On July 24, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its consideration of a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 1) that would create a constitutional amendment guaranteeing certain procedural rights to victims of violent crimes. The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights approved the bill on June 12 on a party-line vote (see The Source, 6/13/03).
Sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), S.J. Res. 1 would guarantee a victim of a violent crime the right to:
|
Opponents believe that a constitutional amendment is not necessary and that what is needed is enforcement of existing state and federal laws.
Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) argued: “When the government brings criminal charges against a person, he faces the prospect of losing his liberty, property, or even his life. The few and limited rights of the accused in the Constitution are there precisely because it will often be unpopular to enforce them…” “By contrast,” he continued, “there is no need to grant special constitutional protections to victims to ensure that their interests are preserved and recognized. The public naturally supports victims’ rights in law and in practice.”
Proponents, however, contend that a constitutional amendment is necessary to balance victims’ rights with the rights of defendants and to create uniformity among states.
Citing the support of President Bush and former President Clinton, as well as the governors of 49 states, Sen. Feinstein has stated: “Currently, while criminal defendants have almost two dozen separate constitutional rights fifteen of them provided by amendments to the U.S. Constitution there is not a single word in the Constitution about crime victims. These rights trump the statutory and state constitutional rights of crime victims because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. To level the playing field, crime victims need rights in the U.S. Constitution.”
The Committee is tentatively scheduled to resume consideration of the bill on July 29.
