▁as ▁a ▁response ▁to ▁the ▁spread ▁of ▁two ▁belief s . ▁The ▁first ▁was ▁the ▁per ception ▁that ▁the ▁legal ▁system ▁was ▁more ▁concerned ▁with ▁the ▁protection ▁of ▁the ▁constitution al ▁rights ▁of ▁criminal ▁off enders ▁and ▁alleg ed ▁off enders ▁than ▁they ▁were ▁the ▁vict ims ▁of ▁their ▁off enses . ▁This ▁was ▁especially ▁infl amed ▁by ▁numerous ▁law su its ▁alleg ing ▁un const itution al ▁conditions ▁in ▁many ▁U . S . ▁j ails ▁and ▁pr isons , ▁and ▁a ▁strong ▁emphas is ▁on ▁the ▁education ▁and ▁re h abil itation ▁of ▁those ▁who ▁were ▁in car cer ated , ▁especially ▁beginning ▁in ▁the ▁late ▁ 1 9 6 0 s ▁and ▁ 1 9 7 0 s . ▁Adv oc ates ▁of ▁the ▁movement ▁wanted ▁to ▁see ▁aff irm ative ▁help ▁for ▁crime ▁vict ims ▁to ▁be ▁at ▁least ▁as ▁extensive ▁as ▁that ▁provided ▁to ▁the ▁off enders , ▁and ▁for ▁vict ims ▁to ▁receive ▁compens ation ▁from ▁off enders ▁whenever ▁this ▁was ▁pract ic able . ▁The ▁second ▁stim ulus ▁was ▁the ▁spread ▁of ▁the ▁belief , ▁bol ster ed ▁by ▁prominent ▁stories ▁in ▁the ▁media , ▁that ▁the ▁number ▁of ▁released ▁or ▁par o led ▁off enders ▁returning ▁to ▁attack ▁their ▁original ▁vict ims ▁or ▁vict ims ' ▁families ▁was ▁increasing , ▁in ▁some ▁cases ▁in ▁ret ali ation ▁for ▁having ▁reported ▁the ▁original ▁off ense . ▁ ▁Most ▁states ' ▁vict ims ' ▁rights ▁am end ments ▁provide ▁for ▁the ▁pro sec utors ▁to ▁stay ▁in