|
April 23, 2004
Senate Votes to Grant Rights to Victims of Federal Crimes
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, April 22 — The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to grant victims of federal crimes a new set
of rights guaranteeing their participation in legal proceedings against the accused.
The legislation, long sought by victim advocacy groups, raced through the Senate on a 96-to-1 vote after its supporters
this week abandoned their efforts to enact the new standards through a Constitutional amendment.
Should the measure become law, victims will be entitled to be "reasonably heard" throughout the case against
the accused. They must also be notified of public proceedings and if the offender is going to be released from custody.
"I can't tell you how many victims who may have testified against their assailant live in dread of the fact that
an assailant will be released, they won't know it, they won't be able to protect themselves and the assailant will come after
them," said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, a co-author of the legislation. "That's just not theory,
it has happened over and over and over again."
Supporters of the legislation predicted that it would be passed by the House and enacted into law.
"After the president signs this bill into law, and I know he will, we will be better able to gauge whether additional
safeguards are necessary," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "I
am confident that this statute will be successful in protecting the rights of victims of crime."
Ms. Feinstein and the Republican co-author of the measure, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, decided to go the legislative route
after determining that enacting an amendment would take much longer and could cost the support of those who backed the goals
of the proposal but did not want to tamper with the Constitution. They were far from assured of the 67 Senate votes needed
to advance such a proposal.
"It's not easy to get Constitutional amendments through," Mr. Kyl said. The legislation does not have the same
reach as the proposed amendment because the federal crime victims it covers represent just a small portion of the total number.
But 33 states have enacted similar state guarantees through their own amendments and others have laws doing so.
Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, provided the sole vote against the legislation; aides said he
believed it would be too burdensome for prosecutors. The American Civil Liberties Union, while applauding the decision to
stop pursuing the Constitutional amendment, said the legislation could make it more difficult to strike plea bargains that
can lead to testimony against other criminals.
"It would still inject raw emotion into what should be as calm and rational a process as possible, and it threatens
to block prosecutorial actions necessary to put really dangerous criminals behind bars," said Terri Ann Schroeder, an
A.C.L.U. analyst.
Democratic and Republican senators said the measure was a long overdue recognition of what has been a steady erosion of
the ability of crime victims to play a central role in the legal moves against the accused.
"Too often those are the rights that are ignored," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, senior Democrat
on the Judiciary Committee.
The legislation, which authorizes more than $100 million over the next five years for victim notification and support
of the National Crime Victim Law Institute, establishes eight guarantees, including the right to be reasonably protected from
the accused and the right to "reasonable, accurate and timely notice of any public proceeding."
Victims also cannot be excluded from any public proceeding; they must be heard at proceedings involving release, plea
or sentencing; they have the right to confer with the prosecutor; the right to full and timely restitution; the right to proceedings
without unreasonable delay; and the right to be treated with fairness and respect.
Victims groups have argued that those most directly affected by the crime are sometimes barred from court proceedings
for reasons such as fear that their testimony could be tainted.
"The defendant is there, the defendant's family is there, seated in reserved row seats," Mr. Kyl said. "But
the victim and the victim's family cannot be present. That's fundamentally wrong."
Copyright 2004
|
