[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11998-S12000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KYL (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Exon):
  S.J. Res. 65. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime 
victims; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


              the victims' rights constitutional amendment

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, to ensure that crime victims are treated with 
fairness, dignity, and respect, I rise--along with Senator Feinstein--
to introduce a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to 
establish and protect the rights of crime victims.
  This joint resolution is the product of extended discussions with 
Senators Hatch and Biden, the Department of Justice, the White House, 
law enforcement, major victims' rights groups, and such diverse 
scholars as Professors Larry Tribe and Paul Cassell.
  This latest joint resolution is still a work in progress; Senator 
Feinstein and I anticipate modifications. We are introducing this new 
version to show the changes that have been made and to make clear that 
Senate Joint Resolution 52--which was introduced on April 22--has been 
superseded. We welcome suggestions on ways to improve the amendment and 
ask that comments refer to this new joint resolution.
  Three principal issues remain unresolved. First, whether there should 
be an effective remedy when crime victims are denied rights regarding 
sentences or pleas. Second, whether to include non-violent crimes--
other crimes--and if these crimes are included, whether they should be 
defined by Congress or by Congress and the states. Third, whether to 
have a right to a final disposition free from unreasonable delay or 
whether to limit this right to trial proceedings.
  The introduced version--and the most recent version--contain the core 
principles that crime victims should have:
  To be informed of the proceedings.
  To be heard at certain crucial stages in the process.
  To be notified of the offender's release or escape.
  To proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
  To an order of restitution.
  To have the safety of the victim considered in determining a release 
from custody.
  To be notified of these rights.
  The language describing these rights has changed--and we continue to 
welcome suggestions. But it is clear that these rights are necessary. 
They are the core of the amendment.
  In putting together a constitutional amendment, a broad consensus has 
to be reached to obtain two-thirds approval in the House and Senate and 
to ensure ratification by three-fourths of the States. In making 
changes, Senator Feinstein and I have tried to accommodate the concerns 
of those who work in the criminal justice system--including judges, 
prosecutors, police officers, corrections officials, and defense 
attorneys--while at the same time protecting fundamental rights for 
crime victims.
  Senator Feinstein and I will continue to work intensively with these 
groups, law professors, and other Members of Congress from both parties 
and both Houses over the ensuing months to craft the best amendment 
possible. We then intend to introduce the finished revised amendment at 
the beginning of the next Congress. We believe that we now are close to 
a version that can be voted on by the House and Senate. We welcome 
comments and input as we move forward.
  In closing, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her 
hard work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of 
crime victims.
  Mr. President, for far too long, the criminal justice system has 
ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, 
and respect. Our criminal justice system will never

[[Page S11999]]

be truly just as long as criminals have rights and victims have none. 
We need a new definition of justice--one that includes the victim.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 65

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of 
     each House concurring therein), That the following article is 
     proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as 
     part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 
     three-fourths of the several States within seven years from 
     the date of its submission by the Congress:
       Section 1. Victims of crimes of violence and other crimes 
     that Congress and the States may define by law pursuant to 
     section 3, shall have the rights to notice of and not to be 
     excluded from all public proceedings relating to the crime; 
     to be heard if present and to submit a statement at a public 
     pre-trial or trial proceeding to determine a release from 
     custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea, or a sentence; 
     to these rights at a parole proceeding to the extent they are 
     afforded to the convicted offender; to notice of a release 
     pursuant to a public or parole proceeding or an escape; to a 
     final disposition free from unreasonable delay; to an order 
     of restitution from the convicted offender; to have the 
     safety of the victim considered in determining a release from 
     custody; and to notice of the rights established by this 
     article.
       Section 2. The victim shall have standing to assert the 
     rights established by this article; however, nothing in this 
     article shall provide grounds for the victim to challenge a 
     charging decision or a conviction, obtain a stay of trial, or 
     compel a new trial; nor shall anything in this article give 
     rise to a claim of damages against the United States, a 
     State, a political subdivision, or a public official; nor 
     shall anything in this article provide grounds for the 
     accused or convicted offender to obtain any form of relief.
       Section 3. The Congress and the States shall have the power 
     to enforce this article within their respective federal and 
     state jurisdictions by appropriate legislation, including the 
     power to enact exceptions when required for compelling 
     reasons of public safety.
       Section 4. The rights established by this article shall be 
     applicable to all proceedings occurring after ratification of 
     this article.
       Section 5. The rights established by this article shall 
     apply in all federal, state, military, and juvenile justice 
     proceedings, and shall also apply to victims in the District 
     of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession 
     of the United States.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my 
distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, to introduce a 
revised and substantially improved version of the victims' rights 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  Since Senator Kyl and I originally introduced a victims' rights 
amendment in April, we have been working very diligently and 
intensively with the Department of Justice, law enforcement, the White 
House, major victims' rights groups, Senate Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Biden, House Judiciary Committee 
Chairman Hyde, and a variety of distinguished scholars in the field of 
law enforcement, to more finely craft this amendment and resolve 
various concerns with its initial language. We have gone through 41 
different drafts of the amendment, so far, as the language has evolved, 
culminating in the resolution that we are introducing today.
  We are introducing this most recent version so that interested people 
have an up to date draft to evaluate. Many of the people who have 
commented on the victims' rights amendment were commenting on an out of 
date draft, leading to erroneous and false conclusions by some, 
including legal scholars.
  What really focused my attention on the need for greater protection 
of victims' rights was a particularly horrifying case, in 1974, in San 
Francisco, when a man named Angelo Pavageau broke into the house of the 
Carlson family in Portero Hill. Pavageau tied Mr. Carlson to a chair, 
bludgeoning him to death with a hammer, a chopping block, and a ceramic 
vase. He then repeatedly raped Carlson's 24-year old wife, breaking 
several of her bones, He slit her wrist, tried to strangle her with a 
telephone cord, and then, before fleeing, set the Carlson's home on 
fire--cowardly retreating into the night, leaving this family to burn 
up in flames.
  But Mrs. Carlson survived the fire. She courageously lived to testify 
against her attacker. But she has been forced to change her name and 
continues to live in fear that her attacker may, one day, be released. 
When I was mayor of San Francisco, she called me several times to 
notify me that Pavageau was up for parole. Amazingly, it was up to Mrs. 
Carlson to find out when his parole hearings were.

  Mr. President, I believe this case represents a travesty of justice--
It just shouldn't have to be that way. I believe it should be the 
responsibility of the State to send a letter through the mail or make a 
phone call to let a victim know that her attacker is up for parole, and 
she should have the opportunity to testify at that hearing.
  But today, in most States in this great Nation, victims still are not 
made aware of the accused's trial, many times are not allowed in the 
courtroom during the trial, and are not notified when convicted 
offender is released from prison.
  I have vowed to do everything in my power to add a bit of balance to 
our Nation's justice system. This is why Senator Kyl and I have crafted 
the victim's rights amendment before us today.
  The people of California were the first in the Nation to pass a crime 
victims' amendment to the State constitution in 1982--the initiative 
proposition 8--and I supported its passage. This measure gave victims 
the right to restitution, the right to testify at sentencing, probation 
and parole hearings established a right to safe and secure public 
school campuses, and made various changes in criminal law. California's 
proposition 8 represented a good start to ensure victims' rights.
  Since the passage of proposition 8, 20 more States have passed 
constitutional amendments guaranteeing the rights of crime victims--and 
five others are expected to pass by the end of this year. In each case, 
these amendments have won with the overwhelming approval of the voters.
  But citizens in other States lack these basic rights. The 20 
different State constitutional amendments differ from each other, 
representing a patchwork quilt of rights that vary from State to State. 
And even in those States which have State amendments, criminals can 
assert rights grounded in the Federal constitution to try to trump 
those rights.
  I stand before you today to appeal to my colleagues in this body--the 
highest legislative institution in the land--that the time is now to 
amend the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the rights of victims 
of serious crimes.
  The U.S. Constitution guarantees numerous rights to the accused in 
our society, all of which were established by amendment to the 
Constitution. I steadfastly believe that this Nation must attempt to 
guarantee, at the very least, some basic rights to the millions 
victimized by crime each year.
  For those accused of crimes in this country, the Constitution 
specifically protects: The right to a grand jury indictment for capital 
or infamous crimes; the prohibition against double jeopardy; the right 
to due process; the right to a speedy trial and the right to an 
impartial jury of one's peers; the right to be informed of the nature 
and cause of the criminal accusation; the right to confront witnesses; 
the right to counsel; the right to subpoena witnesses--and so on.
  I must say to my colleagues that I find it truly astonishing that no 
where in the text of the U.S. Constitution does there appear any 
guarantee of rights for crime victims.
  To rectify this disparity, Senator Kyl and I introduce the victims' 
rights amendment in April. That amendment, like the one we introduced 
today, provides for certain basic rights for victims of crime: The 
right to be notified of public proceedings in their case; The right to 
be heard at any proceeding involving a release from custody or 
sentencing; The right to be informed of the offender's release or 
escape; The right to restitution from the convicted offender; and the 
right to be made of all of your rights as a victim.

  Personally, I can say that the process of forging a constitutional 
amendment for victims' rights has been truly fascinating. The 
Constitution our forefathers scribed 200 years ago is a remarkable 
document that has withstood the test of time. Earlier this year, 
Senator Kyl and I embarked on a journey

[[Page S12000]]

to include an amendment to this magnificent document that would ensure 
that the rights of the roughly 43 million people victimized by crime 
each year will be protected.
  Our ongoing effort to include a victims' rights amendment in the 
Constitution has been at times frustrating, while at other times 
exhilarating. Each sentence, each word, and each comma has undergone 
hours of deliberation and questioning.
  Having said that, I must tell this body and share with my colleagues 
that this latest resolution is still a work in progress--let me be 
perfectly clear, we anticipate modifications. Three principal issues 
remain unresolved:
  First, whether there should be an effective remedy when crime victims 
are denied rights regarding sentences or pleas.
  Second, whether to include nonviolent crimes (``other crimes''), and 
if these crimes are included, whether they should be defined by 
Congress or by Congress and the States.
  Third, whether to have a right to a ``final disposition free from 
unreasonable delay'', whether to limit this right to trial proceedings, 
or whether to exclude this altogether.
  Mr. President, Senator Kyl and I believe that the latest resolution 
before us is much better than the version than was previously 
introduced for a number of reasons. The language describing these 
rights has changed--and we continue to welcome suggestions to ensure 
that this amendment pass with the largest majority.
  Unfortunately, there was precious little time to advance the 
amendment in this Congress, and once it became clear that the other 
Chamber would not proceed with the amendment this session, Senators Kyl 
and Biden and I decided not to press for Senate action in the last few 
weeks of the Congress, but, rather, to spend the next few months 
continuing to work to fine tune the amendment and build a consensus for 
its passage.
  We implore Members of this body to examine this amendment, and to 
help to secure passage of this monumental piece of legislation. After 
200 years, doesn't this Nation owe something to the millions of victims 
of crime? I believe that is our obligation and should be our highest 
priority--not only for the crime victims, but, for all Americans--to 
ensure passage of a victims' rights constitutional amendment.
  I want to personally than Senator Kyl for his tireless efforts to 
accomplish this amendment, and to say that I look forward to continuing 
to work with him in the months to come.
  I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________