Bill Overview
Title: Homicide Victims’ Families’ Rights Act of 2022
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: Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]
Target Audience
Population: Immediate family members of federal homicide victims
Estimated Size: 30000
- The bill specifically addresses the rights of immediate family members of homicide victims.
- The guidelines for this bill apply to victims of murder under federal law, indicating cases investigated by federal agencies.
- Importance is given to unsolved homicide cases, impacting families waiting for justice.
- The bill provides rights to families wanting cases reviewed if uninvestigated for over three years and lacking identified suspects.
Reasoning
- The bill is aimed at providing rights to families of homicide victims, focusing on unsolved cases. The number of individuals directly impacted is limited by the specific criteria for eligibility, such as federal investigation and no identified suspect.
- Considering the financial budget, the program can support initiating reviews and providing resources to a limited number of families each year, further narrowing the high-impact group.
- The simulated interviews will focus on diverse demographics within the affected population, including individuals not directly impacted to present a spectrum of responses.
- Given the policy's nature, the change in wellbeing can be significant for those affected, though limited in scope by the overall number of eligible cases.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have been waiting for answers for years. This bill gives me a glimmer of hope.
- I want justice for my child and this could be a step towards that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have felt stuck with unresolved emotions. A case review could bring closure.
- This policy might finally open up new leads that were previously overlooked.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stagnation in my father's case has been painful. This bill offers a chance to push for progress.
- The emotional burden of not knowing can be very taxing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Houston, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support anything that can help find justice for my child. This bill could be pivotal.
- It's time we had more tools to hold investigations accountable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Law Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I initially thought this bill would help our family, but it doesn't apply to us.
- Still, I see how it can benefit others desperate for new case reviews.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I work with many families in similar situations; this bill could be a game-changer for them.
- The focus on unsolved cases is crucial and long overdue.
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 |
Marketing Coordinator (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Unfortunately, our case doesn't qualify, but it's good to see movement for other families.
- I hope this sets a precedent for more comprehensive reviews in future legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Police Officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a necessary step to ensure transparency and accountability.
- Hopefully, it brings the much-needed resources to cold cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While not directly affected, I see how vital this could be for families seeking closure.
- The policy bridges a crucial gap for cold cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Social Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a good start but more needs to be done to address systemic issues.
- Families need continued support beyond just case 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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3400000, High: $7400000)
Year 5: $5600000 (Low: $3600000, High: $7600000)
Year 10: $6000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Key Considerations
- The extent of the impact will depend on the number of eligible cases and families that request reviews under the proposed framework.
- Monitoring compliance and effectiveness will be important to ensure that federal agencies can manage workloads without disrupting existing priorities.
- Long-term impacts could include increased satisfaction and closure for families affected by unsolved homicides, but measuring these outcomes will require more subjective assessments.