{
  "id": "RL30525",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30525",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101906,
      "date": "2000-05-12",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:36:46.398941",
      "title": "Victims' Rights Amendment: Proposals to Amend the United States Constitution in the 106th Congress",
      "summary": "Thirty-three states have added a victims rights amendment to their state constitutions. Both\nHouse\nand Senate Judiciary Committees have held hearings on similar proposals to amend the United States\nConstitution, in the Senate on  S.J.Res. 3  introduced by Senator Kyl for himself and\nSenator Feinstein and in the House on  H.J.Res. 64  introduced by Representative\nChabot. The Senate Committee has reported out  S.J.Res. 3 ,  S.Rept. 106-254 , and the\nSenate debated the measure for two days in April.\n  \n  The proposed amendment defines the participation of crime victims in state and federal official\nproceedings generated by the crimes committed against them. It gives them qualified notification,\nattendance, articulation, and consideration rights. Victims' safety must be considered in bail\nproceedings, victim restitution must be a consequence of conviction, and victims' interests must be\nweighed when the time tables for official proceedings are set or reset. Victims must be allowed to\nspeak on questions of bail, plea agreements, sentencing, and pardons. They must be informed of,\nand not excluded from, crime-related public proceedings. They must be notified of escapes and\nreleases and advised of their rights under the amendment.\n  Arguments put forward in support of an amendment include: (1) the criminal justice system is\nbadly tilted in favor of criminal defendants and against victims' interests and a more appropriate\nbalance should be restored; (2) the shabby treatment afforded victims has chilled their participation\nin the criminal justice system to the detriment of all; (3) society has an obligation to compensate\nvictims; (4) existing statutory and state constitutional provisions are wildly disparate in their\ncoverage, resulting in uneven treatment and harmful confusion throughout the criminal justice\nsystem; and (5) existing state and federal law is inadequate and likely to remain inadequate.\n  Critics argue to the contrary that: (1) the criminal justice system is not out of balance;\nmisguided interjection of victim participation threatens to render the process inaccurate, and unfair;\n(2) if the mischief possible through a victims' rights amendment is avoided, the proposal becomes\npurely hortatory; the Constitution is no place for commemorative decorations; (3) the proposals are\ninconsistent with the basic notions of federalism; (4) the Senate proposal, limited to violent crimes,\nis too narrow; or conversely, the House proposal, applied to all felonies, is too broad; and (5) the\nproposals do not clearly preserve the constitutional rights of the accused.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30525",
          "sha1": "9757e5840e0d090acaaca137bdf55b5c64ed6147",
          "filename": "files/20000512_RL30525_9757e5840e0d090acaaca137bdf55b5c64ed6147.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000512_RL30525_9757e5840e0d090acaaca137bdf55b5c64ed6147.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}