SECTION: DENVER & THE WEST; Pg. B-09

LENGTH: 659 words

HEADLINE: 'Victim's' amendment is misguided pandering

BYLINE: Cynthia Tucker,

BODY:
This column is bound to be misinterpreted. Some reader is going  to write and tell me that I would think differently if I had ever  been a victim of a violent crime. Some other reader is going to  suggest that miscreants have all the rights and law-abiding  citizens have none. Still another is going to accuse me of  coddling criminals.

I'm not. I have no sympathy for rapists, murderers, or the  thugs who bash in the heads of little old ladies in order to steal  their Social Security checks. But I have no enthusiasm for Vice  President Al Gore's proposed victims'-rights amendment to the  Constitution, either.Indeed, it is a wretchedly bad idea. Gore wants to clutter up the Constitution with an amendment  that would guarantee certain 'rights' to crime victims, including  the right to testify at a criminal trial and the right to be  notified when a criminal is released from prison. Gore claims that  crime victims are 'deserving of protections, just as much as those  accused of committing the crime against you.'

But 'protections' against what? The system already has kicked  in on behalf of the victim - conducting an investigation,  arresting a suspect, proceeding to take the suspect to trial. The  entire system of police and courts and prisons is in place to see  to it that not only the specific crime victim but also the larger  society gets justice.

This latest bit of pandering by the vice president is  disgusting but not surprising. It has become an article of faith  among centrist Democrats that a tough law-and-order stance is  essential to win elections. Remembering how George Bush the Elder  smeared Michael Dukakis with Willie Horton, a paroled rapist, in  the 1988 election, Bill Clinton would not give his GOP opponent  any room to get to the right of him on crime. In 1992, Clinton  interrupted his presidential campaign to return to Arkansas to  preside over the execution of a death-row inmate.   Gore has not  just taken a page from Clinton's book; he has done Clinton one  better. In the past, the Clinton administration has opposed a  similar victims'-rights amendment, pointing out that it could clog  up the court system.   With Gore and George W. Bush adopting  virtually the same stance on crime (Bush also supports the  so-called victims'-rights amendment), there is no significant  voice left to argue for reform, which should have been a major  issue in this campaign. The death penalty is capricious; the  criminal-justice system takes too harsh a toll on black Americans;  the war on drugs is costly and wrongheaded.   But none of those  issues will get any attention in this campaign. Rather than a  thoughtful debate on crime and punishment, we get a call for an  amendment that distorts the Bill of Rights.

As hard as it is for  most Americans to accept, a suspect is innocent until convicted by  a jury of his peers (or until he pleads guilty). With the vast  resources of the state (police and prosecutors) lined up against  the suspect (on behalf of the victim), a range of constitutional  protections are put in place to ensure that the state does not  overwhelm the accused unfairly. The founding fathers recognized  how easy it would be for an innocent person to be convicted of a  crime he did not commit and tried to take precautions to prevent  that.

That is not to say that crime victims should be treated as  an afterthought. Already, most major police departments have  victim-assistance programs that help them negotiate the  criminal-justice maze and receive compensation where appropriate.  Thirty-two states have laws giving victims the right to be heard  in court. If more needs to be done to aid victims, that's where it  is appropriate - in state law, not in the Constitution.  Cynthia Tucker is editor of the Atlanta Constitution editorial page.

LOAD-DATE: July 25, 2000