JustAnswer



Criminal justice satisfaction has wide applicability. After all, each stakeholder and participant within the criminal justice system will have certain requirements that must be satisfied to increase perceived satisfaction (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 5; Stickels, 2008). For example, victims’ satisfaction levels with the criminal justice system would hinge on the sense of retribution or restitution sentencing offered, the fairness of the court proceedings and/or the investigation itself (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 5-7; Stickels, 2008). Any and/or all of these inform victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22). They also inform other areas since each component is interdependent.

Victim Satisfaction Study Summary

In the 2003 study Victim Satisfaction with Criminal Justice Case Processing in a Model Court Setting, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) examined victim satisfaction with the Quincy District Court system. The research investigated the relationship between the court and these victims solely relative to domestic violence (p. 3). Nevertheless, this study necessitated the exploration of numerous court processes and procedures (p. 23). It required critical thinking to discern whether these processes or procedures were positively correlated with victim satisfaction and which ones were primary in this regard (p. 22, 23).

Defining Variables and Characteristics

Additionally, researchers had to consider the demographics of the victims. Age, race, and employment status served as characteristics (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 3). The study incident consisted of (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003) sustained injury, presence of a weapon and/or whether a restraining was in effect at the time. The third prong consisted of the history of offending or victimization (p. 3). This truncated a series of questions including (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003) the number of prior charges filed against an offender, the number of prior restraining orders requested and/or granted, and victim history of physical and/or sexual abuse (p. 3). These defined the victims and helped researchers discern which traits or characteristics informed a victim’s level of satisfaction with the Quincy District Court (p. 3).

The other prongs of this examination explored which aspects of the criminal justice system, the points of contact satisfied the victim or failed to do so. For example (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003), the team asked whether the victims believed that police did everything the victim expected, whether the prosecutor and the court somehow empowered the victim and gave the victim a sense of control and/or whether the threat of prosecution made the offender angry, fearful, etc. (p. 3). In light of all these areas, the fifth aspect of the study analyzed the gap between victim satisfaction with the Quincy District Court, victim preferences and criminal justice action. The latter of these varied widely. In fact, Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) defined this category by including, victim’s preference for arrest of the offender, criminal charges different from the ones filed against the offender, whether the victim did not want prosecution or charges filed against the offender, whether the victim wanted the option of court and whether the desired outcome extending from the court significantly differed from the one desired by the victim (p. 3).

Hypotheses Formulation and Study Rationale

Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) contended that policy and procedures in force are implemented to promote help-seeking behaviors (p. ). However, Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) used more recent research findings to show a gap between victim satisfaction, victim reporting and willingness to seek help based upon their perceptions of the criminal justice system. Since the criminal justice procedures in the Quincy Court District are unified, Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) sought to explicate how victim preferences for action and criminal justice responses to such could delimit or encourage help-seeing, reporting and/or prosecution. More importantly, perhaps, Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) identified clusters of variable that could be positively correlated with victim satisfaction. Accordingly, they set forth a series of hypotheses and ultimately set forth a hypothesis for further research. They are as follows (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22):

➢ Demographic characteristics and the types of incident will be positively correlated with perceived victim satisfaction (p. 22).

In other words, dependent upon the presence of a weapon, a restraining order in effect and/or sustained injuries and the victim’s race, age, and employment status, the victim would be satisfied with the criminal justice system (p. 22).

Null hypothesis: Regardless of race, age or employment status, victim satisfaction when

in the presence of a weapon, when injuries are sustained and/or an order of protection is

in effect will not change victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system (p. 22).

➢ History of offending and victimization will inspire victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22).

o In other words, the number restraining orders requested or obtained, the number of charges filed against offenders and/or the victim’s history of physical and sexual abuse will inspire greater victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system (Hotaling & Buzawa, 203, p. 22).

o Null hypothesis- victim satisfaction will remain constant regardless of the number of restraining orders requested and obtained, the number of charges filed against offenders and the victim’s history with physical and/or sexual abuse (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22).

➢ Criminal justice system contact and the effects thereof will increase or decrease victim satisfaction.

o In other words, a victim’s belief that the police did everything expected, whether the victim and court empowered the victim to be part of the process, and/.or whether the threat of prosecution inspired fear or anger in the offender will be positively correlated with victim satisfaction (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22).

o Null hypothesis: Irrespective of police actions, victim empowerment in the court process and/or offenders’ reactions to the threat of prosecution, victim satisfactions levels will remain constant or unaffected (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22).

➢ The gap between the criminal justice action and victim preference will be positively correlated with victim satisfaction (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22, 23).

o In other words, whether the victim’s preference was honored, whether the offender was arrested or not aligned with the victim preferences, whether the charges filed differed significantly from those desired by the victim, whether the victim wanted to go to court, prosecution occurred, and the court outcome differed from the one desired by the victim, satisfaction should reflect victim preferences (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22, 23)

o Null hypothesis: Whether the victim’s preferences are honored, victim satisfaction levels remain constant (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 22).

The Unaddressed Hypothesis for Further Study

Based upon all these results and findings the final hypothesis relative to the criminal justice system would be:

➢ If the victim’s preferences are honored, the police and court system act in ways that empower the victim, victims will express greater satisfaction with the Quincy District Court System.

o Null hypothesis- If police, the prosecutor and the court follow policy and procedures irrespective of victims’ preferences victim satisfaction with the Quincy District Court will remain constant.

Findings

Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) revealed that charged filed against the offenders (misdemeanors) despite the level of violence and threat were much lesser than those desired. This led to lesser satisfaction (p. 30). Women were (Hotaling & Buzawa , 2003) generally satisfied with the police response, somewhat satisfied with the victim advocate and somewhat satisfied to somewhat dissatisfied with the prosecutor’s office (p. 30).

Under certain conditions, victim satisfaction did not differ. These included (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003) the actions taken by criminal justice offenders. This validated the null hypothesis in this instance. However, certain factors were most predictive of satisfaction including but not limited to (Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003, p. 30): victim injury, use of a weapon, 6 or more prior charges against the offender, the empowerment of the victim, offender’s reaction to the threat of prosecution, whether victim’s preference for offender arrest was honored and whether the victim disagreed with the prosecutor about charges (p. 30).

Conclusion

Based upon the findings articulated by Hotaling & Buzawa (2003) one would expect the unproven hypothesis set forth by this study to be validated through further inquiry. Accordingly, the court system, policies and practice should consider the victim’s preferences and perceptions. Merely performing duties based upon protocol could actually lessen incidence reporting.

References

Hotaling, G.T. & Buzawa, E.S. (2003). Victim satisfaction with the criminal justice case

processing in a model court setting. U.S. Department of justice. Retrieved from

Stickels, J. (2008). The victim satisfaction model of the criminal justice system. Journal of

Criminology and Criminal Justice Research & Education, 2(1). Retrieved from



................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download