SECTION: METRO; Pg. B07

LENGTH: 585 words

HEADLINE: VICTIMS' RIGHTS AMENDMENT IS A LOUSY IDEA

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 U.S. Constitution, either. Indeed, it is a wretchedly bad idea. Gore would 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 has already 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. In 1992, Bill Clinton interrupted his presidential campaign to return to Arkansas to preside over the execution of a death-row inmate.

Gore 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 matters 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 of a crime 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, 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 a columnist for the Atlanta Constitution.

COLUMN: CYNTHIA TUCKER

LOAD-DATE: July 26, 2000