 |
|
Aesop on evil
[PHOTO SOURCE: http://izquotes.com/quote/1827]
|
Destroy the seed of evil, or it will grow up to your ruin.[Aesop, "The Swallow and the Other Birds" (c. 6th century BC).]
AUTHOR:
Aesop (/ˈiːsɒp/ EE-sop; Ancient Greek: Αἴσωπος, Aisōpos,
c. 620–564 BCE) was an Ancient Greek fabulist or story teller credited with a
number of fables now collectively known as Aesop's Fables. Although his
existence remains uncertain and (if he ever existed) no writings by him
survive, numerous tales credited to him were gathered across the centuries and
in many languages in a storytelling tradition that continues to this day. Many
of the tales are characterized by animals and inanimate objects that speak,
solve problems, and generally have human characteristics.
Scattered details of
Aesop's life can be found in ancient sources, including Aristotle, Herodotus,
and Plutarch. An ancient literary work called The Aesop Romance tells an
episodic, probably highly fictional version of his life, including the
traditional description of him as a strikingly ugly slave (δοῦλος) who by his cleverness
acquires freedom and becomes an adviser to kings and city-states. Older
spellings of his name have included Esop(e) and Isope. Depictions
of Aesop in popular culture over the last 2500 years have included several
works of art and his appearance as a character in numerous books, films, plays,
and television programs.
 |
|
|
INTERNET
SOURCE: https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights_womens-rights/letter-senate-urging-opposition-sj-re
Letter to the Senate Urging Opposition to S.J. Res. 1, the
"Victims' Rights Amendment"
April 4, 2003
Re:
Oppose S.J. Res. 1, "An amendment to the Constitution of the United States
to protect the rights of crime victims."
Dear
Senator:
On January
7th 2003, Senators Feinstein and Kyl introduced S.J. Res. 1, "An Amendment
to the Constitution to Protect the Rights of Crime Victims." This
amendment would fundamentally alter the nation's founding charter and would
apply to every federal, state and local criminal case, profoundly compromising
the Bill of Rights protections for accused persons.
S.J. Res.
1 would give rights to victims of violent crime such as the right to notice of
any public proceeding; the right not to be excluded from public proceedings,
the right to be heard at release, plea, sentencing, pardon and reprieve
hearings; an interest in avoiding unreasonable delay and just and timely
restitution. The Amendment also provides victims with the right to
"adjudicative decisions" regarding victim's safety, speedy trial and
restitution. Although adjudicative decisions are not defined in the bill,
this could be interpreted as providing victims with the right to a hearing on
these issues.
Many of
these provisions reflect laudable goals, but it is unnecessary to pass a
constitutional amendment to achieve them. Every state has either a
state constitutional amendment or statute protecting victims' rights and the
proponents have not made the case that those measures do not protect victims'
interests. More importantly, providing these "rights" to
defendants will compromise the rights of the accused. It would be the
first time in our nation's history that the Constitution was amended in a
manner that restricted individual rights.
This amendment
poses the same problems as previous versions and may create additional new
problems.
The
amendment does not protect the rights of accused persons. The wording of this amendment is the same as
the version introduced in the 107th, but is different from previous versions of
the Amendment introduced in earlier sessions of Congress. The effect of
each version, however, is the same. If passed, the Amendment would erode
the presumption of innocence; jeopardize the right to a fair trial; hamper the
ability of law enforcement to effectively prosecute cases; discriminate between
victims and impose legal liability on the states.
One of
the primary concerns that opponents of the Amendment have raised is that it
will erode the rights of accused persons. Some have asked for language
that would clarify that the Amendment is not intended to erode constitutional
rights for accused persons and that if a conflict between the rights of the
accused and the victim arise, the rights of the accused would prevail.
The amendment contains a clause that states, "These rights shall not be
restricted except when and to the degree dictated by a substantial interest in
public safety or the administration of criminal justice, or by compelling
necessity." Notably absent is language clearly protecting the rights
of accused persons. If the proponents do not intend to compromise the
rights of defendants, the amendment should clearly state this.
This
Amendment gives victims the right to adjudicative decisions that duly consider
the victim's safety, interest in avoiding unreasonable delay, and access to
just and timely claims to restitution from the offender. This clause was included, for the first
time, in S. J. Res. 35 in the 107th Congress. It remains unclear what
this phrase means, but a reasonable interpretation is that victims would have
the right to a hearing on these issues. Previous amendments have given
victims the right to be present and heard at all public proceedings; this
version appears to go beyond the right to be present and be heard, but also to
give the right to a hearing.
The Constitution should only be amended when there are no other alternatives available. In the past 211 years, the Federal Constitution has been amended only 17 times. Amending the Constitution is a serious matter and should be reserved for those issues where there are no other alternatives available. S. J. Res. 1 does not meet this standard because there are other alternatives available to protect the interests of crime victims. Thirty-three states have passed victims' rights constitutional amendments and every state has either a state constitutional amendment or statute that protects victims' rights. Greater effort should be made to enforce existing laws instead of amending the federal constitution.
The Constitution should only be amended when there are no other alternatives available. In the past 211 years, the Federal Constitution has been amended only 17 times. Amending the Constitution is a serious matter and should be reserved for those issues where there are no other alternatives available. S. J. Res. 1 does not meet this standard because there are other alternatives available to protect the interests of crime victims. Thirty-three states have passed victims' rights constitutional amendments and every state has either a state constitutional amendment or statute that protects victims' rights. Greater effort should be made to enforce existing laws instead of amending the federal constitution.
The
Victims' Rights Amendment erodes the presumption of innocence. The framers were aware of the enormous power
of the government to deprive a person of life, liberty and property. The
constitutional protections afforded the accused in criminal proceedings are
among the most precious and essential liberties provided in the
Constitution. The VRA undermines the presumption of innocence by
conferring rights to the accuser at the time a criminal case is filed when the
accused is still presumed to be innocent.
Not every
accused person is actually guilty of committing a crime. But giving the
accuser the constitutional status of victim will impact the judge and jury,
making it extraordinarily difficult for fact finders to remain unbiased when the
"victim" is present at every court proceeding giving his or her
opinion as to what should happen. The VRA makes the accuser a third party
in the criminal case, even before a judge or jury has determined that the
accuser is actually a "victim."
Many organizations
that provide support to battered women are opposed to this amendment because
battered women are often charged with crimes when they use force to defend
themselves against their batterer. Under the VRA, the battering spouse is
considered the "victim" and will have the constitutional right to
have input into each stage of the proceeding from bail through parole.
Why should batterers who have spent years abusing their partners be given
special constitutional rights?
The
Victims' Rights Amendment jeopardizes the right to a fair trial. S. J. Res. 1 would give crime victims a
constitutional right to attend the entire criminal trial-even if the victim is
going to be a witness in the case. In many instances, the testimony of a
prosecution witness will be compromised if the person has heard the testimony
of other witnesses. Despite the possibility of tainting his or her
testimony, S.J. Res. 1 gives the victim a constitutional right to be
present-even over the objections of the defense or prosecution.
S. J.
Res. 1 would also confer an "interest in avoiding unreasonable
delay." Any victim or representative of a victim of a violent crime
has standing under the Amendment to intervene and assert a constitutional right
for a faster disposition of the matter. This provision will threaten
defendants' rights to effective assistance of counsel if defendants are
required to go to trial before their attorneys are ready. Furthermore,
the right could compromise the prosecution's case if it is not ready to proceed
to trial but must do so at the victim's insistence. Under the first
scenario innocent people may be wrongfully convicted; under the second scenario
guilty people may go free. Most importantly, protecting the rights of a
person accused of a crime would no longer be a preeminent focus of a criminal
trial.
The
Amendment is likely to be counter-productive because it could hamper effective
prosecutions and cripple law enforcement by placing enormous new burdens on
state and federal law enforcement agencies. Instead of putting their resources towards prosecuting
crimes, states will be required to divert tremendous resources to make sure
that victims are given notice about every hearing and be given the opportunity
to be heard "at public release, plea, sentencing, reprieve, and pardon
proceedings."
It is
unclear how much weight judges will be required to give to the views of a crime
victim if he or she objects to an action of the prosecutor or judge. For
example, what if a victim opposes a negotiated plea agreement? Over 90
percent of all criminal cases are resolved through negotiation rather than
going to trial. Even a small increase in the number of cases going to
trial would burden prosecutors' offices. There are many reasons why prosecutors
enter into plea agreements such as allocating scarce prosecutorial resources,
concerns about weaknesses in the evidence, or strategic choices to gain the
cooperation of one defendant to enhance the likelihood of convicting
others. Prosecutorial discretion would be seriously compromised if crime
victims could effectively obstruct plea agreements or require prosecutors to
disclose weaknesses in their case in order to persuade a court to accept a
plea. Ironically, this could backfire and result in the prosecution being
unable to get a conviction against a guilty person, which would not serve
society's nor victims' interests.
The
Amendment would impose inflexible mandates on states that many will not be able
to meet. Under S. J. Res. 1,
law enforcement would be constitutionally required to make reasonable efforts
to find and notify crime victims or their representatives every time a case
went to trial, every time a criminal case was resolved, and every time a
prisoner was released from custody. To comply with S. J. Res. 1, some
jurisdictions will need to send out millions of notification forms. This
will impose significant new costs on the states and regardless of how efficient
the state tries to be, it will fail in some situations to provide notice to the
accuser.
When the
state fails to fulfill its duty to provide notice, what remedies are available
to the "victim"? Section three reads, "'Nothing in this
article shall be construed to provide grounds for a new trial or to authorize
any claim for damages." However, this still leaves open the
possibility that the victim could re-open a case if he or she disagreed with a
plea agreement. It also leaves open the possibility of seeking injunctive
relief against the judge, prosecutor or police when they fail to follow through
with every requirement under the amendment. Presumably victims would be
entitled to bring suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the victim prevails
under a 1983 claim, he or she is entitled to attorneys' fees, which are not
considered damages.
Section
three of S.J. Res. 1 may also authorize appointment of counsel for
victims. The section reads, "Only the victim or the victim's lawful
representative may assert the rights established by this article."
The term "lawful representative" is undefined, and could be
interpreted as meaning an attorney. If victims are entitled to have
attorney's represent them, then in order to make this right meaningful the
state will have to subsidize the cost of attorneys for those who cannot afford
to hire their own.
State and
federal criminal justice systems are in crisis because they are unable or
unwilling to provide adequate counsel for indigent accused persons. The
additional cost of providing counsel to victims as well as defendants in
criminal cases would be prohibitively expensive. Adding the financial
burden of providing counsel to victims will likely further limit defendants'
access to counsel. If this happens, it will tax an already severely
overtaxed system, make it less likely for accused persons to retain adequate
counsel, and therefore increase the likelihood of wrongful conviction.
The VRA
poses more problems than solutions.
Apart from the serious constitutional problems this amendment raises, there are
many practical problems that the VRA will create. Who is a victim?
The amendment does not define this and it is quite possible that in any one
case there would be multiple victims with competing interests. In a
homicide case, a child of the victim and the parent of the victim may disagree
on how the government should handle this case. Whose opinion
prevails? What if the victim changes his or her mind during the course of
the case? This happens frequently in death penalty cases where the victim
initially wants the government to seek the death penalty and then changes his
or her mind before the case is concluded? And what about the fact that
the amendment only covers victims of "violent" crime? This
means that a person who has been the victim of a misdemeanor assault would have
constitutional rights, but an elderly widow who has been swindled out of her
life savings would not. It also means that victims in different states
will be treated differently because each state has its own laws defining what
is and is not a crime of violence, e.g. some states consider burglary a crime
of violence, while others consider it a property crime. Persons in
adjoining states might have different rights under the federal constitution
creating a chaotic and unfair situation.
A
constitutional amendment is not the solution. Crime victims deserve protection, but a victims' rights
constitutional amendment is not the proper way of providing it. S.J.
Res. 1 unnecessarily amends the federal constitution, places inflexible
mandates on states, may hinder prosecution of criminal cases and threatens the
rights of the accused. We urge you to vote against this
amendment.
If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you very
much for your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Laura Murphy
Director
Director
Terri Schroeder
Legislative Representative
Legislative Representative
 |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment