argued that victims should be integrated into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Professor Steve Twist proposes victim input approaching a veto over release decisions.41 Professor Stephanos Bibas argues that victims should be able to challenge rehabilitation claims. Professor Amanda Pustilnik sees quasi-party status for victims in post-conviction proceedings.

These proposals share a familiar premise: victims have legitimate interests that require representation to be vindicated. A new Task Force should synthesize this scholarship and translate academic insights into operational reality. The mechanism is clear: attorneys who enter their appearance on behalf of crime victims and advocate for them throughout the criminal process.

 

Page 10 of 11

X. The Path Forward: A New Task Force and National Representation

The President should convene a new Task Force on Victims of Crime with a specific mandate: to develop, within two years, a comprehensive plan for implementing victim representation nationwide.

The Task Force should include victim advocates, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, academics, and—most importantly—crime victims and survivors. It should conduct hearings across the country, as the 1982 Task Force did, to document current conditions. Its mandate should include:

1. Revisiting the importance of elevating the rights of crime victims to the US
Constitution. The failure to make a Constitutional amendment leaves the rights of crime victims on inferior footing to the rights of criminal defendants and even
convicted criminals. The resulting inefficacy of victims’ rights measures over these forty-four years could be the proper subject of its own lengthy article.
2. Assessing which 1982 Task Force recommendations have been implemented and which remain unfulfilled;
3. Evaluating new challenges: juvenile justice reform, prosecutor-defendant
alignment, bail reform, brain-science sentencing mitigation;
4. Identifying best practices from states that have implemented victim representation;
5. Developing model legislation for state adoption;
6. Most critically, developing an implementation plan for attorneys to enter their
appearance on behalf of crime victims in criminal proceedings nationwide.

The core of the Task Force’s work should be national victim representation. This system should include:

Independent victim rights entities: Each state should establish an entity (a nonprofit or similar organization) separate from the prosecutor’s office to represent crime victims, or strengthen an existing service. Independence is essential because prosecutors have institutional interests that may conflict with the victim’s interests.

Attorneys who enter appearances: Victim attorneys should formally enter their
appearance in criminal cases, just as defense counsel does. This ensures victims have standing and receive notice of all proceedings.

Participation at every critical stage: Victim attorneys should participate in bail
hearings, plea negotiations, trials, sentencing, and all post-conviction proceedings, including parole, resentencing, and vacatur. Victims must be given a modicum of standing to fight substantive issues, where appropriate. Victim input may not be applicable in some circumstances, but those details can be addressed once the general rights and standing to participate are established.
Sustainable funding: Funding for these victim-attorney efforts should come from
VOCA grants, state appropriations, and fees assessed against convicted defendants.

Page 11 of 11

XI. Conclusion

Rights without remedies are mere words.44 The 1982 Task Force gave us rights. Forty-three years later, we still lack the remedies to enforce them.

Lisa sat in a hallway for two weeks while strangers decided whether the man who raped her and murdered her husband would face justice. Carla buried her son and pushed her other son’s wheelchair past a YouTube video mocking their pain. The defendants got lawyers, experts, appeals, and therapy. The victims got pamphlets.

The 1982 Task Force called victim neglect “a national disgrace.” It remains one. The Task Force’s sole desire was “to restore a balance to the scales of justice.” The scales remain pitifully unbalanced, in a manner and to a degree that is obvious and undeniable to anyone who has become a victim.

The solution requires two steps. First, the President must convene a new Task Force to assess changes since 1982 and develop a concrete plan for the twenty-first century. Second, that plan must establish a national system of victim representation—attorneys who enter their appearance on behalf of crime victims and advocate for them in every courtroom in America.

The voters have spoken—by margins exceeding ninety percent. The scholars have spoken. The victims have spoken. It is time for the system to listen. Give victims lawyers. Give victims a voice. Give victims justice. Re-focus the spotlight of justice. Use a bifocal lens. One focal point should be a just and fair process. The other focal point should be the systemic attempt to restore the victim’s health, worth, dignity, respect, peace of mind, and sanity.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Kurt Wolfgang is the Executive Director of the Maryland Crime Victims’ Resource Center. Along with Captain Vincent and Roberta Roper, he was one of the founders of the Center, which was formed in 1982, in honor of Stephanie Roper, who was tragically murdered that year.

Mr. Wolfgang is a former prosecutor and former Director of Intergovernmental Affairs for the National District Attorneys Association. He has received recognition from the White House, the Department of Justice, two Maryland governors, and other agencies for his work on behalf of crime victims. Major Wolfgang was an Air Force pilot for twenty-two years and served in combat in Panama, Iraq, the Middle East, and Somalia.

The author invites other points of view. Please send your thoughts and comments to kwolfgang@mdcrimevictims.org