Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Victims' Rights Bill Gains Momentum

>           WASHINGTON (AP) -- It's time to stop tinkering on a
>           proposal to amend the Constitution to add new rights
>           for victims of violent crime, supporters said Tuesday.
> 
>           A three-page proposed constitutional amendment
>           guaranteeing victims' rights has gone through two years
>           of work and 55 drafts, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., said
>           Tuesday during a third public hearing of the Senate
>           Judiciary Committee.
> 
>           The newest version of the legislation, introduced April
>           1, has attracted bipartisan support -- 30 Republican
>           and 11 Democratic co-sponsors, including Sen. Dianne
>           Feinstein of California, an original co-sponsor with
>           Kyl, and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, a former
>           Judiciary Committee chairman.
> 
>           But it's still getting criticism from individuals and
>           victims' rights groups that want changes or want the
>           whole idea killed.
> 
>           Included in the resolution are provisions that would
>           amend the Constitution to require that victims:
> 
>           --Be notified of any court proceedings involving their
>           accused assailants.
> 
>           --Have the right to attend all public proceedings.
> 
>           --Be heard at crucial stages of the legal process.
> 
>           --Be notified of an offender's release or escape.
> 
>           --Have an opportunity to receive restitution.
> 
>           --Be notified of these rights.
> 
>           Judges also would have to consider the safety of the
>           victim when releasing an offender from custody.
> 
>           Supporters say a patchwork quilt of state victims'
>           rights laws already on the books is inadequate. The
>           amendment would give victims' rights the same level of
>           importance as the rights of the accused, which already
>           are in the Constitution, they said.
> 
>           Other victims' rights advocates say the amendment
>           should include victims of nonviolent crimes.
> 
>           Going too far in advancing victims' rights could
>           backfire, said Kathleen Krenek, a policy development
>           coordinator of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic
>           Violence.
> 
>           ``I represent victims' rights advocates who believe
>           that if we violate the rights of defendants, even in
>           the name of victims, we violate the rights of everyone.
>           The victims' rights amendment is based on the implied
>           presumption of the defendant's guilt,'' she said.
> 
>           The Clinton administration has said it supports the
>           general thrust of the amendment, but presented a list
>           of suggested changes Tuesday.
> 
>           The proposed constitutional amendment should clearly
>           state that none of its provisions should be applied in
>           a matter that violates the rights of a criminal
>           defendant, Associate Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher
>           told the Judiciary Committee.
> 
>           ``We want to ensure that in our effort to provide
>           victims with rights they manifestly deserve, we do not
>           erode the rights of the accused as provided for in the
>           Constitution,'' he said.
> 
>           The authority to make exceptions to victims' rights
>           should reside only in Congress, Fisher said, and the
>           measure should make clear that the right to an order of
>           restitution does not apply to crimes committed before
>           adoption of the amendment.
> 
>           Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the committee's
>           highest-ranking Democrat, said the measure's supporters
>           could get what they want more easily and faster through
>           changes in federal law. A bill Leahy is sponsoring
>           would add many of the amendment's provisions to federal
>           law.
> 
>           A constitutional amendment must be approved by
>           two-thirds votes in the House and the Senate, and then
>           must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
> 
>           Leahy said changes in the Constitution should be rare
>           and undertaken only when there is no other way to solve
>           a problem.
> 
>           ``I note that one of the reasons that legislation is
>           often the preferable approach is the difficulty of
>           fine-tuning and correcting constitutional language,''
>           Leahy said. ``Passing a constitutional amendment is an
>           awesome undertaking. Amending it is almost more than
>           can be imagined.''
> 
>           The amendment's supporters, however, say federal law
>           would apply only to federal courts, and the vast
>           majority of crimes are prosecuted in state courts.
> 

-- 
Two rules in life:

1.  Don't tell people everything you know.
2.

Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues

Reply via email to