Protecting the Rights of Crime Victims

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., at the Old Federal Courthouse, 11 North Fourth Street, St. Louis, MO, Hon. John Ashcroft (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ASHCROFT, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Senator ASHCROFT. Good morning. Welcome to our hearing on the important issue of protecting victims' rights. I look forward to this opportunity to explore the role that the Federal Government can have in safeguarding the rights of victims.

This is both an appropriate time and place to have such a discussion, and to examine the Constitutional rights of victims. It is an appropriate time because today is the last day of National Victims' Week, a week of each year that we set aside especially to try and think about serious ways that we could mitigate the victimization of individuals as it relates to criminal behavior.

The old courthouse is an appropriate place for this hearing because of the important role this particular Courthouse has played in the struggle for individual rights.

Back in Washington, DC, the Senate Judiciary Committee has been considering a proposed Constitutional amendment to put the rights of crime victims on at least equal footing, with the rights of those who commit crimes against the victims. That proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 3, is cosponsored by Senator John Kyl of Arizona and Senator Diane Feinstein of California, and has been referred to the Constitution Subcommittee.

This is a hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The proposal will give victims of violent crime a Federal Constitutional right to participate at critical stages in the criminal justice process. I plan to hold an executive business session of the Subcommittee the week of May 10 to consider the matter further.

Now, what executive business session of the Subcommittee means, is that the bill would be marked up. And when you mark up a bill, you consider proposed amendments, you make the final

(1)

adjustments of a particular bill or resolution for purposes of sending it to the full committee or ultimately to the floor of the Senate. And I hope that today's field hearing will help inform that discussion, will help shape that final hearing with the thoughts and experiences of Americans outside Washington's Beltway.

I, personally, have long supported the recognition and protection of the rights of crime victims. For too long victims were the forgotten individuals in our criminal justice system. As the Warren Court expanded the rights of criminals well beyond their original conception, the rights of victims were all too frequently ignored. In the name of promoting individual rights, the Warren Court sided with criminal defendants over State prosecutors, leaving the individual rights of victims entirely out of the Court's calculus.

As a consequence, movements started in many states to guarantee victims of crime a place at the table of justice. Many States attempted to guarantee victims the essential components of “due process," notice of the proceedings affecting them, and an opportunity for victims to be heard, as well as the prosecutor and the defendant to be heard.

I had the privilege of supporting this process in Missouri during my time as Governor. It was during my time as Governor that I signed the law putting the Missouri Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment on the ballot in this State. The measure was then approved overwhelmingly by the people of Missouri.

Unfortunately, these State efforts, while critically important, fail to provide sufficient protection for crime victims. When the Federal Constitutional rights created for criminal defendants clash with the statutory framework or the Constitution of any State, Federal judges impose and State judges are required to impose a Supremacy of the Federal Constitution's laws, and as a result, judges are always forced to set aside, in a conflict, the State law about victims' rights in favor of the Federal regard for the criminal defendant's rights.

The only way to ensure that the victims are treated with dignity and fairness is to enshrine the rights of victims in the Federal Constitution so that they won't be displaced in Federal courts or as a result of Federal rulings by Federal judges.

So, the proposed amendment that we are considering in Washington would do that; it would provide enforceable Federal rights for victims of violent crime to be present at trial and during sentencing, and to have input in parole decisions, and to receive notification of a prisoner's release or escape.

This last March, the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment in Washington, DC. At that time, I raised two concerns about the proposed amendment that I would like to explore at today's hearing:

First, I am concerned that the proposed amendment fails to provide any explicit rights to the victim when an executive commutes the sentence of a convicted criminal. At every other critical stage in the process from the trial, to sentencing, to release the amendment guarantees victims the right to notice, and where appropriate, the right for an opportunity to be heard.

It just doesn't make sense to me to provide these important rights to victims when the court imposes the original sentence and

when the parole board considers deviating from the sentence, but to deny this same opportunity or right to them when an executive considers reducing the sentence with a stroke of his pen.

What good does it do to amend the Constitution to guarantee a right to be present at sentencing if the State retains the right to revisit and to revise the sentence without notice to the victims?

This is, in my judgment, an omission in the law that is worth rectifying. The recent experience of the Lawrence family has made clear the profound impact that a commutation can have on the victims of crime. I am grateful that members of the Lawrence family asked to testify at any victims' rights hearing to share their tragic personal experience, and I'm pleased as well, that representatives of the organization of Parents of Murdered Children, a victims advocacy group, have been able to join us as well.

I know that all of you have to wrestle with the serious problems that these tragedies revisit for you, but I appreciate the fact that you are willing to endure that kind of discomfort to use a word that is inadequate to explain what is happening-in order to try and help avoid it for other people.

The second concern I have about the proposed Constitutional amendment we'll be addressing today is that it limits its important protection to the victims of violent crime. While violent crimes certainly bring home the need to protect victims, there are victims of nonviolent crimes, crimes like major elderly fraud where people lose their homes or where there are serious nonviolent affronts to individuals that deserve our protection as well.

The Warren Court certainly did not distinguish between violent and nonviolent crimes when it created the rights for criminals. That doesn't seem to be any better basis for making a distinction between violent and nonviolent rights of crime victims.

Indeed, the victims of some nonviolent crimes, such as fraud where criminals carefully select their victims to prey on the elderly or the ailing, are among the most deserving of protection. Victims of elder-fraud and identity theft should not be left unprotected.

Our second panel this morning will include the discussion of this issue, as well as the application of the proposed Constitutional amendment to cases of domestic crime.

The tragic experiences of crime victims underscore the need for vigorous protection of the rights and interests of individuals who have been the victims of criminal activity. Frankly, there are very few Government functions that are more important than helping the people who are victims of crimes. The proposed Constitutional amendment makes necessary strides to guarantee victims a seat at the table to ensure that the rights of criminal defendants are not the only individual rights considered by judges and parole officers. However, there is still room for improvement, and I hope that today's hearing will help us move forward in an effort to improve this amendment that we ultimately hope to enshrine as a part of the Constitution of the United States. We can work together to provide crime victims with the full measure of protection they need and de

serve.

« Previous Continue »

Books

Protecting the Rights of Crime Victims: Hearing Before the ..., Volume 4