[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6590-S6591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            VICTIMS' RIGHTS

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today, I want to continue my discussion on 
the crime bill that I intend to introduce in the Senate next week.
  As I have pointed out in previous speeches on this issue, there are 
really two fundamental issues that we always need to address when we 
look at the question of a crime bill, when we look at whether it is a 
good crime bill or whether it is not, when we look at whether it gets 
the job done or not. The first question is: What is the proper role of 
the Federal Government in fighting crime in this country, understanding 
that 90 to 95 percent of all criminal prosecution is not done at the 
Federal level, but rather done at the local level, the State level, the 
county level? What is the role of the Federal Government?
  The second question we always have to ask is, despite all the 
rhetoric: What really works in the area of law enforcement? What really 
matters? And, conversely, what does not matter?
  On Wednesday of this week, I discussed these issues with specific 
reference to crimefighting technology. The conclusion I reached was 
that we have an outstanding technological base in this country that 
will do a great deal to help us catch criminals.
  Mr. President, technology does, in fact, matter.
  However, we do need the Federal Government to be more proactive in 
this area, more proactive in getting the States on line with this 
technology and giving the States the assets they need to get that job 
done.
  Having a terrific national criminal records system or huge DNA data 
base for convicted sex offenders in Washington, DC, is great--but it 
will not do much good for the police officer in Lucas County, Hamilton 
County, and Franklin County, OH, or if other jurisdictions across this 
country cannot tap into it, cannot get the information out or, 
conversely, cannot put the information in.
  Mr. President, crime occurs locally. So we have to make sure the 
crimefighting resources--such as high-tech data bases--are, in fact, 
available to local law enforcement. And one of the principal provisions 
of the bill that I will introduce next week does just that, drives that 
home to the thousands, tens of thousands of local law enforcement 
agencies scattered throughout our 50 States.
  Mr. President, on Thursday of this week, I discussed a second issue--
what we have to do to get armed career criminals off our streets. At 
that time, I talked specifically about a program called Project 
Triggerlock that targeted gun criminals for Federal prosecution.
  Mr. President, Project Triggerlock worked. It got 15,000--15,000--
armed career criminals off the streets in just 18 months. But, 
incredibly, the Clinton administration abolished this program. My 
legislation, Mr. President, would bring back Project Triggerlock, and 
toughen the laws on gun crimes in many other significant ways. It is 
clear, if we are going to be tough on crime and do things that really 
matter, we have to get armed career criminals off our streets.
  Today, I would like to turn to a third provision of my crime bill, a 
third issue, and it is an issue that is near and dear to my heart as a 
former county prosecuting attorney, and that is the people that we many 
times forget in our criminal justice system, the victims of crime.
  Today, I would like to talk about that component of my crime 
legislation. I would like to discuss some of the measures I think we 
ought to take in the area of victims' rights.
  The late Hubert Humphrey said, in a much admired and much quoted 
comment:

       The moral test of Government is how that Government treats 
     those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who 
     are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are 
     in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the 
     handicapped.

  What the former Vice President and former U.S. Senator said, what he 
was talking about was the fundamental role of Government to protect the 
weak, to protect those citizens who could not protect themselves. That 
is why, I submit, Mr. President, I think victims of crime belong on 
that list, as well.
  For too long, victims have been forgotten by our judicial system. 
From start to finish, the legal system can be a terrible ordeal for the 
victims--a bureaucratic nightmare that seems to and, in fact, does many 
times, go on and on and on.
  In our Constitution, we have all kinds of protections for the rights 
of defendants, as well we should. We try to make sure that they have 
every possible chance--and that is good--because we do not know if the 
defendants are guilty. We want to know if they have justice. That is 
why we bend over backwards to be fair to anyone accused of crime.
  Mr. President, in the process, I believe that many times we have 
forgotten the victims of crime.
  Over the last few decades, we have made some progress in this area. 
We have made some progress in recognizing the rights of victims. When I 
was a county prosecutor in the 1970's, I saw too many crime victims, 
people who had already been hurt, hurt a second time by a callous legal 
system. That is why I did everything that I could to protect the rights 
of those victims.
  Today, the legal process, in spite of changes, in spite of reforms, 
in spite of progress that we have made, is still too brutal on the 
victims. Our bottom line has to be this: To be victimized once by a 
crime is already once too often. To be victimized yet again by an 
uncaring judicial system is totally, totally unacceptable.
  There are some measures we should take as part of this year's crime 
legislation to continue the process of making the legal system treat 
crime victims with greater fairness and with greater consideration. Let 
me talk about a few of these.
  No. 1, let us make sure that crime does not pay. Today, a Federal 
trial court may--may--order restitution for crimes. I think that in 
every case they should order restitution for crimes. I think we should 
mandate full restitution in all Federal criminal cases.
  No. 2, let us stop the brutalization of victims in our courts. Under 
current law, lawyers are not allowed to present evidence that they know 
is false. That is a basic tenet of judicial ethics for lawyers. Every 
law student learns that early on. But what defense lawyers can do under 
our current system is this: If they have a crime victim on the stand, a 
crime victim whom they know is telling the truth, defense lawyers are 
still allowed to make it look like that witness is lying. Defense 
lawyers can do this even though they know the witness is telling the 
truth. My legislation would prohibit this practice.
  No. 3, let us make the trial process more fair to the victims. Under 
the Constitution, a defendant has the right, if he so chooses, not to 
testify in his own defense. This is a very important constitutional 
right. It is imperative that we always protect this. This 
 [[Page S6591]] right has a consequence, a consequence that is both 
unintended and, I submit, undesirable.
  There are cases in which the defense team decides not to put the 
defendant on the stand, which is fine, and then, though, attacks the 
victim's character and the victim when that victim, himself or herself, 
takes the stand and testifies. In effect, the defense lawyers put the 
victim on trial while at the same time being able to shield the 
defendant from questions about that defendant's own character.
  I think it is time to end the free ride for these defendants. Let us 
simply say to the defendants and let us say to the defendants' lawyers 
this: If you, the accused or a lawyer, want to attack the character of 
a victim, then you can expect the prosecutor to call your character 
into question. It is only fair. It is only right. It is only just.
  No. 4, let us make people who are accused of sexual assault be tested 
for HIV. If you, or one of your loved ones, was the victim of a sexual 
assault today, it is very difficult to find out if the attacker has 
HIV, and in today's society, is that not something that the victim 
should know? Is that not something that the court system should help 
the victim to determine?
  Last year, the Senate version of the crime bill did have a provision 
mandating HIV testing of persons arrested for sexual assault. The 
Clinton administration supported this provision. But in the other body, 
for some reason, it was dropped.
  My legislation would change that. My legislation would put that back 
in. My legislation would force the HIV testing of these defendants and 
the disclosure of the testing results to the victims of crime.
  No. 5, a fifth way to make our system more fair and more just to the 
victims of crime, let us make the jury, the whole jury system, a level 
playing field. The O.J. Simpson trial has focused America's attention 
on the process of the selection of a jury. How do we make sure that the 
jury is a fair panel?
  Mr. President, under today's Federal laws, prosecutors can challenge 
six potential jurors without giving cause, what in the courtroom they 
call ``cause.'' Six jurors can be knocked off without giving any 
reason. Defense lawyers, however, can challenge 10 without giving a 
reason. These are called generally peremptory challenges where each 
side can excuse a juror without giving a reason.
  I think that we should give victims an impartial trial, jury, and a 
fair shake. To do that, I think we need to give both the prosecution 
and the defense simply the same number of peremptory challenges. It 
only seems right, and it only seems fair.
  Mr. President, all the provisions I have discussed today to protect 
victims have a common theme. In our judicial system, we cannot condone 
the revictimization of crime victims. Our system is and must be 
impartial. It must be impartial between the prosecution and the 
defense, all the while recognizing the presumption of innocence on 
behalf of the defendant.
  There is no reason that the presumption of the defendant's innocence 
should be construed in such a way that it condones heartless treatment 
of crime victims. The criminal law embodies some of the truly 
fundamental values of our society. One of these values is that we 
should console those who have been hurt. We should not victimize them 
further.
  A number of years ago when I was a county prosecuting attorney, I 
would see the victims of murder and other violent crimes. I would 
interview people who had been abused, assaulted, and raped. I learned a 
lot from talking to these innocent people. I learned that we have to 
make the crime victim a full participant, not a forgotten person, in 
the criminal justice system.
  The proposals I have just outlined would help us make some progress 
in turning the criminal justice system into a more victim-friendly 
enterprise. It is long past time that we stop treating the victims like 
they are criminals and the criminals like they are victims.
  My legislation is an attempt to move the concerns of crime victims 
toward center stage in our Federal criminal justice policy.
  Next week, I will continue my series of speeches on the crime bill 
that I intend to introduce next week. On Monday, I will explain what I 
think we ought to do to get more police officers on the streets, 
particularly to get more police officers on the streets where the crime 
is the highest, because if there is one thing that we know, it is this: 
Law enforcement officers who are well trained and who are deployed 
correctly on our streets will, in fact, reduce crime. That is a fact. 
That is the truth. I will talk more about this next week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

                          ____________________