Compare and contrast the merits of a Victims Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. Legitimate arguments have been waged on both sides of this issue conduct research and discuss findings and approaches which will help yield a balanced presentation both in support of the amendment and against it.
Let's take a closer look:
1. Compare and contrast the merits of a Victims Rights Amendment to the US Constitution. Legitimate arguments have been waged on both sides of this issue conduct research and discuss findings and approaches which will help yield a balanced presentation both in support of the amendment and against it.
One excellent source to draw on for this assignment is the Hearing of the testimony of expert witnesses. It presents the main arguments for and against the amendment in the hearing. For example, the hearing concerns Senate Joint Resolution 35, a proposed victims' rights amendment to the United States Constitution.
Let's look at some of the argument for and against the amendment.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE VICTIMS RIGHTS AMENDMENT TO US CONSTITUTION:
1. The opponents argue that protecting the rights of victims is necessary and to date has not been done.
The chairman agreed to hold this hearing at Senator Feinstein's request, and he did so even though he opposed her proposed amendment. But he did it because he did agree with her goal:
Goal: to protect and enhance the rights of victims of crime. (1)
2. Victims need their voice heard and stop suffering at the hands of CJS
The chairman shares "the desire to ensure that those in our society who most directly feel the harm callously inflicted by criminals do not suffer yet again at the hands of a criminal justice system that ignores victims. A victim of a crime has a personal interest in the prosecution of the alleged offender. Victims want their voices to be heard. They want, and deserve, to participate in the system that is designed to redress the wrongs that they and society have suffered at the hands of criminals. But I think Congress should proceed very carefully when it comes to amending the Constitution." 9 (1)
3. The need to elevate the protection of victim's rights to the federal level
" I think, for the amendment as being needed to protect victims' rights. The question that Senator Feingold raises is, of course, the question for this Committee, namely is it necessary to elevate those rights to Federal constitutional protection" (Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona). (1)
See statistical evidence of pp. 7-9 of the Hearing (1), as Jon Kyl reports below:
"There is, in my view, ample evidence to support the proposition that the statutes and constitutional amendments that exist today in the States have not done the job. There are many statements
from the previous administration-Department of Justice officials, including the Attorney General, Janet Reno-that back that up. Let me just cite two statistics from a study that was done by the Department of Justice. It analyzed the States, like my own State of Arizona, that have some of the strongest protection for victims' rights of ...
This solution assists in comparing and contrasting the merits of a Victims Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution considering the legitimate arguments that have been waged on both sides of this issue. References are provided.