[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6243-6245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  VICTIMS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT OPPOSITION

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, because of the way in which the Senate last 
week ended its consideration of S.J. Res. 3, a proposed constitutional 
amendment on crime victims' rights, I did not have an opportunity to 
include in the Record a number of thoughtful editorials from across the 
country. I now ask unanimous consent to have a number of them printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

           [From the Asheville Citizen-Times, Apr. 25, 2000]

                     Victims' Bill Seriously Flawed

       Today, the United States Senate will vote on the joint 
     Senate Resolution proposing that a victims' rights amendment 
     be added to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment has been 
     endorsed by some 39 Attorneys General, by organizations such 
     as Racial Minorities for Victim Justice, as well as by the 
     presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Gov. George W. 
     Bush.
       In effect, the amendment would offer victims the 
     constitutionally guaranteed right to:
       Be notified of proceedings in the criminal case;
       To attend public proceedings in the case;
       To make a statement at release proceedings, sentencing and 
     proceedings regarding a plea bargain;
       To have the court order the convicted offender to pay 
     restitution for the harm caused by the crime.
       Some of these provisions may indeed restore some balance to 
     a system that leans heavily in favor of protecting criminals' 
     rights. Some of these provisions are already being enacted in 
     certain jurisdictions and in certain cases on behalf of 
     vitims--the right to be present at hearings and to make 
     statements for example.
       Many prosecutors are opposing this amendment because of the 
     unintended effects it could have, and the public should 
     oppose it in light of many unanswered questions and concerns. 
     For example, should rival gang members be notified of pending 
     hearings and be invited to make statement against those 
     rivals? What of convicted violent felons who are themselves 
     victimized in prison--who are the true victims? Will 
     prosecutors be compelled to notify thousands of victims in 
     the case of a national telemarketing scam?
       These are real questions that the Senate is grappling with. 
     Without real answers, they should vote ``No.'' We should not 
     tamper with the U.S. Constitution when a statute will suffice 
     in place of an amendment. That document is too important to 
     who are as Americans.
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Apr. 23, 2000]

                       Distorting Victims' Rights

       Senate vote: A constitutional amendment could actually harm 
     victims and rights of innocent.
       It's an election year. You can tell by the flurry of votes 
     on proposed constitutional amendments in Congress this month. 
     The latest, set for the Senate this week, is perhaps the most 
     deceptive and dangerous--a victims' rights amendment.
       On the surface it seems reasonable, similar to rights 
     adopted in 32 states. It would guarantee crime victims the 
     right to speak at parole, plea-bargain or sentencing 
     hearings, to be notified of an offender's release, to 
     restitution, and a speedy trial.
       But wait a minute: Isn't the defendant the one who has a 
     constitutional right to a speedy trial? This amendment would 
     change all that: Victims would have rights equal to a 
     defendant.
       That's just the start of the dangers. The amendment doesn't 
     define who's a victim. Parents? Ex-spouses? Cousins? 
     Boyfriends?
       It would create a third party in trials intent on 
     retribution, even though the defendant may not have committed 
     the crime.
       It would give victims the right to oppose plea bargains. 
     One of the lead lawyers in the Oklahoma City bombing case 
     says this would have made virtually impossible to convict 
     Timothy McVeigh.
       Victims also would have the right to demand a speedy 
     trial--even if prosecutors say they need more time to build a 
     winnable case. And what happens if the ``victims'' disagree? 
     In the Oklahoma City case, there would have been thousands of 
     ``victims,'' many entitled to court-appointed lawyers.
       This could lead to grotesque distortions. A battered wife 
     who strikes back and maims her husband could wind up paying 
     restitution to the ``victim.'' So could a shopkeeper who 
     shoots a robber--the ``victim'' becomes the robber.
       We fear for the right to a fair trial. Crime victims' 
     prejudgement of the defendant clashes with the notion that 
     you're innocent until proven guilty.
       Victims deserve certain rights. But not in the 
     Constitution. Why hasn't Congress passed federal laws to 
     assist them? It could be decades before a constitution-
     cluttering amendment is approved.
       This is the wrong approach. The proposal could damage our 
     court system and our fundamental rights.
       We urge Senators Barbara A. Mikulski and Paul S. Sarbanes 
     to vote against this ill-conceived constitutional amendment--
     and then commit to drawing up more clearly defined laws 
     giving crime victims a voice in court.

[[Page 6244]]

     
                                  ____
               [From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 20, 2000]

         Criminal Act--The Folly of a Victim's Rights Amendment

                           (By Steve Chapman)

       Some conservatives love Mt. Rushmore so much that they want 
     to alter it, by adding Ronald Reagan. Likewise, many people 
     think the U.S. Constitution is not so flawless that it 
     couldn't be improved. Each group ignores the possibility that 
     its revisions may turn something that is nearly perfect into 
     something that is, well, not nearly perfect.
       Recently, the Senate barely failed to approve a 
     constitutional amendment to eliminate the terrible national 
     scourge of flag-burning. Next week, it will vote on the 
     Victims' Rights Amendment, which is based on the odd notion 
     that the criminal justice system does too little for the 
     victims of crime.
       In fact, the nation spends enormous sums every year for the 
     victims of crime. Legions of police, lawyers and judges labor 
     every day to find, prosecute and punish people who aggress 
     against their neighbors. We run the world's biggest 
     correctional system, with 1,500 facilities devoted to the 
     care and feeding of nearly 2 million inmates--and that's not 
     counting more than 3 million lawbreakers on parole or 
     probation. All of this is partly for the protection of 
     everyone, but it's also an affirmation of our concern for 
     crime victims.
       So what oversight is the amendment supposed to address? 
     Some victims feel their interests are not considered and 
     their voices are not heard when criminal justice decisions 
     are made. Asserts the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``The 
     victims of crime have been transformed into a group 
     oppressively burdened by a system designed to protect them.'' 
     Its remedy is to give victims of violent crimes the 
     constitutional right to attend all proceedings, to make their 
     views known about sentencing and plea arrangements, to be 
     notified of an offender's impending release, to insist on a 
     speedy trial and to get restitution from the victimizer.
       But the claim of oppression is a vast exaggeration. In a 
     country with 8 million violent crimes committed every year, 
     the justice system is bound to cause some victims to feel 
     dissatisfied and even angry. If 95 percent get satisfactory 
     treatment, that leaves hundreds of thousands of people a year 
     who are shortchanged.
       Some of the supposed mistreatment stems not from 
     callousness, but from efforts to provide the accused a fair 
     trial. Amendment supporters want victims to be able to attend 
     trials from start to finish, just as defendants do. But the 
     only time they are barred is before they testify--to minimize 
     the chance that they will (intentionally or not) tailor their 
     testimony to match that of other witnesses.
       The unassailable reason for the rule is that it improves 
     the chances of finding the truth. This is not a favor just to 
     suspects: A crime victim gains nothing if the courts punish 
     the wrong person and let the guilty party go free.
       Keeping victims informed about the proceedings, and letting 
     them attend, could create huge problems in some cases. Take 
     the Columbine High School massacre, where two students 
     murdered 13 people and wounded 23 others before committing 
     suicide.
       Suppose Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had lived to stand 
     trial. Who would be entitled to attend and comment on any 
     proposed plea bargain? The families of the 36 dead and 
     wounded? The families of all the students who witnessed any 
     of the shootings? The families of all Columbine students? 
     Your guess is as good as the Senate's: The Victims' Rights 
     Amendment doesn't bother defining the term ``victim.''
       The wider the net, the bigger the logistical challenge. 
     Just notifying all these people of every proceeding, from the 
     time a suspect is arrested until the time he's released from 
     prison years or decades later, would be hard enough. Making 
     room for them in court might mean holding the trial in a 
     large auditorium. Letting each one speak would not exactly 
     advance the goal of speedy justice.
       There is nothing to stop the states from mandating 
     consideration of crime victims. In fact, all 50 states have 
     done that. As former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce 
     Fein testified at a recent House hearing, ``Nothing in the 
     Constitution or in U.S. Supreme Court precedents handcuffs 
     either Congress or the states in fashioning victims' rights 
     statutes.''
       The advantage of helping victims by these means is that we 
     can experiment to find solutions that are sensible and 
     affordable and abandon those that are not. But a 
     constitutional amendment would transfer the power to courts 
     to enforce these new rights, without much regard for 
     practicality or proportion.
       It would amount to giving unelected federal judges 
     instructions to do good and a blank check with which to do 
     it. Only years later would we find out whether the benefits 
     would be worth the cost and by that time, it would be very 
     hard to change our minds.
       The Victims' Rights Amendment is not likely to do much for 
     crime victims that can't be done by other means. But by 
     creating a new constitutional demand of unknown dimensions, 
     it threatens to make victims of us all.
                                  ____


               [From the Collegiate Times, Apr. 25, 2000]

              Victims' Rights Bill Violates Others' Rights

       Although the victims' rights amendment, set to receive 
     Senate vote at the end of the month, sounds like it has all 
     the makings of noble piece of legislation, its true colors 
     shine through as potentially endangering to the rights of the 
     accused.
       The bill finds bipartisan support, primarily bolstered by 
     the efforts of Senators Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) and Dianne 
     Feinstein (D-California.)
       The measure would provide victims with the right to 
     notification of public proceedings, which emerge from the 
     alleged offense against them.
       In addition, it provides the right of presence at hearings 
     and capacity to testify when the topics of parole, plea-
     bargaining or sentencing are concerned. Further, victims 
     would be privileged with orders of restitution and attention 
     to their interests in the initiative of speedy trials 
     (Washington Post, April 24).
       On a state level, many of these provisions already exist.
       But does the Constitution, the ultimate framework of our 
     nation's concept of justice, deserve this slap in the face 
     legislation?
       Certainly, when anything is under consideration of 
     amendment to the Constitution, a thorough analysis should 
     occur to both ensure the delicate balance of the Constitution 
     between the accused and the accuser remains intact and that 
     justice remains the focus at all times.
       Upon examination, this measure is exposed as a travesty to 
     both. Any right the accused has under the Constitution would 
     be grossly usurped by the passing of this bill into law.
       For example, a defendant's constitutional right to a fair 
     trial would rest on the victim's concern in pursuing justice 
     swiftly for their own sake. Another ramification of this bill 
     includes the inevitability of prosecutorial hold ups.
       By integrating the emotional response of victims into the 
     proceedings of plea-bargaining and sentencing where 
     prosecution once exercised discretion as given to them by 
     law, fairness in sentencing and swiftness in sentencing seem 
     harder to come by.
       On the most basic of levels, the sheer label of victim 
     conflicts with the very sentiment for which the Constitution 
     stands.
       The use of the word victim violates the premise of 
     innocence until guilt has been proven in a court of law. By 
     labeling the accuser as a victim, guilt has been assigned to 
     the accused.
       It prematurely uses terminology that assesses a situation 
     in light of allegations rather than legally submitted 
     evidence.
       The rights of all victims remain preserved in the 
     Constitution.
       The fact that courts are fully prepared to issue a denial 
     of all freedoms to the accused, should they be found guilty, 
     guarantees, on the behalf of victims as well as society at 
     large, justice will be served.
       Justice will be served by the end processes and not 
     prematurely.
       For this reason, the interests of victims are under 
     constant consideration. This piece of legislation threatens 
     to disrupt the balance the Constitution maintains and tip the 
     scale in favor of victims.
       This bill, should it be made into law, promises an 
     undemocratic approach to dealing with the accused in a manner 
     which jeopardizes their rights and liberties.
       The court system pursues prosecution on behalf of victims.
       To undermine these efforts in the name of victims' rights 
     seems the most forthright ruin of what the Constitution truly 
     intended as safeguards for the accused as well as the 
     accuser.
                                  ____


             [From the Herald, Everett, WA, Apr. 19, 2000]

            Amendment to Aid Victims Could Cause More Damage

       The U.S. Senate is nearing a vote on a constitutional 
     amendment that seeks to enact a good idea. Like many fine 
     concepts, however, the proposed victims' rights amendment 
     could cause enormous trouble. The Senate has been looking at 
     the proposal seriously since last year. Good arguments have 
     been made on both sides of the amendment, which has 
     bipartisan sponsorship from Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and 
     Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
       As amendment supporters argue, the level of crime in 
     American society should cause us to look more carefully at 
     protecting the rights of victims and their families. Too many 
     court decisions have protected criminals' rights without a 
     corresponding development of the law to assure victims' 
     interests are respected. Indeed, the whole area of 
     prosecution has changed so much in the past 200 years that an 
     amendment could be a reasonable addition to the Constitution. 
     When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, for 
     instance, it was common for victims themselves to bring a 
     criminal case.
       Still, a constitutional amendment ought to be a matter of 
     last resort. The amendment simply fails to meet that 
     elemental test. In fact, portions of what the amendment seeks 
     to ensure are already required in existing federal law.
       Unfortunantely, members of Congress have failed to provide 
     the appropriations necessary to ensure that victims are 
     notified of

[[Page 6245]]

     hearings and to make sure that prosecutors have the time and 
     resources to be in regular contact with them. An amendment to 
     the Constitution requiring such actions would do little to 
     remedy such neglect. Indeed, unless followed by better 
     funding, the amendment might put even more strain on 
     prosecutors' time and budgets, making them more reluctant to 
     take on difficult cases. That would work decidedly in the 
     favor of criminals, not society.
       Many prosecutors and victims' groups have concerns about 
     the potential for unintended harm from the amendment. Their 
     arguments make enormous sense. During the past two decades, 
     America has begun to address its crime problem more 
     seriously. From local offices to the federal government, 
     prosecutors and lawmakers are doing better in addressing the 
     needs of victims and society. The step-by-step approach is 
     showing results in reduced crime. Methodical, painstaking 
     improvements should be strengthened, rather than being 
     shunted aside in favor of a constitutional amendment that, at 
     best, promises more than it would deliver.

                          ____________________