Congressional Victim‑Rights Rationale Cited in Discussion of Jeffrey Epstein Pre‑Charging Issue

2014] CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS 67 independent standing to assert.** Congress viewed these provisions as establishing a victim’s right “to participate in the process where the information that [victims] and their families can provide may be material and relevant... .”°° Congress appears to have had both intrinsic and instrumental reasons for wanting crime victim participation. Congress clearly thought that such participation was valuable in its own night. Senator Kyl embodied this belief and explained his decision to become involved in the crime victims’ rights movement because of his discovery that victims: were suffering through the trauma of the victimization and then being thrown into a system which they did not understand, which nobody was helping them with, and which literally prevented them from participation in any meaningful way. I came to realize there were literally millions of people out there being denied these basic rights. ... But Congress also thought crime victim participation in the criminal justice system could be instrumentally useful. For example, in protecting a victim’s right to be heard by those determining a defendant’s sentence, a victim might be able to provide important information that could alter that sentence. As a result, the sentence might reflect a fuller appreciation of the danger posed by a defendant, and the judge might take appropriate steps to prevent others from being victimized.*’ Congress also intended to ensure that crime victims were not revictimized in the criminal justice process—that is, that they would not suffer what scholars have called “secondary harm” in the process.** The concem is that victims suffer when they are excluded from the criminal justice process. Congress sought to end that suffering by making victims meaningful participants in criminal cases.*° C. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE PRE-CHARGING ISSUE: THE JEFFREY EPSTEIN CASE Given the potentially expansive scope of victims’ rights under both state provisions and the CVRA, a critical question arises about how to apply them: Do the nghts come into existence only after prosecutors formally file 34 Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d), with Susan Bandes, Victim Standing, 1999 Utau L. REV. 331, 344-45 (illustrating the debate surrounding victim standing prior to adoption of the CVRA). 35 150 Conc. REc. 7296 (statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein). 3° Td. at 7298 (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). 37 Td. 38 See, e.g., Douglas Evan Beloof, The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim Participation Model, 1999 UTAHL. REV. 289, 294-96; Richard A. Bierschbach, Allocution and the Purposes of Victim Participation Under the CVRA, 19 FED. SENT’G REP. 44, 46 (2006). 3° 150 Conc. REC. 7298 (statement of Sen. Jon Kyl). HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014046