sistance, and we look forward to your testimony in this respect. Mr. Ashlock.

PANEL CONSISTING OF DARRELL ASHLOCK, PRESIDENT, MISSOURI VICTIMS' ASSISTANCE NETWORK, JEFFERSON CITY, MO; KIM LeBARON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VICTIMS SUPPORT SERVICES, KIRKSVILLE, MO; JOE TAYLOR, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, AID FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, ST. LOUIS, MO; JOE BEDNAR, LEGAL COUNSEL, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, JEFFERSON CITY, MO; PAUL CASSELL, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, COLLEGE OF LAW, SALT LAKE CITY,

UT

STATEMENT OF DARRELL ASHLOCK

Mr. ASHLOCK. The first thing I'd like to say is, my heart goes out to those folks that went before us, and I've been fortunate that I've never had to experience that type of pain, and pray that those others who haven't experienced it don't have to go through that. And my heart certainly goes out to those folks.

I appreciate this opportunity to testify on this important issue. As you said, I am president of the Missouri's Victims Assistance Network here in Missouri. An acronym for that is MOVA, and we'll use that from time to time. I was the founding Board member, and served as cochairperson of MoVA when it was organized in 1984, so we've been around awhile.

MOVA is a statewide organization, and its membership represents 105 victim service agencies, including the State Prosecuting Attorney's offices, law enforcement, rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, Parents of Murdered Children, and general not-for-profit agencies.

MOVA members drafted the Missouri's Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment, which went before the Missouri legislature and was passed in 1991. In 1992, the voters of Missouri passed the amendment by the largest majority of any amendment in the history of the State of Missouri: 86 percent. So, it's a very important issue to the voters in the State of Missouri.

And I feel if we get the right amendment before the U.S. Congress, we'll have an equal passage by the ratification of the States. I understand that Senate Joint Resolution-we'll refer to as the Constitutional Amendment for Crime Victims-is pending before the Senate.

This testimony is meant to inform you that MOVA does not support that amendment in its current form. We feel that S.J. Res. 3 is too exclusive as currently written. Those who want to limit this amendment to only those who are victims of violent crime, we feel those folks are well-meaning, and we feel probably some of the rationale is similar to what we heard in the State of Missouri, that "An overall inclusive amendment would inundate the criminal justice system, slow down the cases, thus further harming crime victims."

I haven't been able to find an accurate source in the State of Missouri to accurately reflect all the crime victims. I went to the publication put out by the Missouri Highway Patrol which just lists index crimes, and index crimes only include eight crimes, but I

kind of wanted to give you a feel for those crimes. Like I said they still leave out a lot of crimes.

The index crimes include only eight crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, motor vehicle, and arson. As you can tell by the list, it includes only crimes in which there are victims, and even that list is limited.

There were 245,909 total index crimes in 1997, which is the latest year that's available for those figures. Violent crimes accounted for 28,962 or roughly 11.7 percent of all crimes in the State of Missouri.

Therefore, the victims of 11.7 percent of all crimes would have the rights granted under S.J. Res. 3 as it's currently written. The other 88.3 percent would not have those rights, those rights including: reasonable notice of, and not to be excluded from any public proceedings relating to the crime; the right to be heard and present and submit a statement at all such proceedings to determine a conditional release from custody, acceptance of a negotiated plea or sentence;

the foregoing rights of parole hearings that is not public to the extent that these rights are afforded the convicted offender; to reasonable notice of a release or escape from custody related to crime; to consideration of interest of the victim that any trial be free from unreasonable delay; to an order of restitution from the convicted offender; and to consideration for the safety of the victim when determining any conditionable release from custody relating to the crime.

That's what's currently in S.J. Res. 3. But, again, it's limited only to the victims of violent crime.

Let me share with you some of Missouri's experience since our Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment passed, and our Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment isn't all inclusive. It's noted as being one of the stronger Constitutional amendments in the United States.

Let me start off by saying my position as president of MoVA is a volunteer position. My full-time position, the one in which I make my living at, is Director of the Victim/Witness Services for the Buchanan County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, which is the state's attorney.

My staff viewed all the cases prosecuted by our office, and I'll share some of those results with you. Thirty-nine percent of all cases filed by our office involve an identifiable victim other than the State of Missouri. Thirty-nine percent of all cases filed by our office have identifiable victims other than the State of Missouri.

Victims representing 13.6 percent of all cases filed participate by requesting to be informed or be present at court proceedings. OK, of all cases, only 13.6 percent request the rights or are required under ours, because if it's a case that's a dangerous felony, which is a more serious violent crime, they are to be afforded those rights automatically.

Senator ASHCROFT. May I just ask, is it 13.6 percent of the 39 percent?

Mr. ASHLOCK. No, it's 13.6 of all the crimes.

Senator ASHCROFT. So, it's about a third of the crimes with which you can associate a victim?

Mr. ASHLOCK. Yes. About a third of the crimes in which we file charges, about a third of them have victims other than the State of Missouri

Senator ASHCROFT. But I mean, is it 13 percent of the 39 percent?

Mr. ASHLOCK. No, 13 percent of

Senator ASHCROFT. 13 is a third of 39, that's what you are saying?

Mr. ASHLOCK. That's right.

By Missouri statute, notification is mandated to all crime victims-all victims of what we call dangerous felonies. Violent crime requiring crime notification in our office account for only 5 percent of the crimes that are filed by our office. Again, that's 100 percent of all crimes that are filed.

You will note in my written testimony, I've included a copy of a checkoff form that we send to all crime victims when cases are filed, to make it easy on them if they want to be notified, if they want to be present and so on. All they have to do is check this off, and we will provide a stamped, self-addressed envelope for them to send it back in.

We make it as easy as possible for them, and still we're at that 13.6 percent who elect to participate. I've surveyed other prosecutors' offices in the State, and the highest percentage that I can find of any prosecutor's office was about 20 percent of the victims who want to participate in the system at that time.

Today is the last day of National Victims' Rights Week. This year's theme is "Victims Voice Is Silent No More." If S.J, Res. 3 is passed in its current form, a vast majority of crime victims will continue to be kept silent by the very justice system which is supposed to act in their behalf.

The second argument that extending victim rights will slow down the system is also false. Our experience has shown that those 13.6 percent to 20 percent of all crime victims choosing to participate, as long as they have been properly notified has not slowed down our system at all. And I kind of wish we had more witnesses here. We could bring in some of our judges to testify to that, too. It does not slow down the system.

Another issue MoVA feels the Subcommittee should consider, which is lacking in S.J. Res. 3, is recourse. MoVA's amendment also lacks recourses. Large jurisdictions in Missouri have implemented, if not all, a majority of the Crime Victims' Constitutional amendment. But there are still some individual prosecutors, judges, and juvenile courts that ignore the amendment that the statutes mandate in the State of Missouri. The worst offenders are the third and fourth class counties, the rural areas.

In 1997, MOVA, with the assistance of the Department of Corrections, conducted a survey of victims of violent crime, and the status of victims' participation in the criminal justice system since the passage of Crime Victims' Constitutional Amendment. Of all those surveyed-all those surveyed were victims of violent crime. The results of this survey indicated that the change since the implementation of the Constitutional Amendment was so slight that the researchers could not rule out that it occurred only by chance.

Until Missouri enacts legislative recourse measures, criminal justice officials who currently deny the Constitutional rights will continue to do so. Do not make the same mistake that we did here in Missouri, by not including recourse for crime victims.

It's cruel to tell crime victims they have rights, but to continue to deny them. I've also included as an attachment a copy of the research from our office so you can see the type of crimes and so on that we deal with. Thank you.

Senator ASHCROFT. Well, thank you very much for your contribution to our awareness of this issue in two areas: one, in terms of the breadth of the criminal activity covered, and second, in terms of the enforceability of any item, which you call recourse, which I think is appropriate.

Next, we have Kim LeBaron, who is executive director of the Victims Support Services in Kirksville, MO. Her organization provides assistance to victims of domestic abuse. I'm pleased to have Ms. LeBaron here today, and to welcome her insights into how we should be dealing with victims' rights in the context of domestic abuse.

Ms. LeBaron.

STATEMENT OF KIM LEBARON

Ms. LEBARON. Thank you, Senator. I'm speaking to you today as a person who has dealt with the effects of domestic violence for all of her life. I grew up in a family where domestic violence was a daily part of our living. I am very lucky because domestic violence was not a generational part of my family history.

My mother had the knowledge to impart to me that living with the fear our family lived with was not my only choice. I have not repeated or continued the cycle of violence in my own family, but I have chosen this to be my life's work.

I work at Victims Support Services in Kirksville, MO. Our agency, located in the northeast part of the State, serves seven rural counties, and has been serving all victims of violent crime, including domestic violence and sexual assault, for over 10 years.

Every single day, I talk with women and children about their lives and living in fear, living with that fear in their own homes. I think all of us would agree, the one place you should feel safest and most cared for is in our own homes. In our society, we have come to recognize that domestic violence is something that can happen to anyone. It knows no discrimination.

What we haven't achieved is a consistent way for these same victims to have a voice that is heard. Victims have voices that can offer us much needed insight to changes that must happen within our system. They want to feel that justice will have a positive effect on their situation.

I look at what we're doing in northeast Missouri, and I know that it is not enough. We have many supporters of our program, both from the professional sector and private citizens. This is not enough. We must have laws that protect victims of violent crimes and assure them they will receive fair and equitable treatment under Federal law. Laws that will not make them feel like they're the least important part of the criminal justice system.

I have yet to meet a victim of violent crime who ever expected to find themselves with this label. This also includes every victim of domestic violence. Even when I interview women who have long histories of violence, where they can tell about several generations of abuse, they will tell me that they truly believed their life would be different.

They are disappointed by their reality. I feel it is imperative that we treat all crime victims consistently with a professional and caring approach. No matter what the crime is, including domestic violence, no one deserves or asks to be a victim.

I recently worked with a victim who applied for and received an ex parte order against her husband. She requested the city marshal to accompany her to her home to retrieve some uniforms so she could continue to work. When they arrived at her home, they found the husband there.

He proceeded to threaten to kill her and to kill every other person in the shelter to get their daughter back. He went into great detail about the plan he wanted to implement. The city marshal told the victim he didn't know what to do about the threats because he didn't have much experience with these types of situations.

Fortunately, a State highway patrol officer stopped at the scene and arrested the man for violation of his ex parte order and assault. He then was transported to a county jail where he was released until Wednesday because the judge was out of town. This happened on a Saturday evening.

This man who was so angry, who threatened to kill several people in the presence of two law enforcement officers, was immediately released from custody and told to wait until Wednesday to be officially arrested. This caused us to move this client to another shelter 90 miles away, and hire two off-duty police officers to stay in the shelter for protection of our other clients and staff.

Then, on the day there should have been a hearing regarding this violation and assault charge, no witnesses were subpoenaed, including our client. I went to court to observe, and it was quite clear the intent was just to dismiss this case.

There was no notification given to this victim regarding any part of this criminal justice process, even though the prosecutor was notified in writing that this victim wanted to be notified. This batterer received a very clear message to continue conducting his business as usual.

I live in a rural area where everybody knows everybody, so there often is much disbelief that John Doe could hurt his family, or there is a general laissez faire attitude with people saying things like oh, he can't help it, he's just like his dad. They're reluctant to agree to testify during prosecution because everybody knows nothing will happen.

In my city, fewer than 25 percent of domestic cases where charges were brought were disposed of in 1998. In the majority of these cases, the defendant received a suspended imposition of sentence or 1 to 2 years of unsupervised probation. The most severe sentence received was 30 days incarceration in the county jail.

The message that domestic violence is a violent crime must be clear to all people and the remedies available under the law be afforded to all victims, even when they live in rural areas. They must