Bill Overview
Title: Homicide Victims' Families' Rights Act of 2021
Description: This bill establishes a framework for immediate family members of a victim of murder under federal law to request a review of the victim's case file if the murder was committed more than three years prior, the murder was investigated by a federal law enforcement entity, all probative investigative leads have been exhausted, and no likely perpetrator has been identified.
Sponsors: Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15]
Target Audience
Population: Immediate family members of unresolved homicide victims in federal cases
Estimated Size: 30000
- The bill focuses on homicide cases investigated by federal law enforcement, which encompass a subset of all homicide cases in the U.S.
- Immediate family members of murder victims whose cases remain unsolved for over three years are directly impacted by this bill.
- The CDC reports approximately 24,000 homicides annually in the United States.
- If we assume federal cases might constitute a small percentage (e.g., 1-5%), potentially around 1,000 homicide cases per year fall under federal jurisdiction.
- Considering the unsolved rate and time factor (over three years), the affected population might be those unsolved federals cases over a set period.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a niche subset of the U.S. population, specifically families of federal homicide victims whose cases remain unsolved after three years.
- The potential size of this group is limited by the number of federal homicides, which are estimated to be a small fraction of all U.S. homicides.
- The budgetary constraints suggest the policy can only serve a limited number of families, potentially just a few hundred over the span of 10 years, limiting the long-term widespread impact.
- Wellbeing is influenced by closure and the potential for justice; thus, those directly served would see potential improvements in emotional and psychological well-being, whereas those whose cases are not affected may see little to no change.
- Some families within the target demographic will not be served due to the overall limits in available resources and budget, maintaining wellbeing levels similar to current states.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy might finally bring some closure to our family.
- It's been years of not knowing, and that has taken a toll on all of us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a step in the right direction, finally giving some attention to cases forgotten.
- But I worry if it really has the resources to make a difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Freelance Writer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels nice seeing progress being made, but it still feels out of reach for those not directly related.
- I hope there's a plan for thorough follow-through on these reviews.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Police Officer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a welcome development for families looking for hope and answers.
- Resources are limited, and I hope this doesn't set false expectations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm skeptical about how much impact this will truly have amidst bureaucratic hurdles.
- Any small measure of justice or closure is crucial, but will it really happen?
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me hope that our case may finally be resolved.
- The challenge will be ensuring all families actually get the help they need, not just words.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Artist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this bring recognition to our issues, even if change is slow.
- We need ongoing support beyond just revisiting cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm somewhat cautious but appreciative of any policy drawing attention to unsolved cases.
- The reality is, many factors beyond policy play into solving these cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Lawyer (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law is overdue and important for justice and closure.
- My concern is whether funds and resources will adequately support all cases needing review.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retail Manager (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's likely many families will remain underserved considering the budget.
- Emotional resolutions take time, so I’m curiously optimistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $11000000)
Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $13000000)
Year 10: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- There is uncertainty in the number of families who will exercise this right and the resultant workload on federal law enforcement.
- The long-term operational implications on federal agencies could necessitate more substantial structural changes depending on requested reviews' volume.
- Operational readiness and the ability to manage reopened cases efficiently will influence cost variations.