Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Approves Kyl/Feinstein Crime Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment
June 12, 2003

Washington, DC - The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution today approved a constitutional amendment sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would guarantee victims of violent crime the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case in criminal proceedings.

Specifically, the amendment would guarantee that victims of violent crime shall have: the right to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and of any release or escape of the accused; the right not to be excluded from public criminal proceedings relating to the crime committed against them; the right to be reasonably heard at such public proceedings, including pleas, sentencings, reprieves, and pardon proceedings; and the right to decisions in proceedings that consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the offender. The following is the prepared text of Senator Feinstein's statement:

"I am very pleased that the Constitution subcommittee has approved S.J. Res. 1, the Crime Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment, and it is my hope the full Judiciary Committee, and then the full Senate, will take up and approve this legislation soon.

This amendment would give crime victims the rights to be notified, present, and heard at critical stages throughout their case. It would ensure that their views are considered and they are treated fairly. It would ensure that their interest in a speedy resolution of the case, safety, and claims for restitution are not ignored. And it would do so in a way that would not abridge the rights of defendants or offenders, or otherwise disrupt the delicate balance of our Constitution.

The amendment currently has 24 cosponsors, including a majority of the members of this subcommittee. It has also been endorsed by President Bush and by Attorney General Ashcroft. I am hopeful that the Constitution Subcommittee will report the amendment out, so we can get it to the full committee and then on to the Senate floor.

There are many reasons why we need a constitutional amendment. First, a constitutional amendment will balance the scales of justice. 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. In the event of a conflict between a victim's and a defendant's rights, the court will be able to balance those rights and determine which party has the most compelling argument.

Second, a constitutional amendment will fix the patchwork of victims' rights laws. Seventeen states lack state constitutional victims' rights amendments. And the 33 existing state victims' rights amendments differ from each other. Also, virtually every state has statutory protections for victims, but these vary considerably across the country. Only a federal constitutional amendment can ensure a uniform national floor for victims' rights.

Third, a constitutional amendment will restore rights that existed when the Constitution was written. It is a little known fact that at the time the Constitution was drafted, it was standard practice for victims-not public prosecutors-to prosecute criminal cases. Because victims were parties to most criminal cases, they enjoyed the basic rights to notice, to be present, and be heard. Hence, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not mention victims. Now, of course, it is extremely rare for a victim to undertake a criminal prosecution. Thus, victims have none of the basic procedural rights they used to enjoy. Victims should receive some of the modest notice and participation rights they enjoyed at the time that the Constitution was drafted.

Fourth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because mere state law is insufficient. State victims' rights laws lacking the force of federal constitutional law are often given short shrift. A Justice Department-sponsored study and other studies have found that, even in states with strong legal protections for victims' rights, many victims are denied those rights. The studies have also found that statutes are insufficient to guarantee victims' rights. Only a federal constitutional amendment can ensure that crime victims receive the rights they are due.

Fifth, a constitutional amendment is necessary because federal statutory law is insufficient. The leading statutory alternative to the Victims' Rights Amendment would only directly cover certain violent crimes prosecuted in federal court. Thus, it would slight more than 98 percent of victims of violent crime. We should acknowledge that federal statutes have been tried and found wanting. It is time for us to amend the U.S. Constitution.

There is strong and wide support for a constitutional amendment. As I mentioned, President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have endorsed the amendment. I greatly appreciate their support. And I am also pleased that both former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore have all expressed support for a constitutional amendment on victims' rights.

In addition, both the Democratic and Republican Party Platforms call for a victims' rights amendment; governors in 49 out of 50 states have called for an amendment; our former U.S. Attorneys General, including Attorney General Reno, support an amendment; Attorney General Ashcroft supports an amendment; Forty-two state attorneys general support an amendment; major national victims' rights groups-including Parents of Murdered Children, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and the National Organization for Victim Assistance-support the amendment; many law enforcement groups, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, support an amendment; and constitutional scholars such as Harvard Law School Professor Larry Tribe support an amendment.

The amendment has received strong support around the country. Thirty-three states have passed similar measures-by an average popular vote of almost 80 percent.

###