Anuja Srivastava
anujareply@615gauravyadav
Advocate (M.P high court) , B.A.LL.B , LL.M
Jiwaji university, Gwalior (M.P)
Abstract
The rights of the crime victims have been increasingly gaining prominence as an important element of the contemporary criminal justice system, where the traditional offender-oriented approach is being increasingly substituted with the balanced one. In spite of numerous legal reforms made, the victims of the crimes still confront a number of difficulties as regards their participation in criminal procedure, their right to receive information about the process, the right to protection, to receive compensation for damages suffered, to get legal aid and to be rehabilitated. The present study is devoted to the comparative analysis of the legal framework regarding the rights of the victims of the crimes in India, the United Kingdom and the United States with special reference to the issue of victim participation and procedural rights. The purpose of this research is to review the legal provisions protecting the rights of the victims of crimes, compare the legal approaches used by the three jurisdictions, point out some gaps in implementation of those and establish what measures should be taken to improve the situation in India. The comparative doctrinal approach is used in the study; the main sources of data for this research are statutory and constitutional provisions, case laws, international instruments related to victims’ rights, peer reviewed journals, reports from law commissions and governments, research papers, commentary materials and international organizations such as the United Nations.
Keywords: Crime Victims, Victim Rights, Criminal Justice System, Victim Compensation, Comparative Law.
Introduction
Victims are a vital stakeholder in the criminal justice system, although their rights and needs have not received the necessary attention as far as the system has been traditionally concerned with the offenders and the prosecution process. In the traditional model of criminal proceedings, the State and the offender were seen as parties involved in a dispute. Consequently, victims had to play an inconspicuous role in the process in spite of the fact that they were the direct victims of crimes committed.[1] Gradually, however, there occurred a paradigm shift in the global justice system with the introduction of the idea of victimology and the realization that victims of crime are not simply witnesses to the criminal act but rights holders with the “right to dignity, participation, protection, compensation, and rehabilitation”. A major breakthrough in this respect was the adoption of the “United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985, as international standards of ensuring access to justice, fair treatment, restitution, compensation, and assistance” to the victims. To that end, many countries have initiated reforms and changes in legislation to incorporate victims’ rights in their criminal justice systems.[2] India is no exception. In the same vein, the United Kingdom has devised a complete Victims’ Code and a range of support structures, and the United States has legislated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the Victims of Crime Act, guaranteeing extensive procedural and compensatory rights at the federal as well as state level. However, notwithstanding these developments, there persist a number of differences when it comes to the extent, functioning, and efficacy of victim rights laws in various countries.[3] Some of the common difficulties include delays in justice delivery, inadequate compensation, lack of involvement in the criminal process, absence of sufficient psychological support, and non-enforcement, among others. In light of these considerations, a comparative study of the legal framework relating to victim rights in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States has become absolutely imperative, with the aim of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each system and developing international benchmarks.[4]
- Concept of Crime Victims
The term “crime victim” has changed significantly over the years as the understanding of it has shifted from being limited to the people who endure bodily injuries resulting from crime to becoming a comprehensive definition based on the law and human rights and recognizing the multiple effects that crime has on people. The conventional way in which the criminal justice system worked involved identifying and prosecuting perpetrators of crimes while the role of the victim was to serve only as a witness helping in the prosecution of the perpetrator.[5] Victimology and human rights jurisprudence have transformed this perception in that it has been recognized that victims have rights that deserve protection, recognition, participation, and redress. A crime victim can be defined as anyone who suffers bodily injuries, psychological distress, financial losses, and impairment of their basic rights due to crime.[6] The “United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)” is considered one of the most acceptable definitions. According to the declaration, the victim is an individual or collective of individuals who has been affected, both physically and mentally injured, suffered emotional anguish, financial loss, and other violations of his/her basic rights due to acts or omissions that are considered offenses by law. It should be noted that victims may include not only individuals affected by crime but also their close relatives and dependants as well as people affected by crime when trying to assist victims.[7] The appearance of victimology as an independent branch of criminology has added to the understanding of the fact that victims are active players in the “process of criminal justice” and that they deserve special protection along with offenders. Victimology includes the study of the victim-offender relationships, patterns of victimization, psychological and social effects of crime, and protective legal measures in relation to victims. In current legal systems, the term crime victim refers to victims of violent crimes, sex offenses, domestic violence, human trafficking, terrorism, cybercrime, financial crimes, environmental crimes, and organized crime because of the “need for a particular type of legal protection and rehabilitation depending on the type of crime”.[8] In India, the concept of the legal definition of victims has been receiving increasing recognition due to judicial decisions and legislation, including provisions for the establishment of victim compensation schemes and procedural rights in criminal law cases, indicating a shift towards a victim-centered criminal justice system as compared to the previous offender-centered system. Likewise, the U.K. and the United States have increasingly recognized the rights of the victims through legislative frameworks that include the right to information, participation in criminal proceedings, compensation, protection from intimidation, and various types of services. However, despite such developments, the practical exercise of victims’ rights still faces numerous obstacles, which include delay in criminal proceedings, poor compensation schemes, lack of knowledge about their rights, victimization during investigation and criminal proceedings, and lack of equal access to services.[9] “Such a victim-oriented approach is based on the general objectives of criminal justice, as the criminal justice system not only aims to punish the offenders but also rehabilitate the victims”, build confidence of people in the legal process, and respect the principles of justice, equality, and human rights. This broadened understanding provides a basis for comparative legal analysis of rights of victims in India, the UK, and the US, as it helps evaluate the manner in which the rights of crime victims are protected in different jurisdictions.[10]
- Evolution of Victims’ Rights
The history of victims’ rights shows the development and fundamental change in criminal justice systems around the globe when they switched their focus on the offender and began to recognize the interests, dignity, and participation of victims in the processes of dispensing justice. In the ancient world, victims had a very active role to play in the criminal procedure, being involved in initiating proceedings against an offender and obtaining some kind of compensation.[11] However, with the advent of the state and its “criminal justice system, the role of victims became secondary” to the offender who now received most of attention as the main subject of the crime. During most of the twentieth century, victims were poorly recognized legally and could not participate in proceedings nor receive any compensation for the damages done to them. The rise of victims’ rights came in the 1960s and 1970s along with the development of victimology as a separate science and advocacy for more balanced criminal justice system that would recognize victims’ rights as well.[12] Afterward, some states came up with legislation that sought to enhance the rights of victims. This was done in America where the Crime Victims’ Rights Act was enacted, in some states where there were amendments to constitutions that enhanced the rights of victims, and in the United Kingdom where the Victims’ Code and other statutory provisions for victims were put into place.[13] In India, the law has gradually developed through the efforts of judicial activism, amendments to laws, victim compensation policies, witnesses protection, and the enactment of the “Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023”. At present, the rights of victims are seen as a vital part of a criminal justice process aimed at punishing offenders and restoring the dignity of victims.[14]
- International Recognition of Victims’ Rights
“Recognition of the rights of the victims at the international level” has drastically transformed the functioning of criminal justice systems with respect to the paradigm shift from an offender-based approach towards an approach that is based on the respect for the dignity, participation and “protection of the victims. The introduction of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)” is a very important step taken in this regard as this document has made the world recognize the globally acceptable standards of ensuring that the victims gain “access to justice, fair treatment, restitution, compensation and necessary assistance”. It must be kept in mind that this document highlights the fact that “victims have to be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity” while providing them with effective remedies through judicial and administrative means.[15] The “United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)” has initiated many activities in this direction. In addition to its work in the promotion of victim-sensitive criminal justice process, UNODC has also advocated for the establishment of comprehensive victim assistance services by the government which would include legal assistance, counselling, and witness protection.[16] From a human rights standpoint, the rights of victims are now acknowledged as part and parcel of international human rights law as it enshrines equality, dignity, non-discrimination, and access to redress. This, therefore, implies that international legal mechanisms have reaffirmed the duty of the “state to uphold the rights of victims” and facilitate their active participation in criminal proceedings and rehabilitation and compensation.[17]
- Need for Victim-Centric Criminal Justice
The necessity of a victim-centred criminal justice system becomes vital to ensure the administration of justice goes beyond punishing offenders and includes the protection of victims’ rights, dignity, and welfare. The conventional criminal justice systems focused mainly on the accused by providing guarantees of the procedure and fair trial for them while neglecting victims who had the status of witnesses only. As a result, victims became victims of secondary victimization and experienced additional stress, lack of information and compensation, as well as rehabilitation.[18] A victim-centred criminal justice system aims to eliminate all the deficiencies mentioned above and to make victims the centre of the justice process with the rights of being informed, heard, protected, compensated, and rehabilitated.[19] Not only this approach would make the process fairer and protect human dignity but it will also help to build more trust to the “criminal justice system by acknowledging the suffering of victims” and including them into the legal process. International instruments, especially the “UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)”, played a crucial role in the development of victims oriented criminal justice. From the perspective of India, the UK, and the US, the increasing consideration of victims’ rights both in terms of their processes and substance marks a move away from the traditional offender-oriented approach to a more balanced system of justice. It goes without saying that in this respect, the” development of a victim-oriented criminal justice system” is crucial.[20]
Theoretical Framework
- Victimology Theory
Theory of Victimology originated as a distinctive concept through the pioneering works of Benjamin Mendelsohn (1947), who is considered as the “Father of Victimology.” It deals with the position, rights, experience, and protection of victims in the criminal justice system. It studies the relationship between the victims and offenders, impact of crime on the victims, and need for legal and psychological assistance and support. Contemporary victimology highlights victim empowerment, justice, compensation, and rehabilitation of victims rather than treating victims as witnesses. The theory of victimology is very pertinent to the current research as it forms the basis of comparison between legal rights of crime victims in India, UK, and US.[21]
- Restorative Justice Theory
Restorative Justice Theory was greatly expanded by Howard Zehr (1990), who is well-known as the “Father of Restorative Justice.” In contrast to the conventional punitive approach, this theory treats crimes as the infliction of harm on people and communities, as opposed to the violation of law. The central idea of the theory is the repair of harm through dialogue, accountability, restitution, inclusion of victims and offender rehabilitation. Restorative justice theory fosters the inclusion of victims in the process of justice delivery and helps to restore the dignity of victims while fostering the process of reconciliation where it is possible. This theory is important for this particular study, since it can help to evaluate the implementation of victim participation, compensation, rehabilitation and restorative processes in India, the UK, and the US.[22]
- Human Rights Theory
Human Rights Theory is mainly linked to John Locke (1689), whose philosophy of natural rights played a crucial role in shaping human rights law as we know it today. Human Rights Theory holds that each individual has inherent “rights to life, freedom, dignity, equality, and security” regardless of the individual’s identity and situation. From the perspective of criminal justice, this theory necessitates that states protect victims from harm, guaranteeing them access to justice, remedies and ensuring their basic rights are respected through the process. International conventions, especially the “United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)” illustrate these ideas. This theory is very relevant to our current study since it gives us a theoretical basis for comparison of victims’ rights in India, the UK and US.[23]
- Procedural Justice Theory
Procedural Justice Theory has been chiefly created by Tom R. Tyler (1990) through his landmark publication Why People Obey the Law. Procedural justice theory is one that highlights the fact that the fairness of the process of the law is just as important as the final outcome of the judicial process. As per Tyler, people will cooperate with legal institutions when they are treated with dignity, respect, impartially and given the chance to speak out. For crime victims, procedural justice entails timely information, active participation, being treated with dignity, respect, and open communication within criminal proceedings. Procedural Justice theory can be effectively applied to the present research due to its ability to facilitate a comparison of procedural rights of crime victims in India, the UK, and US.[24]
- Literature Review
- Reviews Related to the Rights of Crime Victims
Holder et al. (2021)[25] noted that although victims’ rights had been formally recognized through legislation in various jurisdictions, they could not be effectively enforced due to the absence of legal remedies for various rights. In addition, Roberts (2021)[26] suggested that although there had been an increasing recognition of victims’ rights leading to procedural changes, questions still remained about balancing the interests of victims and the “right to fair trial of the accused. In the same vein, Puri & Gour (2025)[27] found that the Indian criminal justice system had been largely offender-oriented” and that victims had faced obstacles in exercising participation, receiving compensation, rehabilitation, and access to justice despite constitutional and legislative provisions. Also, Kuzmenko & Kuzmenko (2024)[28] argued that there had been a strengthening of the legal “position of victims of crime” through the development of minimum standards concerning information, protection, support, participation, and compensation provided by various international and regional legal instruments; nevertheless, there were still substantial disparities among jurisdictions in implementing these standards. Finally, Holder & Englezos (2024)[29] noted that although there had been a great advancement of legal rights of victims of crime, there was little empirical evidence concerning the efficiency of these rights.
- Reviews Related to the Victim Compensation
Muzaffar (2022)[30] analyzed the concept of compensatory justice in India and claimed that victim compensation had become a vital part of the criminal justice system despite inconsistent “implementation due to procedural delays and lack” of judicial enforcement. In the same way, Banerjee (2025)[31] noted that the available victim compensation schemes were affected by inadequate knowledge about it among the victims, complicated procedures, and inequality of compensation across different States, which affected the efficiency of such compensation, Levine (2025)[32] also found out that the information about victim compensation was disseminated by law enforcement agencies and that poor communication made it difficult for the victims to get the financial assistance. Likewise, Poor (2025)[33] also posited that there were many cases where victim compensation schemes lacked an underlying theoretical base as well as failed to take into account the economic and psychological implications of violent victimization suffered by the victims. In addition, Parvin (2026)[34] stressed that harmonization of standards related to the right of the victim, including victim compensation was of paramount importance in providing equal justice and victim protection. Bansal & Matolia (2025)[35] further highlighted that judicial interpretation had played a significant role in expanding the scope of victim compensation in India; however, practical challenges continued to impede timely rehabilitation. Additionally, Makhinchuk et al. (2026)[36] stressed that besides being an economic benefit, compensation should also include health care, psychological help, rehabilitation and reintegration of victims. Tuliakov (2025)[37] suggested that while a number of legal jurisdictions had improved the rights of victims, there was insufficient empirical data available on the efficacy of compensation schemes, thus requiring more comparative research in this field. All these investigations showed that victim compensation had become one of the key elements of victim-centered criminal justice, but the discrepancies in the laws and their implementation continued to impede the achievement of complete justice for crime victims.
- Reviews Related to the Victim Participation in Criminal Proceedings
Banwell-Moore (2023)[38] ontended that effective victim participation had become a crucial part of the criminal justice system of today, however, she found that there was a lack of consistency in the definition of the term ‘participation’ and the success of it in current empirical studies. Similarly, Holder & Englezos (2024)[39] too mentioned that though victims had been granted greater participatory rights in some jurisdictions, their participation at the post sentencing stage still fell short. Likewise, Nagpal & Rawandale (2023)[40] mentioned that the role of victims in criminal cases in India had always been secondary because of the State-oriented nature of the criminal justice process. Likewise, Holder & Dearing (2024)[41] also mentioned that the statutory provision for victims’ right to appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure helped in promoting victim participation but some of the procedural difficulties and conflicting interpretation of the law had hampered the proper implementation of the right. Moreover, John et al. (2025)[42] observed that there have been some amendments in legislation which granted victims some rights like compensation, legal representation, and appeal, still the active involvement of the victim in the criminal proceedings had not been properly ensured. Likewise, MOGHE & SAXENA (2025)[43] highlighted the same issues by stating that the legal regime that governed the participation of the victim in India failed to be consistent throughout the various stages of criminal proceedings.
- Research Gap
Despite of the available academic literature dealing with crime victims’ rights proves the existence of several substantial gaps even though the issues connected with the protection and compensation of victims have attracted much scholarly attention. The first gap pertains to the lack of thorough comparative legal research dedicated to the comparison of victims’ rights under the law in India, the UK, and the US. Most previous scholarly works have studied one legal system only or compared only two legal regimes, leaving a substantial gap in the understanding of the similarities and differences of victims’ rights and practices in all three jurisdictions. The second gap is connected with the absence of any uniform standards for the victims’ participation in criminal proceedings. All three jurisdictions acknowledge victims’ rights in one way or another, yet the nature of participation, including the “right to be heard, the right to legal representation, and the right to be informed” about criminal procedures, vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Third, existing research has largely failed to focus on the issues of implementation of statutory guarantees. While many legislative changes have been made with the “objective of ensuring the rights of the victims”, very little work has been done on the problems that are encountered in the implementation of such measures, such as institutional restrictions, judicial interpretation, procedural inefficiency, and ignorance of the victims regarding their legal rights. In addition, there has been very little emphasis in existing literature on the “rights of the victims during the entire process of criminal justice”, including investigation, trial, sentencing, appeal and post-trial procedures. As a result, comparative assessment of the effectiveness of such procedural safeguards has yet to be done. This study intends to fill this gap through conducting a comprehensive comparative legal study of the laws regulating the “rights of crime victims in India, United Kingdom and the United States”, focusing particularly on victim participation and procedural safeguards with a view to identifying best practices for building a victim-oriented criminal justice system in India.
- Research Objectives
- To examine the legal framework governing the rights of crime victims in India.
- To comparatively analyze victim protection laws in the United Kingdom and the United States.
- To evaluate victim participation, compensation, and rehabilitation mechanisms in the three jurisdictions.
- To recommend reforms for strengthening victims’ rights in India.
- Research Methodology
In order to analyze “victims’ rights” in India, and then carry out comparison of the legal systems of UK and USA, the current research applies doctrinal and comparative legal research methodology. With the application of doctrinal methodology, the researcher is able to undertake an organized review of existing legal rules, laws, and policies related to victims’ rights. Comparative legal methodology enables the researcher to highlight similarities, differences, weaknesses and strengths of victim protection in the three jurisdictions under analysis. It is a qualitative study since the researcher will depend on interpreting and analyzing legal documents, court rulings, and other scholarly literature rather than empirical or statistical data. Primary and secondary data sources will be used in this research. Primary data sources consist of constitutional provisions, legislation, case laws, and international instruments related to victims’ rights. Secondary sources include textbooks, peer reviewed journals, reports from law commissions and governments, research papers, commentary materials and “international organizations such as the United Nations. The scope of the study is limited to only three jurisdictions, namely India, the UK, and the US”, and aims at understanding their legal regime concerning the involvement of victims in criminal proceedings, their compensation, rehabilitation, protection, and access to justice. The study also analyzes how far the international principles and standards have been incorporated into their domestic legal systems. The method of analysis that has been used here is comparative legal analysis, whereby legal regimes of the selected jurisdictions are being analyzed comparatively with respect to their effectiveness in protecting the rights of victims. Best practices from the jurisdictions of the UK and the US are identified and assessed for their applicability in the Indian legal regime. Finally, some recommendations are provided for suitable legal reforms in India.
- Legal Framework Governing Rights of Crime Victims
Victim’s status in terms of law has undergone tremendous change from the time when they were only considered witnesses to the point where they are acknowledged to be stakeholders in the “criminal justice system”. In an attempt to comply with the “international human rights standards”, States have been encouraged to guarantee justice, protection, participation, compensation, and rehabilitation to victims. Consequently, India, UK, and the US have made their legal framework through constitutional provisions, legislations, and decisions.[44]
- International Legal Framework
The “United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985 is considered as the foundation of international law on the rights of victims”. It defines the term ‘victim’ quite comprehensively to encompass all individuals who have suffered physically, psychologically, emotionally or economically as a consequence of crime committed against them. The Declaration outlines the rights of the victims to be treated justly and respectfully, to be provided with access to the process of justice, to participate in the process of criminal justice, protection from intimidation, restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation.[45] The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966 indirectly enhances victims’ rights through the stipulation of an obligation on the State to give remedies, equality before the law, and just proceedings. The state is bound to investigate, prosecute, and account for the offenders while striking a balance between the rights of the victims and the accused. Justice on an international scale calls for the same provision of access to justice, legal representation, information, compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, and protection from secondary victimization of victims. It also calls for restorative justice where it is applicable, which will allow victims to be part of voluntary mediation and reconciliation proceedings.[46]
- India
- Constitution of India
Even though there is no mention of victim’s rights in the Constitution, yet Articles 14, 21, and 39A serve as the constitutional basis for such rights. The equality clause of Article 14, right to life and dignity under Article 21, and Article 39A regarding provision of equal justice by providing free legal aid are all contributing towards the victim’s rights.[47]
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Victims have their procedural rights enhanced through BNSS, 2023 in that the law acknowledges “victims as stakeholders in the criminal process”. The law makes the process transparent both in terms of investigations and in the trial process. It ensures that “victims have better access to information”, increases their participation, enhances compensation, and promotes technology for faster investigation and quicker justice.[48]
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
The Bill, 2023 modernizes the substantive criminal law of India, giving due consideration to victims’ protection. The legislation makes improved provisions regarding crimes against women, children, organized crime, terrorism, and cybercrime. Through this legislation, there is an attempt made towards ensuring harsher penalties for heinous crimes and better protection for the victims’ dignity and safety.[49]
- Victim Compensation Scheme
The Indian Victims’ Compensation Scheme mandates that all state governments set up compensation schemes for victims who have suffered physical, psychological, or monetary injury. The amount of compensation is calculated by the State and District Legal Services Authorities according to the injury sustained, treatment costs, rehabilitation requirements, and loss of earnings. The scheme acknowledges that justice involves victim restoration alongside punishment of the offender.[50]
- Witness Protection Scheme
The “Witness Protection Scheme, 2018”, which has been adopted by the Supreme Court, offers services such as identification protection, relocation, protection by police, confidentiality, and in camera hearings to victims and witnesses who are vulnerable. The scheme discourages fear, which makes it easier for victims to cooperate with investigations.[51]
- United Kingdom
- Victims’ Code
The Victims’ Code is the main legislation that ensures protection of the “rights of victims in England and Wales”. It includes the provision of timely information to victims in relation to their cases in the course of investigation, prosecution, trials, sentencing, and the release of offenders from custody.[52]
- Victims and Prisoners Act
The Victims and Prisoners Act enhances the implementation of victims’ rights through accountability within the criminal justice agencies. The act fosters transparency, coordination, and independent monitoring, while at the same time guaranteeing an effective response to victims’ needs by public authorities as per the provisions of the Victims’ Code.[53]
- Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA)
This service is offered by the “Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), which manages the compensation scheme” funded by the UK Government for individuals who become victims of violent crimes. This compensation can be awarded in respect of physical or “psychological injury, loss of earnings, and other expenses” regardless of whether the culprit is known.[54]
- Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
The “Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)” serves an important function as far as safeguarding the interests of the victim is concerned within the process of prosecution. It keeps the victim aware of all the developments taking place at various stages “from the decision to prosecute” to the decision on appeal, while taking into account Victim Personal Statements in the process of prosecution.[55]
- United States
- Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA)
The “Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA)”, 2004 gives victims complete statutory rights in federal criminal proceedings. They include protection from the accused, prompt notice of proceedings, attending public proceedings, participation in bail, plea, sentencing, and parole proceedings, consultation with prosecutors, restitution, quick proceedings, and respectful treatment. Victims can exercise such rights before the federal courts.[56]
- Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), 1984 created the Crime Victims Fund by imposing penalties on offenders. It also provides financial support for compensation for victims, counseling, emergency shelter, legal services, rehabilitation, crisis intervention, and victim advocacy services across the United States.[57]
- State Victim Rights Amendments
Most of the states of the US have adopted victims’ rights into their constitutions through Victims’ Rights Amendments such as Marsy’s Law in some states. This ensures that victims’ rights to dignity, privacy, information, protection, participation, restitution, and consultation with prosecutors are protected by providing victims with the right to judicial enforcement when their rights are infringed.[58]
- Federal Compensation Programmes
There are a variety of federal and state compensation programs in the U.S., which give financial help to cover such expenses as health care, counseling, burial costs, wage losses, rehabilitation, etc. They work alongside with compensation ordered from the offenders and make sure that the victims have financial support even in case if the “offender is not able to pay compensation”.[59]
- Implications of the Study
The current research is useful for achieving a clear “understanding of the rights of crime victims” through the comparative analysis of the law in India, the “United Kingdom, and the United States”. The strengths and weaknesses of the existing legal provisions regarding the participation, protection, compensation, and rehabilitation of victims and provision of justice for them are revealed in the research. The results obtained can be used as a source of information for policy-makers, legislators, judges, lawyers, and scholars who seek to find out the deficiencies of the criminal justice process in India.
- Future Research Recommendations
Future research needs to be done on carrying out empirical studies on the implementation of the “rights of the victims in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States”. Further comparative research can be carried out on the effectiveness of the victim’s participation, compensation, rehabilitation, witness protection, and legal aid processes in various legal systems. The role of new technology, cybercrime, restorative justice, and victim services in providing access to justice can be studied through research. Finally, there is a need for future research on the “implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023” in order to make improvements to the system.
- Conclusion
The current research shows that there has been a huge change in the “recognition and protection of crime victims’ rights in the criminal justice systems” of India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It should be noted that while all these jurisdictions recognize crime victims as key stakeholders, the level of legal protection, involvement, and institutional support may vary greatly. In terms of comparative analysis, it is possible to state that the United Kingdom and the United States have elaborated victim-centered frameworks in terms of special legislation, effective compensation schemes, witness protection programs, victim support programs, and increased opportunities for participation in criminal trials. India has also made considerable progress in recognizing crime victims’ rights through the interpretation of the Constitution, judicial activism, the “Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023”, the Victim Compensation Scheme, and the Witness Protection Scheme. Still, such issues as inconsistent implementation of victims’ rights, insufficient awareness of victims, delayed compensation payments, insufficient victim participation in criminal trials, and lack of institutional mechanisms for ensuring the implementation of victims’ rights prevent the effective realization of these rights.
[1] O O John, O T Annah, B W Olayinka and K Rasheed, ‘The Roles of Victims of Crimes in the Administration of Criminal Justice’ (2025) SSRN 5897002.
[2] A Matviichuk, V Shcherbak, V Sirko, H Malieieva and Y Leheza, ‘Human Principles of Law as a Universal Normative Framework’ (2022).
[3] S P Andrusenko, ‘A Comparative Study of the Formation of Doctrinal Directions of the Institution of Legal Protection of Crime Victims in the USA and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ (2023) 27(4) RUDN Journal of Law 1028–1042.
[4] M Lhosmot-Marquet and others, ‘Cocaine Use in Europe: The Need for Cross-Sectoral Collaboration Between Security, Justice, Health, and Social Systems’ (2026) 11(1) The Lancet Public Health e61–e68.
[5] S N Tapp and E J Coen, Criminal Victimization, 2023 (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2024) 1–36.
[6] V O Tuliakov and V A Tulyakov, ‘War, Crime, Victimology, Human Rights and Criminal Justice Holistic Approach’ (2023).
[7] E Bjorge, ‘General Principles of Law Formed within the International Legal System’ (2023) 72(4) International & Comparative Law Quarterly 845–867.
[8] S Green, ‘Victimological Values, Unfairness and Remediation: The Case for a New Type of Collective Victim Right’ (2026) International Review of Victimology 02697580261440954.
[9] P G Cassell, ‘The Crime Victims’ Rights Movement: Historical Foundations, Modern Ascendancy, and Future Aspirations’ (2024) 56 University of the Pacific Law Review 387.
[10] M Button and others, ‘Assessing the Seriousness of Cybercrime: The Case of Computer Misuse Crime in the United Kingdom and the Victims’ Perspective’ (2025) 25(2) Criminology & Criminal Justice 670–691.
[11] T Markus, The Development of Victims’ Rights Under International Law (Oxford University Press 2024).
[12] E Yunara and T Kemas, ‘The Role of Victimology in the Protection of Crime Victims in Indonesian Criminal Justice System’ (2024) 3(1) Mahadi: Indonesia Journal of Law 63–78.
[13] P G Cassell and M R Morris Jr, ‘Defining “Victim” Through Harm: Crime Victim Status in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Other Victims’ Rights Enactments’ (2024) 61 American Criminal Law Review 329.
[14] D Barath and S Trivedi, ‘The Structural Transformation of Victimology in India: A Socio-Legal Analysis of Recent Criminal Reforms in Combatting Violence Against Women’ (2026) 14(1) International Journal of Research & Technology 74–85.
[15] T Markus, The Development of Victims’ Rights Under International Law (Oxford University Press 2024).
[16] T Kulsawat and T Kortana, ‘Cyber Crime: A Qualitative Case Study of Investment Scams in Thailand’ (2026) 9(1) International Journal of Development Administration Research 33–50.
[17] T L Lew, H A R Shah and N M Ahmad, ‘Legal Framework and Enforcement Strategies in Combating Human Trafficking in Malaysia’ (2025) 2(1) LexForensica: Journal of Forensic Justice and Socio-Legal Research 72–83.
[18] J A Wemmers, I Parent and M Lachance Quirion, ‘Restoring Victims’ Confidence: Victim-Centred Restorative Practices’ (2023) 29(3) International Review of Victimology 466–486.
[19] S A T Dideriksen, D Murray-Rust, F S Visser and P J Stappers, ‘En Route without a Steering Wheel – A Victim-Centred Mapping of Power in the Criminal Justice System’ (2025) 2(1) Legal Design Journal.
[20] P Hughes, ‘Victim-Centred Restorative Justice: Program Design and Implementation’ (2024) 17 Victims of Crime Research Digest 5–23.
[21] A M Graybeal, Inter-Rater Reliability and Practical Utility of Five Victim Typologies in Homicide Case Analysis (PhD dissertation, Oklahoma State University 2025).
[22] R El-Kady, ‘Victim-Offender Mediation as a Model of Restorative Justice: An Analytical Descriptive Study in the Egyptian Law’ in Modern Insights and Strategies in Victimology (IGI Global Scientific Publishing 2024) 191–219.
[23] M Macharia, Human Rights, Equality and the Quest for Liberty (2026).
[24] X I Luo, ‘An Empirical Test of Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police in China’ (2022) 2(4) International Criminology 362–374.
[25] R Holder, T Kirchengast and P G Cassell, ‘Transforming Crime Victims’ Rights: From Myth to Reality’ (2021) 45(1) International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 1–13.
[26] A Roberts, ‘Criminal Terms’ (2022) 107 Minnesota Law Review 1495.
[27] V Puri and S Gour, ‘Victims’ Rights and Participation in Criminal Justice: A Victim-Centred Legal Approach’ (2025) 15(4) International Journal of Engineering Science & Humanities 441–455.
[28] V Kuzmenko and H Kuzmenko, ‘Problems of Protecting Rights of Violent Crimes Victims: Aspects of the Harmonization Process of Ukrainian Law with EU Law’ (2024).
[29] R L Holder and E Englezos, ‘Victim Participation in Criminal Justice: A Quantitative Systematic and Critical Literature Review’ (2023) 30(1) International Review of Victimology 25–49.
[30] A Muzaffar, ‘A Critical Analysis on Criminal Justice System and Victim: Compensation and Restitution of Victim’ (2022).
[31] S Banerjee, ‘Victim Compensation and Restorative Justice in India: A Comprehensive Analysis of Progress and Challenges’ (2025) 7(1) GLS Law Journal 39–46.
[32] J R Levine, ‘Whose Victimization Pays? Policing Innocent Victimhood in Victim Compensation Law’ (2025) 59(4) Law & Society Review 785–821.
[33] E M Poor, ‘Carceral Shell Games: The Racial and Political Economy of Crime Victim Compensation’ (2025).
[34] S Parvin, ‘Legislative Protection of Victims in Criminal Justice Systems’ (2026) 2(3) Journal for Civil and Criminal Law for Legislative Studies 1–7.
[35] M A Bansal and M Matolia, ‘Understanding Victim Compensation in India: A Review of Statutory Framework and Judicial Trends’ (2025) 2 Advances in Consumer Research 5537–5545.
[36] V Makhinchuk, V Bobryk, O Karmaza, S Koroied and D Koucherets, ‘Ensuring Social Sustainability through Victim Redress: A Comparative Legal Analysis of Material and Moral Damage Compensation in Selected Jurisdictions’ (2026) 10(3) European Journal of Sustainable Development Research.
[37] V Tuliakov, ‘Victimization and Victim-Oriented Development of Criminal Law: A Complex Approach’ (2025) Щорічник 325.
[38] R Banwell-Moore, ‘Just an “Optional Extra” in the “Victim Toolkit”?: The Culture, Mechanisms and Approaches of Criminal Justice Organisations Delivering Restorative Justice in England and Wales’ (2023) 29(2) International Review of Victimology 217–235.
[39] R L Holder and A Dearing, ‘Human Dignity, Rights and Victim Participation in Criminal Justice’ (2024) 4(1) International Criminology 108–119.
[40] M Nagpal and C Rawandale, ‘Tracing Journey of Crime Victim’s Position under Indian Law with Evolutionary Insights from the United States’ Federal Code on Victims’ Rights’ (2023) 10(2) Cogent Arts & Humanities 2286071.
[41] R L Holder and A Dearing, ‘Human Dignity, Rights and Victim Participation in Criminal Justice’ (2024) 4(1) International Criminology 108–119.
[42] O O John, O T Annah, B W Olayinka and K Rasheed, ‘The Roles of Victims of Crimes in the Administration of Criminal Justice’ (2025) SSRN 5897002.
[43] S Moghe and D N N Saxena, ‘Victim Participation in Criminal Trials under New Criminal Laws in India: Doctrinal Comments’ (2025).
[44] R J Wechsler, ‘Victims as Instruments’ (2022) 97 Washington Law Review 507.
[45] N Shimoyachi, ‘Between Accountability and Reconciliation: The Making of the “Victim-Centered Approach” at the International Criminal Court’ (2024) 4(2) Global Studies Quarterly ksae014.
[46] S Joseph, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Edward Elgar Publishing 2022).
[47] A Mukherjee and A Arvind, ‘Gender, Dignity, and Equality under the ICCPR: Shadow Report to the Human Rights Committee (CCPR)’ (2026) SSRN 6187221.
[48] D Barath and S Trivedi, ‘The Structural Transformation of Victimology in India: A Socio-Legal Analysis of Recent Criminal Reforms in Combatting Violence Against Women’ (2026) 14(1) International Journal of Research & Technology 74–85.
[49] O P Rai, ‘Criminal Justice Reforms in India: A Critical Study of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023’ (2025) 5(2) Journal of Advanced Education and Sciences 88–93.
[50] Banerjee, S. (2025). Victim Compensation and Restorative Justice in India: A Comprehensive Analysis of Progress and Challenges. GLS Law Journal, 7(1), 39-46.
[51] B Pattnaik and S Padhy, ‘Effectiveness of Witness Protection Programs in India’ (2024) 6(4) International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation 774–787.
[52] K Clamp, RJ and the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime: A Scoping Review of Service Provision in England and Wales (University of Nottingham 2022).
[53] S Foster, ‘Prisoners’ Safety and Human Rights: Protecting Prisoners from Physical Attacks and Victimisation’ (2024) 273 Prison Service Journal 17–23.
[54] O B Akinola, ‘Comparative Analysis of the Legal and Institutional Frameworks for Victim Compensation in Nigeria and United Kingdom’ (2026) 3(4) African Journal of Legal Research.
[55] L Soubise, ‘Professional Identity, Legitimacy and Managerialism at the Crown Prosecution Service’ (2023) 43(3) Legal Studies 425–442.
[56] P G Cassell and M R Morris Jr, ‘Defining “Victim” Through Harm: Crime Victim Status in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Other Victims’ Rights Enactments’ (2024) 61 American Criminal Law Review 329.
[57] J R Levine and K L Russell, ‘Crime Pays the Victim: Criminal Fines, the State, and Victim Compensation Law 1964–1984’ (2023) 128(4) American Journal of Sociology 1158–1205.
[58] W C Seidel, ‘Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: How Victims’ Rights Bills Continue to Let Down Both Crime Victims and Defendants’ (2024) 2(2) Georgia Criminal Law Review 7.
[59] J Hussemann and others, Twenty Years Later: National Study of Victim Compensation Program Trends, Challenges, and Successes (NORC at the University of Chicago 2024).
