Group items tagged

horizontal line break Chapter 3 Specific Justice Systems and Victims' Rights Section 2, Federal Justice Abstract Since the passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implementation of victims' rights and provision of quality victim services at the federal level. The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, as well as the passage of six major federal laws affecting victims, define the scope of victims' rights and services for victims of federal crimes. Efforts at the federal level to coordinate the delivery of services to victims have produced collaborative initiatives that improve victims' rights and services. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this section, students will understand the following concepts: * Major laws affecting federal victims of crime. * The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. * The Office for Victims of Crime response to coordinate services and assistance to federal crime victims. * The availability and coordination of victims' rights and services at the federal level. * Significant federal initiatives that have strengthened victims' rights and services at the federal level. Statistical Overview * During 1998, U.S. Attorneys initiated investigations involving 115,692 suspects for possible violations of federal law. Almost a third (32%) of those investigated were suspected of a drug violation (BJS September 1999). * Between 1994 and 1998, investigations initiated by U.S. Attorneys have increased by 16.5%--from 99,251 to 115,692. Investigations for immigration violations increased from 5,526 to 14,114; investigations for drug offenses increased from 29,311 to 36,355 (Ibid.). * Criminal charges were filed against 78,172 defendants in U.S. district courts during 1998--a 25% increase since 1994 (Ibid.). * In 1998, 89.9% of defendants charged with felonies were convic

horizontal line break Chapter 3 Specific Justice Systems and Victims' Rights Section 2, Federal Justice Abstract Since the passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implementation of victims' rights and provision of quality victim services at the federal level. The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, as well as the passage of six major federal laws affecting victims, define the scope of victims' rights and services for victims of federal crimes. Efforts at the federal level to coordinate the delivery of services to victims have produced collaborative initiatives that improve victims' rights and services. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this section, students will understand the following concepts: * Major laws affecting federal victims of crime. * The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. * The Office for Victims of Crime response to coordinate services and assistance to federal crime victims. * The availability and coordination of victims' rights and services at the federal level. * Significant federal initiatives that have strengthened victims' rights and services at the federal level. Statistical Overview * During 1998, U.S. Attorneys initiated investigations involving 115,692 suspects for possible violations of federal law. Almost a third (32%) of those investigated were suspected of a drug violation (BJS September 1999). * Between 1994 and 1998, investigations initiated by U.S. Attorneys have increased by 16.5%--from 99,251 to 115,692. Investigations for immigration violations increased from 5,526 to 14,114; investigations for drug offenses increased from 29,311 to 36,355 (Ibid.). * Criminal charges were filed against 78,172 defendants in U.S. district courts during 1998--a 25% increase since 1994 (Ibid.). * In 1998, 89.9% of defendants charged with felonies were con

Page 1 929 DIALOGUE Cognitive Processes Shaped by the Impulse to Blame Joshua Knobe † In his incisive and thought-provoking paper "Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame," Lawrence Solan points to a surprising fact about the cognitive processes underlying attributions of blame. 1 This surprising fact is that almost all of the processes that we use when trying to determine whether or not a person is blameworthy are also ones that we sometimes use even when we are not even considering the issue of blame. 2 Only a very small amount of processing is used exclusively when we are interested in questions of blame. This point can be made vivid with a simple example. Suppose that we witness a terrible accident and then assign an investigator to answer the question: "Why did this accident occur?" This investigator spends many months gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses, and considering arguments of various types. Finally, he comes back with a definite answer. And now suppose we tell him that we also want an answer to a second question, namely: "Was anyone to blame for this accident?" The investigator probably won't have to spend another few months answering this new question. It appears that almost all of the work has already been done; the investigator can simply take the results he has already obtained, do a little extra thinking, and come up with an answer. † Princeton University. I am grateful to Lawrence Solan and Gilbert Harman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 Lawrence M. Solan, Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse of Blame, 68 B ROOK . L. R EV . 1003 (2003). 2 Id. at 1004. Page 2 930 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2 Solan provides support for this initial intuition through a sophisticated analysis of the cognitive processes that underlie attributions of blame. Specifically, he shows that attributions of blame rely in a crucial way on judgments about mental states and about causal relations. 3 He then shows that we would have made

Page 1 929 DIALOGUE Cognitive Processes Shaped by the Impulse to Blame Joshua Knobe † In his incisive and thought-provoking paper "Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame," Lawrence Solan points to a surprising fact about the cognitive processes underlying attributions of blame. 1 This surprising fact is that almost all of the processes that we use when trying to determine whether or not a person is blameworthy are also ones that we sometimes use even when we are not even considering the issue of blame. 2 Only a very small amount of processing is used exclusively when we are interested in questions of blame. This point can be made vivid with a simple example. Suppose that we witness a terrible accident and then assign an investigator to answer the question: "Why did this accident occur?" This investigator spends many months gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses, and considering arguments of various types. Finally, he comes back with a definite answer. And now suppose we tell him that we also want an answer to a second question, namely: "Was anyone to blame for this accident?" The investigator probably won't have to spend another few months answering this new question. It appears that almost all of the work has already been done; the investigator can simply take the results he has already obtained, do a little extra thinking, and come up with an answer. † Princeton University. I am grateful to Lawrence Solan and Gilbert Harman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 Lawrence M. Solan, Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse of Blame, 68 B ROOK . L. R EV . 1003 (2003). 2 Id. at 1004. Page 2 930 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2 Solan provides support for this initial intuition through a sophisticated analysis of the cognitive processes that underlie attributions of blame. Specifically, he shows that attributions of blame rely in a crucial way on judgments about mental states and about causal relations. 3 He then shows that we would have made