Tuesday, July 14, 1998

Victims' rights not necessary in Constitution

The Senate could save itself some time, the public some hassle and the Constitution some disfigurement by skipping - on the quite real grounds of lack of time - a vote on the "victims' rights" amendment.

The amendment is one of those feel-good proposals that has been kicking around for years, getting a lot of lip service - both candidates endorsed it in the 1996 campaign - but little action.

The holdup was that the only good thing about the victims' rights amendment was its name. Most of its goals - such as restitution and notifying victims of trials, parole hearings, escapes and releases from custody - could be accomplished cheaper and more effectively by state and local statute. Indeed, most states already have such laws. Moreover, creating a murky new constitutional "right" would give the courts and defense lawyers a whole new legal arena to play around in.

Finally, after 62 drafts and a half-hearted 10-6 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee came up with a dumbed-down version that now awaits full Senate action. The committee showed its lack of confidence in the proposed amendment by including an all-purpose loophole: Section 3 allows Congress and the states to enact exceptions anytime they find "a compelling interest."

The committee further de-fanged the amendment by specifically barring victims from invoking it to challenge verdicts, plea bargains and sentences and further that the amendment can't be used as grounds to sue the government or officials.

This mockery of the concept of constitutional rights is hardly worthy of being only the 18th change to the Constitution in 207 years. The Senate should go on to more productive matters.