< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
One of the hazards of the presidential election season
is that, to have a prayer of winning, the Democratic
candidate has to prove that he's not soft on
crime.
Richard Nixon took his support of law and order
to a narrow victory in 1968, with the implication that
Hubert Humphrey somehow favored outlawry and disorder.
Ronald Reagan became governor of California, and went on to
the White House, after promising a crackdown. And in
1988, George Bush the Elder was elected president after
tying his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Gov. Michael
Dukakis, to Willie Horton, a convict who committed some
gruesome crime while on furlough from a Bay State
prison.
But it should be noted that Bush the Elder and his campaign wizard, the late Lee Atwater, were not the first to use Horton against Dukakis. It was actually introduced in the New York Democratic primary that year by a Dukakis opponent, a young senator from Tennessee named Al Gore.
Thus Gore's law-and-order credentials should be as solid
as Pike's Peak. But as Oscar Wilde once observed,
nothing succeeds like excess,
and so Gore is piling
it on this year with multiple announcements of his support
for a constitutional amendment called the Crime Victims'
Bill of Rights.
The problem with this proposed amendment is that its useful measures are generally already in place, and that its other consequences will likely work against the interests of society.
For instance, a victim of a crime of violence
would enjoy the right to reasonable notice of, and not
to be excluded from, any public proceedings relating to the
crime.
There was a time when prosecutors didn't much trouble themselves with informing victims about proceedings against suspects. But many states have laws to that effect now, and further, prosecuting attorneys are either elected, or work for people who are. Can't we trust voters to look after their own interests?
Suppose a case goes to trial, and the victim is a witness. Even though the general public is free to watch a trial, witnesses are often sequestered, so that their testimony can't be affected by what other witnesses say on the stand.
Sequestering the witnesses can thus be part of a fair
trial, to which we all enjoy a constitutional right. But
if one witness is the victim with a right not to be
excluded from any public proceedings relating to the
crime,
which right comes first? Will this be grounds
for appeal? Do we need to add complications to a process
that already has more than its share?
Another provision, that a victim get reasonable
notice of a release or escape from custody relating to the
crime,
sounds sensible at first.
But suppose the bad guy gets 25 years, and escapes after
20, during which time you've moved three times and perhaps
changed your name. Who's supposed to keep track of that?
And who's going to define reasonable
if the state
doesn't give you notice because it's too much work to track
you down, while the vengeful felon does take that trouble?
Will that give you basis for a civil-rights suit? Or will
your civil right to privacy be violated if the state keeps
such a list and it falls into the wrong hands?
But the real problems with this Victims Rights Amendment aren't procedural, they're philosophical.
Our system presumes that crimes are committed against
the public, not against individuals. That is, if I am
victim of a crime, the prosecution acts in the name of
the people of the state of Colorado,
not Ed
Quillen.
In the current judicial climate, that focus is already blurred, and this amendment just makes it worse.
The net effect is to convert a system that is supposed
to serve society into an instrument of private vengeance.
We hear it now when a death penalty is imposed and the
victim's family exults with finally we got justice for
....
Further, the emphasis on victims encourages victims to
dwell on their victimhood, since that is becoming an
exalted status in America. It replaces the healthy
attitude of get over it and get on with your life
with the unhealthy view that until I get closure on
this, I have an absolute right to whine on national network
news every night.
This list of problems could continue indefinitely, but the idea should be clear by now. The good news is that his support of the Victims Rights Amendment is probably just political posturing by Al Gore.
The bad news is that Bush the Younger will feel compelled to top it, and whatever his brain trust comes up with will have to be even more stupid and unworkable.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >