U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Cincinnati, wants to amend the Constitution to grant victims of crimes a special set of rights.

        Victims have a right to justice. They have a claim to our sympathy and an expectation of our help. They don't need an extra set of rights tacked onto the bottom of the Constitution.

        Mr. Chabot's proposal has a great deal of bipartisan support. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, have introduced it in the Senate. Rep. Jim Barcia, D-Michigan, is Mr. Chabot's co-sponsor in the house. President Bush has come out in favor of the idea. It's easy to understand where all this support comes from. Who could be against victims? There is a natural urge to want to help them — to set things right. But it's an impossible task and that is exactly why we should not clutter up the Constitution trying to do it.

        The one thing the victim of any crime wants is to not be a victim. There is no way to do that. We can not, with any law, go back in time and stop an injustice that already has occurred. We can't stop a blow that his been struck, put stolen money back in the cash drawer or pull back on a trigger.

        The amendment would require that crime victims be allowed to confront their accused assailants in court and at sentencing and parole hearings. It would require that they be notified of the perpetrator's release or escape and require that the victim's safety be considered before a perpetrator is released. It also would guarantee victims the right to seek restitution from their attackers in civil court.

        Many of those things already are guaranteed in 32 states which have victims' rights amendments in their constitutions. There is nothing to stop the other 18 states from following suit. Many states require notification of parole and release dates and effective letter-writing campaigns have been mounted in Ohio and elsewhere to keep parole boards from granting early release to prisoners.

        Mr. Chabot says this is not good enough, however, because existing laws often get ignored, and when that happens it means victims have been victimized twice — first by the criminal and then by the system that ignored them. That is unfortunate, but forcing bureaucrats at state parole boards and county clerks's offices to follow the rules of notification seems like a pretty trivial reason to amend the constitution.

        “These strong new victims' rights, like others guaranteed in our Constitution, would become fundamental, and citizens of every state would be protected,” he said.

        Protected from what? The crimes that have already been committed?

        On Wednesday, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave a speech in Columbus favoring the amendment. He said the proposal is needed to “balance the scales of justice.”

        Actually, what the proponents seek to do is tip the scales by pulling the blindfold askew. Justice is supposed to be blind to the passions of the crime and the appearance of the participants.

        Blind, but not indifferent. Contrary to what Mr. Chabot, Mr. Ashcroft and other proponents assert, the victims are represented in the court. Their advocates are the prosecutors and the police, who get to bring the full power of the state down on the perpetrators.

        The constitutional protections that exist now are set up for defendants, not criminals, which is an important distinction. The Constitution presumes the defendant is innocent and forces the state to prove his guilt. We don't need a new amendment to prove anyone's victimization. That is already obvious.

        Not obvious enough for some, however. “For far too long, victims of crime in this country have had to stand on the courtroom steps with meaningful justice right beyond their reach,” Mr. Chabot said during a hearing last week.

        How can you guarantee impartial justice when you put it into the hands of the victim? What Mr. Chabot seeks to do with this amendment is to turn a victim's “want” into a victim's “right.”

        If my family was murdered, I would want the perpetrator to roast over a slow fire. That doesn't mean I have a right to turn the spit.
       

        Contact David Wells at 768-8310; fax: 768-8610; e-mail: dwells@enquirer.com. Cincinnati.Com keyword: Wells.

Lindner, Farmer gave big for gala
Ludlow project floods neighbors
Health campus draws doubts
Plan B: Big mall would be smaller
Author to help program
Cincy city solicitor to retire after 3 decades in City Hall
Falcons nestle into 27th floor of Chemed
Funeral arrangements made for business owner Schilling
Obituary: Dorothy Hudson, 86, founded dry cleaner with her husband
Racial profiling suit outlined
Sunman teachers turn up heat
Tristate A.M. Report
BRONSON: Jimmy Carter
HOWARD: Some Good News
SMITH AMOS: Gay Presbyterians
WELLS: Victims' rights
Arts Jam mixes classical music, crafts
Car, bus crash, five injured
Ex-Lebanon manager lands job in Pa. town
Harrison opening activity center
Students get to sample careers
Tribute organized to Warren rescuers
Hospital fire called suspicious
Church wants court records sealed
Death row inmate's appeal rejected
Judge orders land taken
Kentucky News Briefs
Maifest fills Covington streets
N. Ky. Catholic schools to merge
Park temp workers lose case
Rain raises threat of mosquitos, virus