US Senate Approves Victim Rights Legislation

[Advocat]

In a interesting move (which I heard much about during my visit to D.C. last week), the US Senate has approved legislation which grants basic rights for victims of federal crimes.

Senate Approves Victim Rights Legislation (http://www.trivalleyherald.com/Stories/0,1413,86~10669~2102970,00.html)

WASHINGTON -- The Senate overwhelmingly approved legislation Thursday to assure victims of federal crimes a right to be heard in court proceedings against those accused of harming them, putting the measure on track for enactment after an eight-year struggle.

By a vote of 96-1, the Senate approved the bill as an alternative to a constitutional amendment that would have spelled out victims' rights for state as well as federal trials. All but a small fraction of violent crimes are tried in state courts.

The amendment was shelved after it became clear that it lacked the two-thirds majority needed to change the Constitution, although its backers vowed to resurrect it if the statute proved ineffective.

Sponsors of the Senate bill said they expected the legislation to be passed by the House and signed into law by President Bush later this year. A House Republican leadership aide said the House preferred a statute to a constitutional amendment and indicated that approval is likely.

[Stiofán]

Just really amazing our legislators feel it must be neccessary to codify victims' rights into law.

[ShinyTop]

From reading what the rights actually are I can see where they might have conflicted with prisoners rights and privacy for the felon after release. Anyway, glad to see the scales tip a little bit back.

[Pyrion]

Just really amazing our legislators feel it must be neccessary to codify victims' rights into law.

In this day and age, it practically is. Anything that isn't codified into law is subject to interpretation on a case-by-case basis, including things we take for granted as common sense.

[Advocat]

There are 23 rights granted to defendants under the US Constitution (I'm reading from the package on the Victim Rights Amendment), including:

No... ex post facto law shall be passed.

No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons to be seized.

No person shall...be subject for the same offense to be twice put into jepardy

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process

The right to a speedy trial

The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

The right to be confronted with witnessess

The right to have compulsary process for obtaining witnessess

The assistance of counsel for defense

Excessive bail shall not be required

Excessive fines shall not be required

Cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted



Rights Granted to Victims Under Constitution:
NONE



Eight Rights suggested under S.J. Resolution 1 (to become federal legislation instead)

1: to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceedings

2: to reasonable and timely notice of any release or escape of the accused

3: to not be excluded from public proceedings

4: reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve and pardon proceedings

5: to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's safety

6: to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's interest in avoiding unreasonable delay

7: to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's just and timely claims to restitution

8: to duly assert the rights established

[Neo]

Eight Rights suggested under S.J. Resolution 1 (to become federal legislation instead)

1: to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceedings

2: to reasonable and timely notice of any release or escape of the accused

3: to not be excluded from public proceedings

4: reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve and pardon proceedings

5: to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's safety

6: to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's interest in avoiding unreasonable delay

7: to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's just and timely claims to restitution

8: to duly assert the rights established

I am for all but number 4 ,which is a travesty of justice, but there probably isn't anyone at GA who I could sell on why that is! Too emotional of a topic. So I will just punt on that one!

But again I am for the other seven.

[Advocat]

I am for all but number 4 ,which is a travesty of justice, but there probably isn't anyone at GA who I could sell on why that is! Too emotional of a topic. So I will just punt on that one!

But again I am for the other seven.

Just to review for everyone, 4 is:
4: reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve and pardon proceedings

I had long and detailed talks with senior members of the US DOJ on this particular issue (the DOJ supported the consitutional amendment). In those states which allow victim impact statements and comments by victims/survivors/families, there has never, <b>ever</b> been a case which resulted in an appeal due to the victim's statement. Ever. The concept that having the victim make a statement at a hearing woule be prejudicial is a theortical argument only, which has no proof in some 5 - 10 years of use in many (though by no means all) states, and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of cases.

[FrankF]

4: reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve and pardon proceedings

I guess the court has to hear from whacked out people claiming an insanity defense who say they smashed their kids skulls in with a rock because they "heard voices from God" telling them to do it... or they drowned their kids (same reason)... or drove drunk after their fourth DUI arrest and killed someone this time... or "I'm really sorry, I didn't know I had to shoot a cop to join the Crips gang".

Yeah... I suppose they have a right to be heard... and then most should be told to STFU and stay in prison.

[Coot]

Frank, this isn't granting rights to criminals, its purpose is to grant rights to victims of crimes.

[Neo]

Just to review for everyone, 4 is:
4: reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve and pardon proceedings

I had long and detailed talks with senior members of the US DOJ on this particular issue (the DOJ supported the constitutional amendment). In those states which allow victim impact statements and comments by victims/survivors/families, there has never, <b>ever</b> been a case which resulted in an appeal due to the victim's statement. Ever. The concept that having the victim make a statement at a hearing would be prejudicial is a theoretical argument only, which has no proof in some 5 - 10 years of use in many (though by no means all) states, and thousands, if not tens of thousands, of cases.

Because you quote me in your excellent post I must assume what you say is in response to what I said. First you make some incorrect assumptions regarding why I don't like number four. Appeals are not even an issue. Never have been. Of course there has been no appeals as there are no good ground for a successful appeal based on number four so that is a dead issue before it even becomes a live one.

Two, the comments from the DOJ guys, (you know the prosecutors, who support the bill of rights and number four--boy what a shocker), is hardly of value as to the legitimacy of the validity of the claim that number four is not prejudicial.

Remember you are talking to a former prosecutor. I submit that any legitimate prosecutor who says that these pre-sentencing testimonies are not prejudicial are IMO is either a fool or a liar.

I would only ask that one consider what is talked about, the judicial purpose of the statements by the victims or family members of the victims and to simply use common sense in drawing any conclusions as to their "theoretical" prejudicial, inflammatory, or negative impact and ask specifically what judicial or justice system purpose do these testimonies serve?

[Advocat]

Remember you are talking to a former prosecutor. I submit that any legitimate prosecutor who says that these pre-trial testimonies are not prejudicial are IMO is either a fool or a liar.


Thanks for the input, Matrix... I was simply clairifying the rationale behind item 4. However, let me respond to the quote above.

Victim impact statements and/or family/survivor testimony are normally used only once the defendant has been found guilty, during the sentencing phase, not in pre-trial. Rarely are they used before this point (only in a couple of states and under tightly controlled conditions -- usually the statement is available only to the prosecutor and judge, not the jury and not read in court -- so as not to prejudice the actual trial). For those unfamiliar with the concept, here's a bit of background (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&UrlToReturn=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ncvc.org%2fncvc%2fmain.aspx%3fd bName%3dSiteSearch) on victim impact statements, from the National Center for Victims of Crime.

The idea is that, during the trial, the defendant can bring in all kinds of information showing their good standing in the community, bring in character witnesses, and offer mitigating circumstances which they hope may reduce the sentence. Once the offender has been found guility, victim impact statements by victims or surviving family gives them a chance to tell the court how the crime has affected themselves, their families and their lives; in effect, giving them a personal voice in a process which considers the victim to be just a "witness" (the case actually belongs to the prosecutor, who represents the state, not the victim... many victims have been told precisely that they are only witnesses the state is calling to make the state's case against the accused), said process which circumscribes and limits the ability of the victim to comment during the guilt determination phase of the trial.

There was a case where a victim desperately wanted to speak at the sentencing hearing of the murderer of his daughter. The courts (and upon appeal, the supreme court of that state) said that he was to be barred from speaking to prevent "cruel and unusual punishment".

The thing is, the father had publicly stated he wanted to ask the courts to impose a life sentence for the offender. The prosecutor had asked for (and received), the death sentence.

[FrankF]

Frank, this isn't granting rights to criminals, its purpose is to grant rights to victims of crimes.
Oops! That's what I get for posting after being up since 3:00am :banghead:

[Neo]

Victim impact statements and/or family/survivor testimony are normally used only once the defendant has been found guilty, during the sentencing phase, not in pre-trial.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggh I hate typos, LD, ADD, and stupidity!!!!--Referring to me exclusively.

You quoted me accurately. I did say pre-trial! &%^&%&^$##@ Rats a frats.

I meant pre-sentencing! I have corrected it in the post.

So folks, Advocat is not quoting me inaccurately. He is just quoting what he read which was what I originally but unintentionally posted.

Pre-trial, pre-sentencing--not much of a difference right? ;)