Introduction
The Victims’ Rights Amendment is a clause that has been incorporated into the constitutions of certain states in the US. It has also been suggested for adoption in other states and for inclusion in the nation’s Constitution (Congress.gov, 2023). The provisions of the law differ from state to state, but they generally exhibit some degree of similarity. There are also conflicting versions of the suggested federal amendment. Victims are entitled to receive equitable, considerate, and attentive treatment from law enforcement as well as other authorities at every stage of the criminal justice system (Congress.gov, 2023). The significance of individual liberties and rights cannot be underestimated. They are essential for individuals to coexist in a society that upholds principles of liberty and egalitarianism. Victims, being individuals with inherent worth, possess the entitlement to be acknowledged as individuals under the jurisdiction of the legal system (Congress.gov, 2023).
The significance of victims’ rights lies in their provision of a range of support systems and legal safeguards for those who have undergone trauma or suffering due to a criminal act. These rights acknowledge the damage inflicted upon victims and strive to guarantee their equitable access to assistance, legal proceedings, and participation in the criminal justice system. Implementing the Victims’ Rights Amendment to USA’s Constitution is of utmost importance in order to empower and protect victims (Congress.gov, 2023).
Historical Context
By the end of the 20th Century, 33 states had incorporated a victims’ rights amendment into the constitutions of their states, and each state had a comprehensive legislative declaration of victims’ rights (Davis et al., 2009). Meanwhile, Congress had passed a set of specific measures aimed at protecting the rights of individual victims, along with a broader federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 10606, which outlined the expectations for the conduct of federal authorities (Davis et al., 2009). Section 10606 was accompanied by a congressional statement that urged states to take similar action and provided detailed instructions to the leaders of federal law enforcement agencies and departments for implementation. Both the statement and instructions are still in place. Furthermore, starting from the 104th Congress, both chambers consistently deliberated on amendments to the U.S. Constitution pertaining to the rights of victims. Due to the inability to achieve the required agreement, sponsors chose to use a statutory alternative that, unlike the previous “best-efforts” act, contained enforcement provisions. The bill, S. 2329, was presented in the Senate on the 21st of April 2004, and was approved the next day.
The implementation of legal changes aimed at addressing the needs and rights of crime victims started to emerge in both federal and state laws during the 1960s (Davis et al., 2009). These changes are evident in victim compensation and restitution legislation, the revision of drunk driving statutes, bail laws, and rape laws, as well as the inclusion of provisions for victim impact statements during sentencing, among other examples. By the early 1990s, all states had implemented legislation granting violent-crime victims the entitlement to victim compensation. Additionally, victims of severe crimes were granted a specific set of legal entitlements, which encompassed the rights to be physically present, adequately informed, and actively heard during the entirety of the criminal justice proceedings. Furthermore, victims were also entitled to collect financial reparation from the perpetrator. Over time, in numerous legal jurisdictions, these particular safeguards for victims were supplemented by broader and more extensive bills of rights for victims. By the end of the 20th Century, 33 states had incorporated a victims’ rights amendment into the constitutions of their states, and each state had a comprehensive legislative declaration of victims’ rights. Meanwhile, Congress had passed a set of specific measures aimed at protecting the rights of individual victims, along with a broader federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 10606, which outlined the expectations for the conduct of federal authorities (Cassell, 2005). Section 10606 was accompanied by a congressional statement that urged states to take similar action and provided detailed instructions to the leaders of federal law enforcement agencies and departments for implementation. Both the statement and instructions are still in place. Furthermore, starting from the 104th Congress, both chambers consistently deliberated on amendments to the U.S. Constitution pertaining to the rights of victims. Due to the inability to achieve the required agreement, sponsors chose to use a statutory alternative that, unlike the previous “best-efforts” act, contained enforcement provisions. The bill, S. 2329, was presented in the Senate on the 21st of April 2004, and was approved the next day.
Key Provisions of the Victims Rights Amendment
The proposed amendment confers upon victims of violent crimes several rights. These include the right to receive reasonable and timely notification regarding the escape or release of the accused, the right to be informed about public proceedings connected to the crime, the right to have a reasonable opportunity to be heard during public proceedings such as plea, release, reprieve, sentencing, and pardon hearings, the right to be included in public proceedings, and the right to have adjudicative decisions that take into account the victims’ interests in their safety, the avoidance of unnecessary delays, and the consideration of their timely and rightful claims for compensation from the offender (Congress.gov, 2023). The rights can only be limited to the extent required by a significant concern for the administration of criminal justice, public safety, or compelling necessity. Exclusive authority to enforce the rights lies with the victims and their agents, however, they are prohibited from seeking compensation or reopening a trial that has already concluded. Congress has the authority to pass laws to enforce the amendment. The proposed change is the result of endeavors to harmonize the constitutional rights of defendants, the victims, as well as the prerogatives of prosecutors (Congress.gov, 2023). The hearings regarding this and previous propositions, along with the three Senate Judiciary Committee reports, offer valuable understanding regarding the purpose behind the wording employed and the suggested language that was tacitly dismissed. Advocates and their detractors hold contrasting views regarding the necessity, appropriateness, interpretation, expenses, and impact on federalism of the proposed Amendment.
Arguments in Support of Victims’ Rights Amendment
Proponents of the current system argue that it needs to be changed because:(1) the current federal and state laws are insufficient and will continue to be inadequate;(2) the criminal justice system is severely biased towards criminal defendants and against victims’ interests;(3) the framers of the Constitution did not embrace victims’ rights provision because the victims had more privileges to take part in the trial of offenders back then than they do now; and(4) the criminal justice system is badly imbalanced (NCJRS.gov, 2023).
The criminal justice system is not unbalanced, opponents contend; the proposed Amendment is at odds with federalist principles; the amount of victim involvement in public prosecutions during the ratification of the Constitution has been exaggerated; and the proposed Amendment would merely replace one patchwork of victims’ rights laws with another unless it preempts all current state provisions (NCJRS.gov, 2023).
Opposition/Concerns/Issues
Although most national victims’ organizations and several other groups, such as the Victims’ Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Correctional Association, and the National Governors Association are in favor of a constitutional amendment to protect victims’ rights, there are some civil rights and civil liberties groups, as well as victims’ organizations that oppose such an amendment (NCJRS.gov, 2023). A significant number of these organizations hold the belief that implementing such an amendment would weaken the legal protections granted to anyone accused of a crime, specifically the right to a fair legal proceeding, and argue that changes should be made through legislation rather than altering the constitution. Advocacy organizations for battered women have voiced apprehension regarding the potential disadvantage faced by domestic violence victims who are prosecuted as perpetrators due to a victims’ rights constitutional amendment (NCJRS.gov, 2023). Furthermore, judges have expressed apprehensions regarding the potential escalation of federal court oversight of state court proceedings, while prosecutors as well as other justice officials have voiced concerns, including the lack of resources to enforce victims’ rights statutes in cases involving a substantial number of victims.
Proponents of a constitutional amendment for victims’ rights address these concerns by clarifying that they are not suggesting that the rights of victims should be prioritized over the rights of the accused (NCJRS.gov, 2023). Instead, they advocate for the equitable consideration of victims’ rights, necessitating a meticulous and thorough evaluation of the rights of all parties by the courts. It is observed that numerous judges across frequently restrict victims of violent offenses from attending the court proceedings of the accused individuals, without taking into account whether this prohibition would genuinely infringe upon the defendant’s right to due process. Furthermore, it is imperative to establish a constitutional amendment that safeguards the rights of victims, preventing courts from ruling that the statutory rights of victims are inherently subordinate to the federal constitutional rights of defendants (NCJRS.gov, 2023). Advocates for a federal amendment further highlight that although states have enacted victims’ rights laws and constitutional amendments, they have not effectively applied these rights in a substantial proportion of cases. The National Victim Center conducted a study in the mid-1990s, funded by the National Institute of Justice, to examine the enforcement of victim rights legislation in four states. Two states were chosen based on their robust constitutional safeguards and state statutory for victims’ rights, whereas two other states were chosen due to their comparatively inferior protection. The research performed a poll on over 1,300 individuals who had experienced crime, making it the most extensive study of its nature to date. It discovered that several individuals were still being deprived of their entitlements, even in jurisdictions with robust legislative safeguards. The study determined that relying just on governmental laws is inadequate to ensure the provision of victims’ rights.
Conclusion
The Victims’ Rights Amendment can be introduced by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Alternatively, it can be initiated through a convention specifically called for that purpose if three quarters of the States express their desire for it. The amendment must be ratified by either three-fourths of the assembled conventions in each State or three-fourths of the State legislatures. The proposed amendment grants certain rights to victims of both state and federal violent crimes. These rights encompass the entitlement to receive prompt and reasonable notification regarding the release or escape of the accused, to be informed about public proceedings pertaining to the crime, to have a fair chance to express their views during public proceedings such as plea, release, reprieve, sentencing, and pardon hearings, to not be excluded from public proceedings, and to have judicial decisions that consider the victims’ interests in their safety, the prevention of unnecessary delays, and the acknowledgement of their timely and legitimate claims for compensation from the offender.
I suggest that legislation at both federal and state levels be strengthened to ensure the attendance of victims at all public court proceedings. Additionally, prosecutors should grant victims a chance for meaningful input prior to making consequential decisions in a case, such as reducing charges, dismissing charges, or entering into plea agreements. Moreover, judges should abstain from accepting plea agreements without first questioning, officially and on record, whether prosecutors have consulted the victim.
References
Cassell, P. G. (2005). Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Proposed Amendments in Light of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2005(4), 835–925. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217063692.pdf
Congress.gov, (2023). Victims’ Rights Amendment: A sketch of a Proposal in the 108th Congress to Amend the United States Constitution. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS21434/3#:~:text=Arguments%20put%20forward%20in%20support,wildly%20disparate%20in%20their%20coverage%2C
Davis, R. C., Anderson, J. M., Whitman, J., & Howley, S. (2009). Victims’ Rights Developments in Clinic States. In Securing Rights for Victims: A Process Evaluation of the National Crime Victim Law Institute’s Victims’ Rights Clinics (pp. 23–32). RAND Corporation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg930nij.11
Doyle, C. (2012). Crime Victims’ Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 USC 3771. Congressional Research Service.
NCJRS.gov, (2023). New Directions in Victims’ Rights. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/directions/pdftxt/chap1.pdf
write