Home : Criminal Justice : Victims' Rights Amendment

Protect the Constitution: Stop the Victims' Rights Amendment

Patricia Perry and her son John

"I believe that the proposed Victims' Rights Amendment is unworkable and even dangerous. And to the extent that it does nothing, it is an empty promise for victims who need real resources and real support." -- Patricia Perry, the mother of a police officer who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11 RESOURCES > Fact Sheet on the Victim's Rights Amendment > Testimony by Patricia Perry on the Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee > Citizens for the Fair Treatment of Victims (off-site link)

Despite intense pressure from several Senators, the proposed "Victims' Rights Amendment" has apparently failed again this year. This is a major success since the proposed amendment would jeopardize the principle that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and that everyone in this country has the right to a fair trial. But despite their repeated failure to pass this dangerous amendment, its lead sponsors are insisting that they will try to force a vote on the measure sometime in the near future.

Many victims' organizations oppose the amendment. Victims' rights groups like the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Citizens for the Fair Treatment of Victims and the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women oppose the amendment because they are concerned that battered women -- who are often arrested and charged with assaulting their batterers--would lose the right to a fair trial and presumed innocence. Other victims' groups are concerned that giving victims the "right to a trial free from unreasonable delay" will force hasty prosecutions that result in the wrong person being convicted.



Our criminal justice system is based upon the presumption of presumed innocence. Amending the Constitution to allow victims to participate at every step of a prosecution may undermine the ability of the courts to operate in an impartial and fair manner. We can ensure that victims have a say in seeing that justice is done without amending the Constitution or putting the rights of the accused at risk.



Amending the Constitution is an extreme act that should be done only when there are no alternatives available. Victims of crime should be heard and protected, but we must not unnecessarily and recklessly change the Constitution, which has worked so well and has only been amended 17 times in 209 years. Amending the Constitution should be reserved for only those occasions when no other alternative is available. And that is not the case with victims' rights. Every state has either a constitutional amendment or statute--or both--protecting victims' rights. We should better enforce existing laws before amending the U.S. Constitution.

ACLU Letter to the House Judiciary Committee Urging Consideration of Provisions in S. 2329, the Crime Victims Act (05/04/2004)

Coalition Letter to the Senate Urging Opposition to S. 274, the Class Action Fairness Act in order to Protect the Rights of Victims of Discrimination, Consumer Fraud and Toxic Pollution (01/26/2004)

Letter to the House Urging Opposition to H.J. Res. 48, "An amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims." (09/26/2003)

Testimony of Patricia Perry on S. J. Res. 1, The Victims' Rights Amendment, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee (04/08/2003)

Letter to the Senate Urging Opposition to S.J. Res. 1, the "Victims' Rights Amendment" (04/04/2003)