Point/Counterpoint on the Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment:
Responses
to key objections raised by opponents.
by Steve Twist
1. “ There is no reason that the entirety of the Victims Rights Amendment cannot be achieved through other means.”
No reason other than more than two decades of history with “other means” being inadequate, and the fact that statutory rights will always be second-class rights.
2. Despite nationwide research, the proponents of the amendment have been unable to produce any case in which such ‘trumping’ [of victim’s rights by defendant’s rights] has actually occurred and been upheld on appeal.”
False. Lynn v. Reinstein is one of many examples. And most of the cases never get to the appellate stage because victims lack standing.
3. “..rights without remedies.”
Standing is the remedy.
4. “...massive federal court oversight of the day-to-day functioning of state criminal justice systems and actors.”
Has this already happened because defendants’ rights are in the U. S. Constitution? No, and the result would not be different for victims’ rights.
5. “ ...the system will be substantially distracted from the fundamental business of adjudicating criminal responsibility and determining sanctions.”
The fundamental business is to do justice. In the view of most of the country, even if not criminal defense attorneys, this does not require excluding the victim. Indeed justice requires that victims be treated justly also.