NEWS RELEASE

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Judicial Conference Urges Congress to Consider Statutory
Approach to Victims' Rights, Not Constitutional Amendment

     A representative of the Judicial Conference of the United States today urged the House Subcommittee on the Constitution to pursue a statutory approach to a crime victim' rights initiative as opposed to a constitutional amendment. "A statutory approach," said Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, "would allow all participants in the federal criminal justice system to gain experience with the principles involved without taking the unusual step of amending our nation's fundamental legal charter, with its concomitant application to the various state systems." Judge Sullivan is a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law. He chairs the Committee's Legislative Subcommittee.

In March 1997, the Judicial Conference resolved to take no position on the enactment of a victims' rights constitutional amendment, but subsequently strongly endorsed a statutory approach over adoption of a victims' rights constitutional amendment. H.J. Res. 64, as introduced in the House, would amend the Constitution to protect the rights of crime victims.

Select Your Connection Speed: 28.8K Video 56K Video Corporate Lan (300K) **The Free RealPlayer Basic is required to view the content above. [Instructions/Support]

     Judge Sullivan told the Subcommittee that "the members of the federal Judiciary, like all Americans, share a profound concern for the victims of crime. . . . However we believe that the interests of crime victims are best served by a system that will provide adequate protection for the rights of victims while balancing the need to ensure a fair trial for persons accused of a crime but who are presumed to be innocent. That is our goal. It is one we should share together."

     While H.J. Res. 64 appears to have less potential adverse impact on the federal Judiciary than previous amendment proposals, according to Judge Sullivan, a number of fundamental concerns remain. Among the most important of these are the kinds of crimes and victims to which the amendment will apply, the remedies for violations of the proposed rights, the implications that enforcement of the proposed rights has for our federal system, the need for exceptions to the proposed rights necessitated by considerations of the administration of justice, speedy trial rights of victims, and the allocation of responsibility for providing notice to victims.

     "Many of the principles contemplated in H.J. Res. 64 represent a significant change in our criminal justice system, literally realigning the interests of defendants and victims, as well as the process by which criminal cases are adjudicated," Judge Sullivan told the subcommittee. "The rights and protections heretofore afforded to citizens under the Constitution were largely part of the fabric of the law, well-known and understood by the Founding Fathers, while many of the concepts in the victims' rights area are largely untested, at least in the federal system. It could conceivably take years for a settled body of law and judicial administration to evolve. A statutory approach would accommodate this process."

     Judge Sullivan told the subcommittee that a statutory approach would also diminish or eliminate federal court involvement in the operations of the state criminal justice systems under a victims' rights constitutional amendment. Finally, unlike a constitutional amendment that could take years to ratify, a statutory approach is more certain and immediate, an advantage to victims.