Victims' Rights Amendment Back Again

One of the attempt to amend the Constitution that comes back every so often is the so-called "Victims' Rights Amendment ," a provision that would (among other things) ensure the right of victims to be present at trials and give their input to various judicial decisions (like those involving testimony, sentencing, etc.). Although it sounds awfully good, in reality it's awfully bad.

Bob Barr writes in the Washington Times:

[The Victims' Rights Amendment] threatens basic due process protections and objectivity in the criminal justice system by making it more about vengeance than justice. We trust our adversarial process — which pits zealous advocates against one another in front of a judge and jury — to arrive at the best approximation of the truth in criminal prosecutions, which helps ensure the guilty are punished and the innocent go free.

However, when one injects the emotion of a murder victim's family into a bail or a parole hearing, that adversarial system is thrown directly out of whack. The defense counsel then faces an onslaught of vindictiveness that cannot be countered by facts or logic. Justice must remain blindfolded to be effective. Otherwise, we will have vigilante posses waiting outside with lit torches and nooses tied every time something really sensational goes to trial.

Finally, in an ironic twist that really hammers home the folly of such constitutional amendments, the vast majority of states — and the federal government — already have laws on the books protecting victims and ensuring their interests are not forgotten as their cases progress through the system.

I think that Bob Barr makes some very good points here. It is true that victims should be heard when it comes to criminal trials, but we also can't forget that such trials are the state versus a defendant, not a victim versus a defendant. This is important first because of what Barr says above: trials are supposed to be about justice and be objective. This is also important because a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty - injecting the testimony of victims before such a judgment is rendered will prejudice the process. By and large it should be up to judges to determine where and when it is appropriate to bring victims into the process, thus ensuring that the trials are as fair and just as possible.

Note: this year the amendment has been dropped, but it might come back again so the above arguments are still worth keeping in mind.