Second Chances For Defendants, No Justice For Victims

In an increasingly no-bail society, the judicial system ignores the victims who keep appearing in court for trials at which the defendant is a no-show.

Patricia Wenskunas | April 1, 2026

When defendants fail to appear in court, the public conversation usually centers on administrative costs, jail overcrowding, or the practical barriers that may have kept them away—missed buses, work conflicts, childcare problems, or confusing court notices. Those are real issues, and practical reforms such as clearer paperwork and court-date reminders can help reduce missed appearances. But one group is too often left out of this discussion: the victims whose cases are delayed, weakened, or sometimes lost entirely when a defendant does not show up.

As a victim advocate who has spent more than 25 years supporting survivors of robbery, assault, domestic violence, and other crimes in California, I have heard all the arguments for why some defendants miss court dates. They include “real struggles” with things like transportation, family responsibilities, work schedules, and confusing paperwork. Advocates typically praise low-cost interventions, such as redesigned summons forms and text reminders, claiming they reduce failure-to-appear (FTA) rates.

A recent Time Magazine article excerpted from Jennifer Doleac’s book, “The Science of Second Chances,” attempts a thoughtful look at defendants and their challenges, citing the usual list of excuses. Unfortunately, at no point—not even once—does the article mention the victims.

That omission is not an oversight. It is the central flaw in the prevailing argument that frames FTAs as a problem primarily for defendants and the system’s efficiency. For victims, a defendant’s failure to appear is not a minor inconvenience or a “second chance” opportunity. It is the repeated denial of justice itself.

Victims do not get to treat the court as optional. When a defendant misses a hearing, the case is often continued, rescheduled, or, far too frequently, dismissed outright. Survivors must rearrange work, childcare, and transportation to appear again and again, only to learn the defendant has once more failed to show. Ironically, these are the very barriers that advocates claim are such a hardship for defendants. Each no-show reopens wounds. It prolongs fear. It signals to the perpetrator that consequences can be avoided. For victims of robbery, justice evaporates when the accused never faces the judge, the evidence, or the person they harmed.

Justice reform proponents often cite the “vicious, costly cycle” of pretrial detention, but fail to acknowledge the effects of that same vicious cycle on victims. Nearly one-quarter of released felony defendants fail to appear. Studies across jurisdictions show that when key witnesses or defendants are no-shows, cases are twice as likely to be dropped. In domestic violence cases, where victim participation is already difficult, the system’s inability to secure defendant appearances leaves survivors without protection orders, restitution, or closure. Victims are not abstract “stakeholders”; they are the reason a case exists in the first place.

New York City offers a useful example of how low-stakes summons enforcement can work for minor, often victimless offenses such as open-container violations or after-hours park trespassing. The whopping 40% FTA rates for these types of tickets warrant addressing with clearer forms and cheaper texts. No serious victim advocate opposes practical reminders that help people appear.

But making the leap from cannabis possession and drinking in public to a broad indictment of cash bail and pretrial accountability ignores the reality of serious crime. Robbery victims, sexual assault survivors, and families devastated by theft or violence are not helped at all by a text message nudge for the defendant. These individuals need the defendant in the courtroom so the case can move forward and they can finally begin to heal.

Advocates continually ask us to empathize with defendants who are unable to meet their responsibilities or who find the court unpleasant. Victims also have jobs, families, health issues, and transportation problems. Yet many still drag themselves to court because the alternative is watching their perpetrator walk free with no accountability.

Jennifer Doleac’s argument for “giving people a second chance to avoid getting pulled further into the criminal justice system” rings hollow when that second chance comes at the direct expense of a victim’s first and only chance at justice.

Pretrial detention is not ideal, and no one wants to see low-risk people jailed solely because they are poor. But the current system’s incentives, which include loss of bail money, warrants, additional charges, and consideration of FTAs in future risk assessments, exist precisely because voluntary appearance cannot be assumed. The article itself acknowledges that even with severe consequences, many still miss court. Removing or weakening those consequences, as some pretrial reform proposals seek to do, does not magically make defendants appear; it simply shifts the burden onto victims who must then live with the fallout.

True reform must be evidence-based for everyone involved. Court-date reminders and clearer forms are smart, low-cost tools. But they are supplements, not substitutes, for meaningful accountability. Victims’ rights laws across the country recognize this: survivors have the right to be heard at release hearings, to receive notice of conditions and to have their safety considered. Those rights are meaningless if defendants are routinely released with little incentive to return.

We believe in second chances—even repeated chances—when they are accompanied by genuine accountability, personal responsibility, and meaningful change. But second chances cannot exist without showing up, facing consequences, and being accountable to the people harmed. There must also remain clear, unwavering boundaries: intentional murder and crimes involving the molestation of children demand the highest level of accountability and cannot be minimized under the banner of second chances.

The criminal justice system does not exist to give defendants second chances at the expense of victims’ first chance at justice. Until this conversation consistently includes the people who were robbed, beaten, or violated—the people whose lives were upended long before any summons form was printed—we will continue talking past the very harm the system was built to address.

Defendants need to show up. Period. Victims deserve nothing less.

Image created using AI.

Patricia Wenskunas is the founder of Crime Survivors, Inc., a California-based nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting individuals and families impacted by violent crime. Her motivation stems from her own experience surviving a violent attack in 2002, which led her to use her voice and personal journey to help others move from victimhood to survivorship. Believing in the power of compassion, community, and hope, Patricia has worked behind the scenes to improve how victims are treated, including early advocacy around California’s Marsy’s Law.

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.

© American Thinker