Repeated Attempts by Senators Kyl and Feinstein (with President Clinton backing) to Pass a Federal Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment (1996‑2...

Page 8 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *848 with state statutes and constitutional provisions that seek to guarantee victims' rights. However, these efforts have failed to fully safeguard victims’ rights. These significant state efforts simply are not sufficiently consistent, comprehensive, or authoritative to safeguard victims' rights. © To place victims’ rights in the Constitution, victims advocates - led most prominently by the National Victims Constitutional Amendment Network % - approached the President and Congress regarding a federal amendment. © On April 22, 1996, Senators Kyl and Feinstein with the backing of President Clinton introduced a federal victims' rights amendment. © The amendment was intended to "restore, preserve, and protect, as a matter of right for the victims of violent crimes, the practice of victim participation in the administration of criminal justice that was the birthright of every American at the founding of our Nation." ©” A companion resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives. ©8 The proposed amendment embodied seven core principles: (1) the right to notice of proceedings, (2) the right to be present at the proceedings, (3) the right to be heard, (4) the right to notice of the defendant's [*849] release or escape, (5) the right to restitution, (6) the right to a speedy trial, and (7) the right to reasonable protection. In a later resolution, an eighth principle was added: the right to standing to enforce these rights. ©? The 104th Congress did not pass the amendment. On January 21, 1997, the opening day of the first session of the 105th Congress, Senators Kyl and Feinstein reintroduced the victims’ rights amendment. ™ A series of hearings were held that year in both the House and the Senate. 7! Kyl and Feinstein reintroduced the amendment the following year. 7* The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings 73 and passed the proposed amendment out of committee. 4 Yet again, the full Senate did not consider the amendment. In 1999, Senators Kyl and Feinstein again proposed the amendment, > and on September 30, 1999, the Judiciary Committee voted, as before, to send the amendment to the full Senate. 7 But on April 27, 2000, after three days of floor debate, the amendment was shelved when it became clear that its opponents, who objected to constitutionalizing victims’ rights, possessed the necessary votes to sustain a filibuster. 77 At the same time, hearings on the companion measure were held in the House. 7° ® Focusing on the Administration of Justice and the Enforcement of Laws: Dep't of Justice Oversight Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 104th Cong. 23-24 (1997) (statement of Janet Reno, Att'y Gen. of the United States). See hitp://www.nvean.org. See generally Twist, supra note 2. 6 For a comprehensive history of victims' efforts to pass a constitutional amendment, see Twist, supra note 2. 6 §.J. Res. 52, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996). 67 §, Rep. No. 108-191, at 1-2 (2003); see also S. Rep. No. 106-254 (2000). 68 H.R.J. Res. 174, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996). See S.J. Res. 65, 104th Cong., 2d Sess. (1996). 7 $.J. Res. 6, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997). 71 See, e.g., Victims' Rights Amendment: Hearings Before the Sen. Judiciary Comm., 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1997). 2 §.J. Res. 44, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (1998). 7% Victim's Rights Amendment: Hearings Before the Sen. Judiciary Comm., 105th Congress (1998). 7 See 144 Cong. Rec. $11,010 (daily ed. Sept. 28, 1998) (statement of Sen. Kyl). 7 §.J. Res. 3, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999). 76 146 Cong. Rec. $2966 (daily ed. Apr. 27, 2000). 77 See id. 78 H.R.J. Res. 64, 106th Cong., Ist Sess. (2002). DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017722