Tuesday, April 20, 2004
The road to hell being paved with good intentions...
Apparently, there is a Victim's Rights Amendment being proposed to the Constitution. Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein thinks it's a bad idea.
He's right.
I really wish Congress would sit down, take a deep breath, and repeat the following mantra prior to legislating...
Caring about someone's plight does not obligate you to pass a law. Not passing a law does not automatically imply heartlessness.
OK, first, the feds stick their noses into state issues way too often. Every state in the union has victim's rights laws requiring that steps be taken to inform victims of court dates, ensure their right to be heard prior to sentencing, and advise them of compensation funds and other services available. The reason these protections aren't in the Constitution is lynch mobs going after crime victims hasn't been a historically serious problem.
(Insert your own analogy involving Kobe Bryant's accuser here.)
The heightened protections given defendants helps create confidence in the system. You feel better about people going to jail if they've been given lawyers, trials by jury, and the various and sundry rights that get in our way of dropping some crapsack under the jail where the truly deserve to be. Victims actually have an interest a system that produces confidence in the convictions obtained, even if said convictions become more difficult to get.
Prosecutors have a moral (and usually legal) obligation to ensure that victims are involved in the process to the point that they can understand and accept the outcome. Anything added beyond that point is just legislators wanting to "show us they care," which victimizes everybody.
He's right.
I really wish Congress would sit down, take a deep breath, and repeat the following mantra prior to legislating...
Caring about someone's plight does not obligate you to pass a law. Not passing a law does not automatically imply heartlessness.
OK, first, the feds stick their noses into state issues way too often. Every state in the union has victim's rights laws requiring that steps be taken to inform victims of court dates, ensure their right to be heard prior to sentencing, and advise them of compensation funds and other services available. The reason these protections aren't in the Constitution is lynch mobs going after crime victims hasn't been a historically serious problem.
(Insert your own analogy involving Kobe Bryant's accuser here.)
The heightened protections given defendants helps create confidence in the system. You feel better about people going to jail if they've been given lawyers, trials by jury, and the various and sundry rights that get in our way of dropping some crapsack under the jail where the truly deserve to be. Victims actually have an interest a system that produces confidence in the convictions obtained, even if said convictions become more difficult to get.
Prosecutors have a moral (and usually legal) obligation to ensure that victims are involved in the process to the point that they can understand and accept the outcome. Anything added beyond that point is just legislators wanting to "show us they care," which victimizes everybody.
