Victims’ Rights Urged in Congress

Fourteen years ago, when Orange County resident Collene Campbell learned that her son Scott had been murdered, she was immediately filled with horror, and then questions.

She wanted to know where his body lay and how he died, and she wanted to know what would become of the two accused killers.

Campbell, now a San Juan Capistrano councilwoman, never got the answers during court trials that spanned seven years and nine months, which she and her husband, Gary, spent on a bench outside the courtroom because they had been subpoenaed by the defense and thus were not permitted to hear any testimony. The Campbells were not even notified when the defendants, who were found guilty, were set free on appeal.

Campbell has told her story before as part of a growing crusade for victims’ rights, but now the account has reached Capitol Hill.

Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton) reviewed Campbell’s history Thursday during congressional testimony as an example of how the nation’s annual 43 million crime victims often struggle to take part in the justice system.

Royce, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is pushing for a constitutional amendment that would guarantee victims certain rights.

The amendment aims to ensure that victims are informed and present at criminal proceedings, notified of prison releases or escapes, compensated, and protected from violence or intimidation.

“The bottom line is that victims’ rights will simply not be adequately protected until we make a change at the national level,” Royce told the House Judiciary Committee.

The concept of the amendment is popular this election year in Congress, although lawmakers still haven’t agreed on the scope.

The amendment also has the support of both President Clinton and Bob Dole, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

To become law, the amendment must gain approval of two-thirds of House and Senate lawmakers and ratification of three-fourths of state legislatures. Feinstein, confident Congress could reach agreement this year, estimated enactment in three years.

“The victim’s rights ought to be as fundamental as those of the accused,” she said. “For all the victims who have suffered, I believe we can change the future with this amendment, and ensure that they are not victimized a second time by the judicial system, but rather, accorded the honor and respect which they deserve.”

The victims’ rights movement is not new. California passed a constitutional amendment in 1982 granting victims the right to restitution and the ability to testify at sentencing, probation and parole hearings. In 1990, the state expanded these rights to guarantee a speedy trial. About 20 states have since passed constitutional amendments.

Victims’ rights advocates told Congress on Thursday that a federal amendment is necessary not only because local laws vary but because courts consistently place the federally protected constitutional rights of defendants over state-granted rights of victims.

But the amendment still faces an uphill battle. Lawmakers such as the House Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, John Conyers of Michigan, expressed concern about altering the Constitution. Some who support the proposed amendment said it needs change to avoid unintended effects such as increased costs, delays and flooded court dockets.

“We need to be careful that broader formulations of victims’ rights do not amount to empty promises or impose unreasonable burdens,” Justice Department representative John Schmidt said in written testimony.

Elisabeth Semel, a San Diego lawyer representing the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which opposes the amendment, said the biggest problem lies in defining who would be considered a victim.

Depending on the scope of the amendment, it could also result in a flood of lawsuits against police who fail to protect the public and against courts that miss a victim-notification requirement, according to Ellen Greenlee of the National Legal Aid and Defender Assn.

The amendment’s critics said the push for speedy trials could also result in unprepared prosecutors.