Clinton Calls for Victims’ Rights in Constitution

Moving to wrap himself in a popular issue already embraced by his likely Republican opponent, President Clinton on Tuesday advocated amending the Constitution to enshrine the rights of victims of crime.

Clinton has opposed several constitutional amendments proposed in recent years, saying that the document is “sacred” and should not be tampered with lightly. On those grounds, he rejected amendments to require a balanced federal budget, to make flag desecration a crime and to allow prayer in schools.

But the cause of crime victims met Clinton’s standards because, in his words, it is “different.”

“This is not an attempt to put legislative responsibilities in the Constitution or to guarantee a right that is already guaranteed. Amending the Constitution here is simply the only way to guarantee that victims’ rights are weighted equally with defendants’ rights in every courtroom in America,” Clinton said in a Rose Garden ceremony attended by relatives of victims of violent crime.

Without endorsing a specific measure, Clinton said that a victims’ rights amendment should ensure that crime victims or their survivors be told of court dates involving their cases, informed of the release of a defendant, paid restitution and allowed to speak at sentencing or parole conferences.

Victims’ rights thus joins a litany of election-year issues that Clinton has embraced to show toughness on crime and compassion for the family. In the last three days he endorsed a national registry to track sex offenders and expressed support for more flexible working hours to allow parents to attend school conferences and other family business.

Clinton cited the broad constitutional protections accorded criminal defendants and argued that victims are entitled to comparable rights.

“Today the system bends over backwards to protect those [accused of crimes] who may be innocent and that is as it should be,” Clinton said. “But it too often ignores the millions and millions of people who are completely innocent because they’re victims, and that is wrong.”

Clinton referred to a proposed crime victims’ amendment sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) but did not endorse all of its provisions. He said that he is willing to “work with” lawmakers to craft a specific amendment that he could support.

Former Sen. Bob Dole, the presumed GOP presidential nominee, endorsed the amendment last month, leading to an administration review.

A spokeswoman for Dole said Tuesday that “Clinton’s belated support of this very important amendment is but the latest episode in his ongoing game of follow the leader.”

The Kyl-Feinstein amendment, endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Parents of Murdered Children, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and others, contains seven rights that would be guaranteed crime victims and their families:

* To be present at all critical stages of a suspect’s trial, including sentencing and appeals hearings.

* To testify at any parole or probation hearing or plea-bargaining conference.

* To be informed of a defendant’s release or escape.

* Full restitution from the offender, if possible.

* Protection from intimidation or retaliation from the accused.

* A speedy trial for the accused.

* To be informed promptly of these rights, just as criminal suspects are read their rights.

Roberta Roper, the mother of a Maryland teenager who was raped and murdered in 1982, appeared at Clinton’s side.

She has lobbied the Maryland Legislature successfully to enact victims’ rights laws and a state constitutional amendment but she said Tuesday that a change in the federal Constitution still is needed.

She said that the rights of the accused now far outweigh those of victims and their families.

Until the U.S. Constitution is changed to correct that imbalance, she said, “our system will never be fair and will treat victims and survivors like second-class citizens.

But Mark J. Kappelhoff, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that no one has yet presented the facts to demonstrate that the Constitution must be changed.