Victims’ Rights Amendment

Re “Embed the Rights of Victims in the Constitution,” Commentary, July 6: What good could the Victims’ Rights Amendment really do? Federal overruling of Prop. 215 violates the 10th Amendment. Forfeiture laws violate the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments. We have some 2,000 laws on the books that violate the 2nd Amendment, and more are written every day. The endangered species, wetlands and other wilderness acts regularly are used to deprive citizens of property rights guaranteed in the 5th.

With the abuse of these rights by our government, why are we proposing more amendments? Wouldn’t it be better to simply elect officials who will actually adhere to the oath of office?

TIM TOLLESON

Valencia

*

Every complaining witness in a criminal case in not necessarily a victim. Consider the California woman whose false accusations of rape (not her first) caused L.A. County Sheriff’s Deputy Harris Mintz to spend five months in jail.

Should the complaining witness in a criminal case be able to override the professional judgment of the prosecutor concerning whether a case is brought and, if so, how it is handled? This question has particular relevance when the prosecutor is convinced there is not enough evidence to bring a case, but the “victim” insists the case move forward.

Should the prosecutor represent the state, as she or he does now, or the complaining witness? If the latter, are we embarking on a system of private prosecutions, with the inevitable questions of prosecutions based on wealth, power, campaign contributions, race, etc.?

Congress should reject the Victims’ Rights Amendment.

MARY BRODERICK, Exec. Dir.

Calif. Attorneys for Criminal

Justice, Los Angeles