Urge the Senate to Stop Messing with the Constitution

From an ACLU action alert (please delete if this is a dupe):

In two weeks, the U.S. Senate will be considering yet another proposal to amend the Constitution. This time, some Senators are taking aim at the criminal justice system, proposing an amendment that would jeopardize the principle that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and that everyone in this country has the right to a fair trial.

The proposed amendment seeks to enshrine “victims rights” in the Constitution and would give presumed victims significant influence over the criminal justice process. This influence would hinder law enforcement, impede prosecution and interfere the ability of the accused to get a fair trial.

In addition, every state has either a state constitutional provision or law protecting victims' rights, making this constitutional amendment unnecessary. Furthermore, numerous victims' rights groups oppose the amendment because they are concerned that battered women -- who are often arrested and charged with assaulting their batterers -- would lose the right to a fair trial and presumed innocence.

Take action! Tell Congress that this constitutional amendment is unnecessary and dangerous.

Click here for more information and to send a free fax to your Members of Congress:

http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=9955&c=249

:kick:

.

What do you want to bet they do it anyway.

And have already responded. Unfortunately, my senators are firmly set in their positions- one for, one against.

What is it, exactly, that the proposed Constitutional Amendment would do? Does it allow victims of crime to sit as jurors in trials involving people suspected of committing a crime against them?

This post doesn't say, and neither does the ACLU website, really.

And could you explain, exactly, how whatever it is that this proposed Constitutional Amendment is supposed do would jeodardize the principal that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and that everyone in this country has the right to a fair trial?

Finally, if every state has laws or constitutional provisions of the same sort as those proposed in this Constitutional Amendment, then what about the rights of people victimized by someone who commits a federal crime?

Should I simply oppose this Amendment because the ACLU tells me to?

108th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 1

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 7, 2003

Mr. KYL (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. The rights of victims of violent crime, being capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of those accused of victimizing them, are hereby established and shall not be denied by any State or the United States and may be restricted only as provided in this article.

`SECTION 2. A victim of violent crime shall have the right to reasonable and timely notice of any public proceeding involving the crime and of any release or escape of the accused; the rights not to be excluded from such public proceeding and reasonably to be heard at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon proceedings; and the right to adjudicative decisions that duly consider the victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and just and timely claims to restitution from the offender. These rights shall not be restricted except when and to the degree dictated by a substantial interest in public safety or the administration of criminal justice, or by compelling necessity.

`SECTION 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to provide grounds for a new trial or to authorize any claim for damages. Only the victim or the victim's lawful representative may assert the rights established by this article, and no person accused of the crime may obtain any form of relief hereunder.

`SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Nothing in this article shall affect the President's authority to grant reprieves or pardons.

`SECTION 5. This article shall be inoperative unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress. This article shall take effect on the 180th day after the date of its ratification.'.

Thanks for providing the text of the proposed amendment.

I really do not see what the big problem is here.

In the first place, I note that the amendment is being proposed by Sen. Feistein. Although she is not impeccably liberal, she is not one, I think, normally given to trying to take rights away from people.

I just don't see what there is to oppose in this proposed Amendment to the Constitution.

Can you help me out here?

What's next, public executions, no more appeals, no juries, how about no trial as well. Hell, string up everybody who is accused of crimes!

It sounds familiar; anyway the rhetoric does.

x

Thanks!!