Bill does not compete with other aid to victims

I want to clarify the intent of SB2151, the bill I authored to amend the Crime Victims Rights Compensation Act to provide crime victims with legal representation to enforce their rights at no cost to victims.

This bill does not compete with other emergency financial help that is available to crime victims. In fact, this bill would provide crime victims with an option to utilize this funding in a manner that is most suitable to them.

For example, $11.2 million dollars in the fund went unspent and expired because it does not reimburse expenses that are covered by the crime victim's insurance. In situations where crime victims cannot receive reimbursement for services they received because their insurance covered those expenses, the crime victim could choose to utilize those funds to retain legal representation to enforce a right that was violated.

The legal representation is specific to the enforcement of victims' rights and does not encompass a general or broad form of representation to "assure their [crime victims] rights are represented." Crime victims can retain legal representation to assure their rights are represented, as though they are a named party in the criminal case at their expense.

I am simply saying that when those rights are violated, the fund should reimburse legal expenses related to the enforcement of those rights. Especially since the law prohibits the court from appointing attorneys to crime victims.

Crime victims who cannot afford to retain legal representation - even in the event their right is violated - should not lose out on the opportunity to receive the rights that are "guaranteed" under the law.

Enforcing the rights of crime victims is essential to those who are unable to obtain orders of protection or participate in the criminal legal process. This bill does not and will not supersede other emergency financial help to survivors.

Denise Rotheimer

Ingleside