“My Role Is Important, but Not Critical”: Why Intention Matters in the Creation of Victim Assistance Units in Israel

ABSTRACT

Crime victims often need assistance navigating the unfamiliar legal system. Limited research exists, however, on those tasked with helping victims, the victim assistance units (VAUs), particularly outside the US. Indeed, there have been calls in the literature for more comparative research in this area. Responding to their call, this exploratory study analyzes the creation of VAUs within the district attorney’s offices (DAO) in Israel following specific victims’ rights legislation. Using qualitative interviews with representatives from three quarters of the VAUs in Israel (N = 6), the paper explores the formation of two models of VAUs, examines the specific location of the VAU within the DAOs, and analyzes various influences on the work of the VAU. I argue that limited resources, cultural organization and professional ethos prevent VAUs from fully addressing victims’ needs. In order to best respond to victims’ needs, the VAUs should expand their contact with victims and receive sufficient resources to do so. The Israeli case study demonstrates that to best assist victims, VAUs should be created with a “victim-centered” agenda. This study advances our knowledge of victim workers outside the US, highlighting the impact of their DAO’s affiliation and its potential impact on victims.

KEYWORDS:

• Therapeutic jurisprudence
• victims of crime
• victim workers
• qualitative methods
• victim/witness units
• vertical prosecution

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to study respondents who generously shared their experiences and reflections. I also wish to thank Drs. Jennifer Wood, Corey Shdaimah, and Amarat Zaatut for their helpful suggestions for the manuscript. I am equally grateful to Chelsey Donohoe for her timely assistance with the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. The Israeli criminal justice system is similar to common law systems with the exception of no juries. All trials are bench trials, either in front of a single judge or a panel of three judges.

2. This statutory entity is the equivalent of the Office of the Inspector General in the U.S. Department of Justice and to some extent resembles the European Ombudsman. Its original role was to carry out systematic audits and investigate complaints against the state attorney’s office, the police prosecution system, and any other attorney representing the state of Israel. This entity has undergone several changes of its structure and jurisdiction.

3. For hundreds of years until the Middle Ages, it was customary to view criminal law as a personal rivalry between the victim and the offender, and criminal law was fundamentally a law of torts that was dependent on the victim’s initiative. Even when criminal proceedings were transferred into the hands of the church and the state, the victim still had to take the initiative in order to instigate a proceeding. It was only since the end of the 19^th century that crimes against victims were considered crimes against the state, and consequently, the state became responsible for initiating and conducting the criminal procedure. As a result, over the last 200 years the criminal process was expropriated from the victim’s hands. The global trend of the last few decades tries to restore the pendulum to a more balanced position and to allow the victim some extent of participation in the criminal trial (Gros, 2002; Pugach, 2004).

4. Following legislative changes, victims in many adversarial systems including Israel now have the right to express their opinion at the sentencing hearing, either in a written victim impact statement or orally in an allocution; however, even if the victim is given a chance to exercise this right, the prosecutor and the judge have no formal obligation to take the victim’s written or oral statement into account in the sentencing (Davis & Mulford, 2008).

5. Published in March 21st, 2001, page 183 in the national legal Journal, and was reprinted again on May 24th 2001 on page 390 in the national legal Journal. The law officially went into full effect only in April 2005, but some of its articles were implemented years later (Shoham & Gideon, 2014).

6. The exact division of labor between the Police Prosecution and the State Attorney’s and District Attorney’s Offices is specified in the Israeli Criminal Procedure Law of 1982, including some discretionary power to relegate specific cases from one prosecutorial authority to the other. The VAUs were established only within the District Attorney’s Offices.

7. Since the interviews have been conducted, a VAU was established in the Northern DA’s Office and within the State Attorney’s Office.

8. In light of the professional relationship between the interviewer and the interviewees, it was deemed inappropriate to offer compensation to the interviewees.

9. To allow the reader to identify quotes by the same interviewees, the notation AP (Assistant Prosecutor) and a consecutive number was assigned to each of the interviewees (AP1, AP2 … etc.)

10. The Israeli State Attorney have traditionally held a decentralized approach, such that each DA’s Office, although they are subordinate to the State Attorney’s Office, maintain their relative independence and act according to their specific district’s needs and resources. There are few organizational directives that all DA’s Offices must comply with uniformly.