ARGUMENT AGAINST A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT REGARDING VICTIMS' RIGHTS
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has worked for nearly 10 years to bring about a constitutional amendment that would formally give victims of crime in the United States certain rights. Unable to secure the necessary 67 votes in the Senate to accomplish this, she refocused her strategy to a statute that would offer similar rights (Rabinowitz, 2004). This research considers the issues surrounding a victims' rights constitutional amendment, and concludes that such an amendment is not appropriate.
The issue of victims' rights centers on the fact that while the constitution provides specific rights to those accused of crimes (due process, for example), there are no provisions for the victims of crimes. Victims have no legal standing at trial, they are not notified when violent criminals are released from prison and they are not necessarily even notified when public proceedings regarding the case occur (Rabinowitz, 2004).
Much of what those favoring a constitutional amendment hope to accomplish has already been met through state statutes and amendments to state constitutions. Powerful victims' groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving have been successfulùfar more successful than any individual in any one case could beùat having more severe penalties imposed for those convicted of certain crimes, as well (Taylor, 2000).
A constitutional amendment that seeks to provide prompt notification of proceedings regarding a particular case to victims would also be difficult to enforce and manage, as well. Mandated by the constitution, the courts would likely face challenges about what does and does not constitute timely notification, and which crimes would actually be subject to the amendment.
It is important to remember the role of the state in trials, and the role of the victim. The state brings charges against the accused because of the vi
...