Douglas Evan Beloof, ‘The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim
Participation Model’, Utah Law Review (1990), pp. 289 - 328
Introduction
The two models of Packer do not include a conceptual framework in which victim participation in the
criminal process can be understood. For a victim model to be useful, there needed to be a consensus
in law that the values underlying the victim’s roles are genuine and significant. This consensus in law
now exists. Therefore, Beloof introduces a third model: the Victim Participation Model. In proposing
a three-model concept, the point is not to advocate for or against particular victim laws, but to
provide a model helpful to understanding what has already been, and ay in the future be, legitimized
by society.
The Values Underlying the Three Models
A. The primary value underlying the Crime Control Model is the efficient suppression of crime
(assembly line).
B. Underlying the Due Process Model is the value of the primary importance of the individual
defendant and the related concept of limiting governmental power (obstacle course)
C. The primacy of the individual victim is the value underlying the Victim Participation Model.
This value is implicit in the language of federal and state statutes, and many state
constitutions; fairness to the victim, respect for the victim, and dignity of the victim.
The fundamental justification for providing due-process-like rights of participation (and
other types of rights) is to prevent the two kinds of harm to which the victim is exposed:
(1) primary harm, which results from the crime itself, and (2) secondary harm, which
comes from governmental processes and governmental actors within those processes.
The image of this model is that of victims following their own case down the assembly
line; victims consult informally with police and prosecutor; at formal proceedings, when
appropriate and in an appropriate manner, victims may speak and address the court.
The participation of the victim is designed to ensure that the interest of the individual
victim in the case is promoted. A core interest of the victim is that the truth be revealed
and an appropriate disposition reached.
Secondary harm may mean different things to different victims. Therefore, the
participation is, to a great extent, left up to the individual victim’s choice.
The public prosecutor will always be necessary where such choice is present, because it
remains important to society to prosecute certain crimes regardless of the victim’s level
of participation.
Unequal procedural treatment of similarly situated criminal defendants is possible
because victims are permitted to choose whether or not to informally or formally
influence decision makers concerning charging disposition, and because the victim has
the choice to assist or resist the position of either, or both, of the parties.
The values of both the Crime Control model and the Due Process model may be challenged when the
value of the primacy of the individual victim is added to the territory. The value of primacy of the
individual victim will inevitably conflict with the value of efficiency. Also, the value of primacy of the
victim may conflict with the value of primacy of the defendant.
Participation Model’, Utah Law Review (1990), pp. 289 - 328
Introduction
The two models of Packer do not include a conceptual framework in which victim participation in the
criminal process can be understood. For a victim model to be useful, there needed to be a consensus
in law that the values underlying the victim’s roles are genuine and significant. This consensus in law
now exists. Therefore, Beloof introduces a third model: the Victim Participation Model. In proposing
a three-model concept, the point is not to advocate for or against particular victim laws, but to
provide a model helpful to understanding what has already been, and ay in the future be, legitimized
by society.
The Values Underlying the Three Models
A. The primary value underlying the Crime Control Model is the efficient suppression of crime
(assembly line).
B. Underlying the Due Process Model is the value of the primary importance of the individual
defendant and the related concept of limiting governmental power (obstacle course)
C. The primacy of the individual victim is the value underlying the Victim Participation Model.
This value is implicit in the language of federal and state statutes, and many state
constitutions; fairness to the victim, respect for the victim, and dignity of the victim.
The fundamental justification for providing due-process-like rights of participation (and
other types of rights) is to prevent the two kinds of harm to which the victim is exposed:
(1) primary harm, which results from the crime itself, and (2) secondary harm, which
comes from governmental processes and governmental actors within those processes.
The image of this model is that of victims following their own case down the assembly
line; victims consult informally with police and prosecutor; at formal proceedings, when
appropriate and in an appropriate manner, victims may speak and address the court.
The participation of the victim is designed to ensure that the interest of the individual
victim in the case is promoted. A core interest of the victim is that the truth be revealed
and an appropriate disposition reached.
Secondary harm may mean different things to different victims. Therefore, the
participation is, to a great extent, left up to the individual victim’s choice.
The public prosecutor will always be necessary where such choice is present, because it
remains important to society to prosecute certain crimes regardless of the victim’s level
of participation.
Unequal procedural treatment of similarly situated criminal defendants is possible
because victims are permitted to choose whether or not to informally or formally
influence decision makers concerning charging disposition, and because the victim has
the choice to assist or resist the position of either, or both, of the parties.
The values of both the Crime Control model and the Due Process model may be challenged when the
value of the primacy of the individual victim is added to the territory. The value of primacy of the
individual victim will inevitably conflict with the value of efficiency. Also, the value of primacy of the
victim may conflict with the value of primacy of the defendant.
