Don’t put crime victims’ rights under constitution

I became an official Pennsylvania crime victim about two years ago.

That’s when the Pennsylvania State Police in Somerset County finally found my brother Thomas Conrad’s body and brought his wife and stepson to justice for killing him and hiding his remains.

Tom was the primary crime victim, of course, but as his next of kin, his family, I was a victim as well.

The state police, with help from the FBI, doggedly searched for Tom’s body for more than eight years, all the while building a case against his suspected killers.

Then Somerset County convicted the pair and sent them to prison for a long time.

All through the proceedings, the state police, the Somerset County District Attorney’s Office and the state Office of Victim Advocate kept me informed and supported me in countless ways.

The state OVA even paid to cremate my brother’s body and ship his ashes to me.

All of that was done in strict accordance with a state law, Pennsylvania Crime Victims Act (18 P.S. § 11.101), that provides victims of violent crimes with extensive rights and compensation.

In my experience as a crime victim, I found the PCVA to be very good law. It should stay that way.

The rights of Pennsylvania crime victims should not be enshrined in our state constitution as the state Legislature is halfway down the road to doing. It sounds like such a great cause that more than 70 state senators and representatives signed on to the legislation as cosponsors. The nearly threepage mishmash of feelgood platitudes and promises (see S.B. 149) passed in both houses unanimously last year. The Legislature must now approve exactly the same wording again in this session and then it will be put before the voters who, no doubt, will approve it overwhelmingly.

But I have to ask, are there no lawyers in the Pennsylvania Legislature?

Doesn’t anyone, other than the ACLU, recognize what a terrible idea this is?

The amendment is unnecessary, will be very costly to taxpayers, will (I guarantee you) generate endless lawsuits and may very well prove to be counterproductive. It will establish constitutional rights that will conflict so badly with the constitutional rights of the accused that it may lead to defendants being acquitted because their rights were violated.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Sheryl Delozier, R-Cumberland, says the rights of victims should have the same status in our state constitution, and ultimately the U.S. Constitution, as those of the accused.

That’s a noble sentiment, but there is a crucial difference between the two sets of rights.

From the birth of our democracy, the rights of the accused have been protected because we the people have given our state and federal governments the awesome, terrible power to deprive individuals of life, liberty and property.

The right to a presumption of innocence, to bail, to trial by a jury of one’s peers, to confront one’s accusers, to a speedy trial, to an attorney – these are bedrock principles intended to protect all of us from being abused by an all-powerful state.

This proposed amendment does not confer any power on the government to deprive crime victims of their lives, liberty or property.

The rights of victims of violent crime are already protected in the state law cited above. That law can be changed as needed.

If we add this amendment to the constitution, it will be all but impossible to change it later to adapt it to unforeseen circumstances or unintended consequences.

South Dakota has already run smack up against such consequences. Its voters approved an extensive Victims Bill of Rights to its constitution a couple of years ago and now they find that they must change it.

The South Dakota amendment has created considerable expense and a bureaucratic nightmare for officials who now spend their days tracking down and notifying victims of court hearings for very minor crimes. For example, the state must notify out-of-state banks of all court proceedings for trespassers on a foreclosed and empty property, knowing the banks will not be showing up for those hearings.

To protect the privacy of victims, South Dakota also limits the information that law enforcement agencies can release to the public to help solve major crimes. That means police cannot publicly identify bars or convenience stores that have been robbed without their owners’ permission because they are, after all, victims.

Under Pennsylvania’s proposed amendment, a defendant – who is presumed innocent but may be detained – could lose his or her right to a speedy trial due to repeated delays caused by the need to notify victims and arrange hearings so they can be present.

These notifications and delays will enormously increase costs to courts, county District Attorney’s offices, victims’ aid offices and public defenders – all costs borne solely by the taxpayers of each county.

Pennsylvania’s proposed amendment provides that victims do not have to submit to depositions, interviews or other discovery requests made by the accused or his attorney. There are circumstances where that protection is necessary and can be provided, but to make that an inviolable constitutional right runs full-tilt into the constitutional right of criminal defendants to confront their accusers.

The proposed amendment provides that victims may assert their rights “in a manner no less vigorous than the rights afforded to the accused” and that those rights “shall be enforced.”

However, it also says that victims cannot sue the commonwealth or any of its subdivisions for not enforcing those rights. So if poor criminal defendants are entitled to public defenders, will crime victims be entitled to their own lawyers at public expense as well?

That “no less vigorous” provision will lead to lawsuits arguing just that. The proposed amendment is fraught with such conundrums.

Why do we need it? Why are we messing with a system that already works well just so legislators can look like superheroes to the voters?

Oh right, I answered my own question.