Reply #9: Good point. If victims during trial, the defendent must be guilty.

[madmusic]

Many do think the defendant is guilty when arrested and I guess there was a pretty good debate here on that during the Duke lacrosse fiasco. There's the rub. Whichever side someone chose there might be the side they would choose here. It's not that simple though and it doesn't have to be either/or.

I've been searching for more and LYNNE HENDERSON has been on this conservative hijacking since the beginning in 1985, when she wrote "The Wrongs of Victim's Rights," wherein she argued that it was a conservative ploy. This is a new article of hers on the Constitutional amendment:

Revisiting Victim's Rights

LYNNE HENDERSON
Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington
Utah Law Review, 1999


Abstract:
This article argues against adoption of the proposed victim's rights amendment. The first set of arguments addresses the lack of fit between claims made by proponents of the amendment and constitutional theory and practice. The second set addresses the difficulties posed by issues of legal representation under the amendment. The final part discusses the author's experience with the criminal justice system in a rape case; the story contradicts the claim that a constitutional amendment is necessary to afford victims human dignity, respect, and individual participation in cases. Discussions of the problems of identifying who properly is a victim entitled to rights under the amendment, determining what assists victims of crime, and knowing the effects of the amendment on substantive criminal law and the criminal justice process are woven into discussions of individual legal issues.

The victim's rights amendment would be unique in requiring the government to provide an indeterminate class of individuals with positive liberties and claims on government resources. There is no strong constitutional argument to support such liberties and claims. Whether examined from a social contract, majoritarian, or fundamental rights approach, none of the proponents' claims justify the amendment. Arguments that the amendment is necessary to reduce trauma or provide some form of therapy for victims are unsubstantiated and may be contradicted by what we know about trauma and recovery. Reconciling the amendment with the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, raises major concerns about the abrogation of long-standing individual rights against the state.

Although the victim's rights amendment does not provide for a right to counsel, the question of representation in exercising consitutional rights cannot be overlooked. The article argues that the assumption prosecutors easily can represent victims as well as the community's interests in criminal cases overlooks the many instances when victim's rights and obligations to criminal justice conflict. The use of private counsel also introduces further uncertainty in the process.

The article concludes that the amendment is not necessatry to achieve decent treatment of victims, and that we lack sufficient information and justification for the amendment.

links to download at the bottom of this page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=173215

A lot of people think the Right hijacked what was a legitimate movement.

Victim's Rights and the Constitution: Reflections on a Bicentennial
Emilio Viano

This article examines the unfolding, activities, and successes of the victim's rights movement within the American constitutional framework of the Bill of Rights. It analyzes the general importance of "victims" as an effective political symbol and probes the connection between the victim movement and the powerful conservative forces that have dominated American life and the shaping of the criminal justice agenda during the 1980s.

It focuses in particular on the cooptation of the victim's movement by the proponents of the "crime control" model of criminal justice. It contrasts the liberal and conservative approaches. solutions, and agendas and the clashes between the rights of the accused and those of the victim. It also looks for points of convergence and working agreement. Restitution is utilized as an example of an idea and plan that could bring disparate interests together. The article dedicates considerable space to a consideration of a possible constitutional foundation for victim's rights and concludes by pointing out the inherent dangers and destructive divisiveness that can be generated by an exclusive or excessive or excessive emphasis on "rights."

http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/4/438

Would the Right do that? Hell, yes.