ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, July 6, 1996 TAG: 9607080014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
KEEPING UP with President Clinton's domestic-policy proposals isn't easy. Almost daily now, he shoots them out rapid-fire in a transparent, and so far successful, effort to seize the political middle and keep ahead of Bob Dole.
A sure way to get Clinton to offer an initiative, it seems, is for Dole merely to contemplate saying something on an issue. Tax cuts? Clinton's there first with a tax credit for higher education. Welfare reform? Been there, done that: Clinton even endorsed a Republican governor's plan. Sex and violence in the media? The president's holding all the v-chips. Kids in trouble? Clinton wants curfews.
Nowhere, perhaps, has his strategy of co-opting the Republicans been more evident than on crime. Through most of his presidency, in fact, Clinton has taken pains not to concede the crime issue to the GOP.
That Clinton would pick up on an idea endorsed earlier if more quietly by Dole - a constitutional amendment guaranteeing rights to victims of crimes - is not, therefore, surprising.
But neither is it commendable. Ninety percent of the public, according to one poll, supports a victims-rights amendment. It's still a bad idea.
For one thing, it might encourage efforts to mess around with the Constitution. Dole has favored other unnecessary and misguided amendments. But Clinton, a former constitutional law professor, has until now resisted attempts to clutter the charter with add-ons dictating everything from prayer in public schools and balanced budgets to bans on abortion and flag-burning. In the negotiation of complicated language enumerating victims' rights, who knows what mischief might end up in the Constitution?
Second, many of the protections offered by such an amendment can be obtained by statute - and in many cases already have been. Almost every state, Virginia included, has laws guaranteeing numerous rights to victims during criminal proceedings. One benefit of this approach is that unintended consequences can be corrected by legislatures.
Finally, the amendment could create more problems than it solves - indeed, making the prosecution and punishment of criminals harder rather than easier.
Under Senate language that Dole co-sponsored, victims would be guaranteed rights to be present at every stage of the criminal process, to object to plea bargains, to get "speedy" resolution of their cases, to receive full restitution, and to enjoy police protection from the accused or convicted offender.
All good points, some should be legally established. Prompted by a nationwide grass-roots effort, considerable improvements already have been made to a criminal-justice system that too often neglected victims' interests.
But to mandate such provisions as constitutional rights - while implying the right to sue on the basis of every perceived inadequacy - could overwhelm the very institutions that are fighting crime. Imagine the impact, for instance, of allowing lawsuits every time someone doesn't get entitled police protection, or of requiring endless nationwide collection of restitution for every crime committed.
Clinton's interest in crime control can't be dismissed as pure political pandering. Crime attacks the sense of community, civility and mutual responsibility that are constant themes in his "New Democrat" perspective. The movement to protect victims' interests is, moreover, a worthy cause.
The mistake is to enshrine it in the Constitution. The disappointment is that Dole, and now Clinton, would endorse the idea.
LENGTH: Medium: 64 linesby CNB