While the formal criminal justice process as described in Chapter 5 remains the predominant method of "doing justice" in the United States, in recent years alternative solutions to personal conflict have become increasingly popular. Much of the support for these alternatives to the criminal justice process has come from victims' rights advocates who argue that the traditional response to crime concentrates too much on the offender and not enough on the victim.

At least three criminal justice alternatives now provide crime victims with some means of effectively dealing with the people who have attacked them without having to rely on a criminal prosecution. These methods are mediation, civil lawsuits filed directly against the offender, and third-party lawsuits. Mediation is a process in which the victim and offender meet face-to-face and negotiate a settlement to the conflict. It is appropriate in cases where the victim is not especially interested in seeing the offender go to prison or receive some other criminal punishment. A big advantage of mediation for the victim is that it is usually much quicker, simpler, cheaper, and convenient that a formal criminal prosecution. Furthermore, since mediation is done in private, both the victim and the offender are able to avoid public scrutiny of their behavior before and during the crime. This is particularly important for victims whose conduct perhaps led up to or contributed to his/her victimization.

Finally, mediation can be effective in heading off future trouble between the parties to a dispute. While the criminal justice process is only concerned with past problems (the crime being prosecuted), mediation looks to the future and provides a means for some permanent solution to the conflict. This is important because many times unresolved disputes continue to escalate until one or both parties resort to violence to resolve the problem.

The second alternative to the criminal justice process, civil lawsuits against the perpetrator of the crime, was addressed in a recent publication of the Justice Department's Office for Victims of Crime ("Civil Legal Remedies for Crime Victims," 1993):

Victims of crime are now resorting to civil litigation, in addition to victim compensation and restitution, as a financial means for recovering from the ill effects of crime. Increasingly, victims are finding their way into civil courtrooms to recover from physical, psychological, and financial injuries by recovering for lost wages, hospital costs, counseling expenses, property damages and all of the many other various costs incurred as a result of victimization.

In the criminal case, the prosecutor makes all decisions. He or she decides whether to file charges against an alleged perpetrator (defendant) based on an assessment of the legal adequacy of available evidence. Even though in some states the victim has a right to be consulted on plea agreements, it is largely within the prosecutor's discretion to decide whether to forgo a trial by accepting a plea on lesser charges in exchange for an admission of guilt. The prosecutor is responsible for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an alleged perpetrator is guilty of the crimes charged (i.e., proving at least to a moral certainty). Failure to carry this burden of proof results in acquittal. A myriad of considerations, unrelated to the crime victim's victimization, may and often do affect the consequences faced by a perpetrator as a result of committing a crime.

Civil litigation is important because it provides the victim with an opportunity to vindicate his or her individual rights and, in so doing, it provides empowerment. The victim decides whether or not to bring a civil suit. The victim decides whether to accept a settlement offer. It is up to the victim to carry the burden of proving liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., proving by evidence which is more convincing than that presented by the other side). In a civil court, the victim controls essential decisions affecting the case against the perpetrator (the first party) and negligent third parties, parties who do not commit the crime but whose negligence may have facilitated the occurrence of crime.

The last sentence in the above excerpt briefly introduces the final alternative to be discussed in this section, third-party lawsuits. The legal issues involved in third-party lawsuits are beyond the boundaries of this brief presentation, but the underlying factor concerns whether the action, inaction, or negligence of someone other than the perpetrator either caused the crime to occur or made it more likely that it could/would occur. Generally, the plaintiff (victim) must be able to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had a duty or obligation to the plaintiff and that a breach (failure to uphold) of this obligation caused injury to the plaintiff. Examples of entities that have been successfully sued by crime victims included hotels, apartment complexes, universities, retail businesses, and police departments.

Review the advantages (for the victim) of the alternatives to the criminal justice process addressed above, and list those advantages on one side of a sheet of paper. While the advantages seem to make these alternatives very tempting, one must also consider the disadvantages. Think about what some of these disadvantages may be and list those on the opposite side of your paper. Now, if you were a crime victim, would you prefer to rely on the traditional criminal justice process or one of the three alternatives?