H.J.Res.59 Constitutional Amendment to protect crime victims

Bart Stupak (D) has introduced new legislation, H.J.Res 59, which seeks to protect victims of crime.  This bill seeks to create Constitutional rights to the aggrieved parties in 5 distinct capacities:

Constitutional Amendment – Grants victims of violent crime the right to:

(1) reasonable notice of any public proceeding involving the crime, any release or escape from custody relating to the crime, a proposed pardon or commutation of a sentence, and of the rights established by this amendment;

(2) be heard and to submit a statement in proceedings for a conditional release from custody, an acceptance of a negotiated plea, a sentencing, or a parole proceeding;

(3) consideration of their interest that any trial be free from unreasonable delay;

(4) an order of restitution from the offender; and

(5) consideration of their safety in determining any conditional release from custody relating to the crime.

When looking to establish a new amendment, Congress must be sure they are voting for an appropriate policy. On its face this seems so simplistic that it hits you, “why didn’t they think of it before”. As of 1990, 37 states passed legislation granting victims sets of rights. On the progressive side, California allots notice to victims when the parole hearing would take place. California and other states have created entire devisions dedicated to emotional support. Helping victims recover from their personal tragedy is laudable; tampering with the justice system to help exact personal revenge is not.

1- Reasonable Notice To Victim – This is already a matter of public record and most states have an established procedure to keep victims apprised of parole matters.

Instead of requiring action on the part of the victim to fill out forms etc..  Everything should be easily accessible online. It is a matter of simple technological integration that any internet savvy country should mandate.

2- Victims Heard – I am at a loss of how this exists in the first place.

California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, where special efforts have been made to increase victim participation. It demonstrates that the inmate is not the only person affected by the decisions of the parole board

Yes, it feels right to let the victims speak , but it does not further fairness, justice, or economy. The courts have spoken with everything readily available to the panel. They are tasked with looking at the facts of the crime and judging the rehabilitation of the inmate. Introducing victims into this process pollutes the corrective function with impartial commentary. Further, it forces victims to continually relive the nightmare at the risk that their lack of presence may facilitate the release of the criminal.

The parole board in fact now listens to victims and has deemed them a substantial factor. Should victims fear that a personal lack of action would cause their assailant to be freed early?

3 – Consideration of Victim for Trial – It is antithetical to the judicial notion of  ”innocent until proven guilty” to allow other parties to shape the format of the trial. The matter is between the state and the accused, that is the nature of a fair justice system.

4 – Order Restitution - This is somewhat puzzling as there is a well established system in place – Intentional Torts. Considering the burden of proof is less in a civil matter, it could not be a terrible imposition. Further, it is not in the interest of fairness to tack on additional penalties without proper inquiry into the scope of restitution. Various factors are at play when determining what a victim should receive -  not all crimes are created equal. The creator of this bill must misunderstand the application of torts.

5- Considering Victim Safety – What parole board doesn’t consider the safety of not only the public but the victim. This is already in place and is moot.

This bill is overall a pointless exercise guised as meaningful victim reform.  I am dismayed that a congressional member thought it to be an appropriate amendment the Constitution. It meddle’s with issues on an emotional level rather than a logical and judicious approach. Lets help the victims but do so in a way that is compatible with the notions of fairness and justice our society is built upon. If I wrote this legislation I would focus on the mental wellness of the victim and the rehabilitation of the criminal while relying on the current legislative, judicial, and administrative regulations to properly parole a criminal.