The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment

Paper Summary:

For something so seemingly innocuous, the idea of a bill of rights for crime victims has raised an amazing amount of controversy. The paper shows that those against the Crime Victims' Rights Amendment believe that it is the first step towards eroding the constitutional protections guaranteed to those accused of a crime in the United States. The paper argues that such a belief displays a basic misunderstanding of both the U.S. Constitution and the proposed Crime Victims' Rights Amendment. The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment is aimed at offering protections towards those victims whose offenders have been convicted. The paper argues that this idea is not contrary to the United States Constitution, which offers little protection for convicted criminals beyond the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

From the Paper:

"The first proposed victims' right is that victims should be notified if an accused is no longer in custody, whether by escape or release. Looking at the guarantees contained in U.S. Constitutional Amendments Four through Six, it is clear that nothing in those amendments prohibits a crime victim from receiving such notice. The notice is not a search or seizure, nor does it require an accused to serve as a witness against himself. Furthermore, the notice would occur outside of a trial setting, which means that it would not affect any of the rights aimed at guaranteeing an accused criminal a fair and speedy trial."

More papers on The Crime Victims' Rights Amendment:

• Essay # 51405 : "Victims? Rights Constitutional Amendment"
• Essay # 59794 : "Racism in the United States"
• Essay # 61617 : "Miranda Decision"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: