One of the victim say: "I was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein from the age of 14."
This statement was made by one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims, Courtney Wild, during the August 2019 trial. The federal courtroom in Manhattan witnessed a moment that should have happened a decade earlier. More than twenty women stood up to testify, not to judge Jeffrey Epstein, who had died in his cell, but to finally be heard by a legal system that had chosen to ignore them for years.
Courtney Wild, one of the most vocal victims, had been fighting since 2008 through legal channels just to obtain the most basic right: the right to be informed that her perpetrator was making a deal with prosecutors. A right guaranteed by federal law, yet blatantly violated by the state.
Jeffrey Epstein file, 2026. Photo: Department of Justice
Photo: Department of Justice
Photo: Department of Justice
Legal Issues: Three Dimensions of Systemic Failure
From a human rights perspective, the state has a threefold obligation: to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of victims. The Epstein case highlights all three of these obligations, from the denial of victims' rights in the prosecution process, the state's failure to protect the safety of prisoners which directly impacted victims' access to justice, to the end of criminal accountability due to the death of the defendant.
These three dimensions do not stand alone, but are interconnected in a pattern of structural failure.
Victim Protection and State Obligations
The United States legal framework explicitly places victims as subjects with rights in the criminal justice process. Through the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a), victims are guaranteed the right to reasonable notification, the right to be heard, the right to consult with prosecutors, and the right to be treated with fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy.
The CVRA does not stop at normative declarations. This law provides direct enforcement mechanisms through the courts, allowing victims to sue the state when these rights are ignored. The Department of Justice's implementing regulations even emphasise the active obligation of officials to ensure that victims are aware of and can exercise their rights.
However, as seen in the Epstein case, the existence of legal norms does not guarantee effective protection when the state itself chooses not to comply with them.
I. Violation of Victims' Rights in the 2008 NPA
In 2008, federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta agreed to a secret non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Epstein's lawyers. This agreement allowed Epstein to plead guilty to only two state-level offences, serve a light sentence with daily release from prison, and obtain broad immunity including for any co-conspirators who may have been involved.
Dozens of victims, most of whom were children when the crimes occurred, were not informed about these negotiations. They lost their right to be heard, to understand the legal process, and to participate in decisions that directly determined the fate of justice for them.
Courtney Wild then stated: “We were never given the opportunity to speak. We were treated as if we didn't exist.”
This statement illustrates a form of secondary victimisation, where the legal system not only fails to protect victims, but actually deepens their wounds.
In 2019, Federal District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the federal government had violated the CVRA. However, this ruling came eleven years too late. Epstein had enjoyed his freedom and continued his pattern of crime, while the victims were left waiting for an acknowledgement that was practically meaningless.
Photo: Department of Justice
Photo: Department of Justice
II. Failure to Protect Prisoners and State Responsibility
The state's failure did not end at the prosecution stage. After Epstein was re-arrested in 2019, the state's responsibility shifted to its constitutional obligation to protect the safety of prisoners.
Based on the Farmer v. Brennan standard, the state is responsible when it is aware of a substantial risk to the safety of prisoners and fails to take reasonable steps. In Epstein's case, the risk of suicide was not speculation: he was a high-profile prisoner, facing serious charges, and had shown signs of previous suicide attempts.
The negligence of supervision at the Metropolitan Correctional Centre was not merely the fault of two individual guards. It reflected institutional failures in the federal prison system, ranging from understaffing and weak internal oversight to a culture of administrative impunity. When Epstein died, the state lost not only a prisoner, but also the only avenue of criminal accountability for his victims.
Jennifer Araoz, one of the victims, told the media: “We want to see him in court. His death has robbed us of that opportunity.”
Although two prison officers were charged with negligence, the resolution of their cases through probation and community service gives the impression that the state's failure has once again been dealt with in a minimalist manner, without adequate structural reflection.
With Epstein's death, the federal criminal proceedings came to a complete halt. The victims have their testimonies, evidence and trauma, but no longer have a defendant. The state failed twice: first by protecting the perpetrator, and second by eliminating the forum for justice.
Photo: Department of Justice
Photo: Department of Justice
Conclusion: The State's Unfulfilled Responsibility
Throughout this series of events, there is a consistent pattern of failure. The state violated the rights of victims through a closed and unaccountable plea bargain. The state failed to protect the safety of prisoners, with direct consequences for the victims' right to justice. And when the criminal route was closed, the financial compensation mechanism, despite providing limited recognition, could never replace the substantive justice that should have been provided through a transparent judicial process.
As Annie Farmer stated: "What I want is not just money. I want the system that protects him to be held accountable."
The Epstein case shows that human rights lose their meaning when their application depends on the social position and economic power of the perpetrator. In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, the protection of victims is not a privilege, but an absolute obligation of the state, an obligation that in this case has failed to be fulfilled.