|
U.S. Constitution “Should Never be Modified to Diminish Individual Rights”: ACLU
 |
|
ACLU Capitol Building |
WASHINGTON
D.C., May 10 (IslamOnline) – The American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) asserted Thursday that the U.S. Constitution “should never be
modified to diminish individual rights.”
The
civil liberties giant has urged the U.S. Congress to reject the
"Victim's Rights Amendment," which the ACLU says is
“disingenuously named” and “misguided.”
"Nothing
has changed since this amendment first came up for consideration - it
still doesn't do anything that can't be achieved through
statute," said Rachel King, an ACLU Legislative Counsel, in a
statement released by the group Thursday.
"Modifying
the Constitution in any way - especially if the changes will diminish
rights in this country - would be an extremely dangerous move."
The
so-called Victims' Rights Amendment was the subject of a hearing in
the Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Representative Steve Chabot
(R-OH), of the House Judiciary Committee.
A
Republican-controlled Senate rejected the amendment in 2000 after a
strong backlash from conservatives, including George Will and several
victims and victims' rights groups. Opposition centered around the
amendment's potential to greatly diminish due process protections in
America, as well as fears over the enormity of amending the
Constitution in a manner that would shrink the rights and freedoms
accorded to all Americans, the ACLU went on to state.
Critics
of the measure have also questioned its supporters' insistence that it
take the form of a constitutional amendment; prominent legal figures
in Washington and across the country have pointed out that many of the
amendment's provisions can be implemented by statute. Not since
Prohibition has the Constitution been changed in any way that would
diminish civil liberty in America, according to the ACLU.
The
ACLU said it has three main concerns with the proposed constitutional
amendment:
·
Victim's rights are already well protected both in the Constitution
and state laws; what is the point of amending the founding documents?
·
The proposed amendment is too specific; the Constitution and Bill of
Rights were meant to codify broad principles of freedom in America
like "freedom of speech" or "freedom of assembly."
Specific prohibitions on freedom are meant to be dealt with in the law
books.
·
There is a good possibility that, were this to become part of the
Constitution, victim's rights would actually be diminished as the
amendment's unnecessary mandates on police and attorneys begin to
hamper effective law enforcement and legal proceedings.
The
ACLU's also issued a letter to the House Judiciary Constitution
Subcommittee, stating that it opposed H.J. Res. 91 and asserted its
concern for any measures that would be taken towards denying persons
their right to due process as protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“Although
worded differently, H.J. Res. 91 poses the same problems that
amendments from previous Congresses have posed, most recently S.J.
Res. 3 and H.J. Res. 64 in the 106th Congress. This
amendment would fundamentally alter the nation's founding charter and
would apply to every federal, state and local criminal case,
profoundly compromising Bill of Rights’ protections for accused
persons.
“H.J.
Res. 91 would give rights to victims of violent crime such as: the
right to notice of any public proceeding; the right not to be excluded
from public proceedings; the right to be heard at release, plea,
sentencing, pardon and reprieve hearings; an interest in avoiding
unreasonable delay; and just and timely restitution. The
Amendment also provides victims with the right to ‘adjudicative
decisions’ regarding victim’s safety, speedy trial and
restitution. Although ‘adjudicative decisions’ is not
defined in the bill, this phrase could be interpreted as providing
victims with the right to a hearing.
“Every
state has either a state constitutional amendment or statute
protecting victims’ rights and the proponents have not made the case
that those measures fail to protect victims’ interests. More
importantly, providing these ‘rights’ to victims will compromise
the rights of the accused,” the letter went on to state.
“Not
every person accused is actually guilty,” the ACLU asserted.
The
ACLU and other civil rights organizations have specifically vocalized
concerns for Muslims and Arabs in the United States whose civil right
to due process have been severely compromised both before and after
September 11 – including the use of secret evidence to detain
Muslims and Arabs like Mazen Al Najjar and dozens of others.
The
ACLU also emphasized that the proposed amendment does not protect the
rights of accused persons.
“Although
the words of this amendment are different from previous versions of
the Amendment introduced in earlier Congresses, the effect is the
same. If passed, the Amendment would erode the
presumption of innocence, erode the right to a fair trial, hamper the
ability of law enforcement to effectively prosecute cases,
discriminate between victims and impose legal liability on the states.
“One
of the primary concerns that opponents of the Amendment have raised is
that it will erode the rights of accused persons. The
victims’ rights amendments of eight states expressly provide that
nothing in the amendment may diminish the rights of the accused. Proposed
H.J. Res. 91 does not, but oddly suggests that the rights of victims
are ‘capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights
of those accused of victimizing them.’ This clause
constitutes more of an observation than a prohibition; nothing in its
purports to prohibit any diminution of other rights, which have long
existed under the Constitution. It would be the first time
in our nation’s history that the Constitution was amended in a
manner that restricted rights of the accused,” the letter continued.
The
group also went on to caution against amending the U.S. Constitution
and that such actions should only be taken when “there are no other
alternatives available.”
Since
1791, the Federal Constitution has been amended only 19 times.
The
group claimed that the amendment would likely further limit
defendants’ access to counsel as well as pose a major conflict
of interest. “If this happens, it will tax an
already severely overtaxed system, make it less likely for accused
persons to retain adequate counsel, and therefore, increase the
likelihood of wrongful conviction,” it stated.
It
also went on to state that the amendment “poses more problems than
solutions.”
The
group’s letter to the Congressional Representatives ended with a
reiteration of concerns regarding amendments to the Constitution and a
plea for the congressional subcommittee to reject the resolution
calling for the amendment.
“A
constitutional amendment is not the solution. Crime victims
deserve protection, but a victims’ rights constitutional amendment
is not the way to do it. H.J. Res. 91 unnecessarily amends
the federal constitution, places inflexible mandates on states, may
hinder prosecution of criminal cases and threatens the rights of the
accused. We urge you to oppose this amendment.”
|
