STATEMENT OF RICHARD M. ROMLEY
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
S.J. RES. 6
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS
SUBMITTED ON MAY 12, 1997
I am very
pleased to provide written testimony in support of S.J. Res. 6 which proposes
an amendment to the United States Constitution to afford victims of violent
crime fundamental rights. I am
currently serving my third term as the elected Maricopa County Attorney, having
been first elected in 1989. As the
public prosecutor, I am responsible for the prosecution of felony and
delinquent offenses that are committed in the sixth most populated county in
the country. My Office is comprised of
over 750 employees with approximately 300 Deputy County Attorneys who prosecute
more than 30,000 serious crimes each year.
As the
prosecutor for Maricopa County (County seat: Phoenix, Arizona), I have
supported constitutional rights’ for crime victims for a number of years. In the mid 80's, I served on the Arizona
Victims’ Rights Steering Committee which was responsible for the drafting and
passage of Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights.
In 1990, more than 2/3 of Arizona’s voters passed a constitutional
amendment affording victims of crime in Arizona with 12 fundamental
rights. Since its passage, I have
instituted nationally recognized victims’ rights programs in my office. I can attest from personal experience to the
benefits of constitutional rights for crime victims.
I believe
that a government’s first responsibility is to ensure the safety of its
citizens. To achieve that end, our
forefathers designed a criminal justice system that is premised upon citizen
involvement — as jurors or witnesses.
Yet, over the past 200 years citizen involvement has been minimized and
discouraged. As a result, those most
affected by crime — victims — have had been silenced. They are not allowed in the courtroom during a trial, are not
consulted about a possible negotiated settlement, and are not allowed to share
their thoughts and recommendations regarding sentencing to the judge. It’s no wonder that victims walk away from
their criminal justice experience with a sense of frustration and
disillusionment. If asked if they would
report a crime in the future, many state “never again!”
We are
facing a crisis in this nation.
Citizens have lost their faith in our system of justice. Victims no longer believe that our criminal
justice system will be responsive to their wishes. As a result, many citizens refuse to become involved in our
system of justice by not reporting crime, by not serving as jurors, and by not
testifying as witnesses.
For years,
victims of crime have been treated as mere after-thoughts: expected to be there
when needed but otherwise not informed, not consulted and certainly not made
whole. All criminal justice
professionals — police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges — bear
some responsibility for this state of affairs.
Consequently, victims often feel victimized twice: once as a result of
the crime and twice by a system that was initially intended to protect them. It is for these very reasons that
constitutional rights are essential.
The rights of crime victims not to be victimized by the criminal justice
process are basic human rights, rights properly addressed in our Constitution.
Victims
and their advocates have been speaking out about this injustice. Victims tell us that they participate in the
criminal justice process to ensure that criminals don’t commit similar crimes
in the future. They don’t spend hours
reporting the crime to police, viewing lineups, taking time from work to appear
in court to wait for hours for their own personal gain. When asked what they value most, they tell
us that they want basic rights to been informed, heard, and to be present. They want to be informed of court proceedings,
not find out about it after it has happened; they want the ability to
participate in a meaningful way; such as by being consulted about settlements
in advance, rather than discovering that the defendant has entered a guilty
plea after the fact; they want the opportunity to be heard at critical
junctures as a means to balance information provided by the defendant; and —
most importantly — they want the opportunity to “see justice” with their own
eyes, to be in court during trial and other proceedings, not forced to wait
outside the courtroom to hear the outcome from others.
As a means
to restore faith in our criminal justice system, I actively supported the
passage of Arizona’s constitutional rights for victims. Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights affords
victims with fundamental rights to be informed, to be heard at critical stages
of the process, to be free to decline a pre-trial interview by the defense, to
be consulted, to be present when the defendant has the right to be present, to
restitution, to a speedy trial and final disposition, and to be free from
harassment and intimidation. These
rights have impacted our system of justice in a very positive manner, without
the adverse consequences the detractors of victims’ rights espoused.
During the
victims’ rights debate, detractors argued that such an amendment would be cost
prohibitive. They predicted that such
rights would bankrupt our criminal justice system. While I agree that there are costs associated with victims’
rights services, those costs are minor when balanced with the benefit to our
state. The citizens of Arizona voiced
their opinion — affording victims’ constitutional guarantees to participation
is worth the expense.
My Office
provides victims rights services to over 19,000 victims of felonies perpetrated
by adult offenders and over 10,000 victims of juvenile delinquents. Victim Advocates provide victims’ rights
notification and services to help victims navigate their way through what can
be an intimidating process. The costs
associated with these services account for no more than 3% of my entire
budget. Costs associated with victims’
rights services are far less than those associated with ensuring that those
accused of crime are afforded their constitutional rights.
To enhance
the ability of criminal justice entities to provide victims’ rights services,
the Arizona legislature adopted a funding measure to offset these costs. Every offender
who has
been ordered to pay a fine must pay an
additional surcharge, a percentage of which is dedicated to funding victims’
rights services. As a result, more than
two-thirds of the costs my Office incurs as a result of providing victims’
rights services are offset by monies paid by convicted offenders.
Detractors
of the constitutional amendment put forward another argument in
opposition. They argued that
constitutional rights for victims will result in victims of crime becoming a
party in the criminal prosecution, opening the door for the victim to direct
the course of prosecution, in essence creating a three party system: the State,
the victim, and the accused. This has not been our experience. While victims have the right to be heard,
that right does not extend to control over the
proceedings. Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled:
[N]either
the VBR [Victims’ Bill of Rights] nor the VRIA [Victims’ Rights Implementation
Act] gives victims a right to control the proceedings, to plead defenses, or to
examine or cross-examine witnesses; the VBR and the VRIA give victims the right
to participate and be notified or certain criminal proceedings. This is not the same as making victims
“parties”. Moreover, the Victim here is
not “aggrieved” within the legal meaning of the term because the judgment of
the trial court does not operate to deny her some personal property or property
rights, nor does it impose a substantial burden upon her. [899 P.2d 939, 183
Ariz. 47, State v. Lamberton, (Ariz. 1995)]
S.J. Res.
6 provides victims with the right to be informed, to be heard, and to be
present. It does not provide for
victims to direct the course of prosecution.
More than
25 states have passed constitutional rights for victims, causing a patchwork of
rights across the country. Some states
have passed constitutional amendments that
spell out specific rights for victims, such as that enacted in
Arizona. Other states have adopted
broad statements that afford victims with the “right to be treated with dignity
and respect”. As a result, citizens
across the country do not enjoy equal protection when faced with participating
in the criminal justice system as the result of a crime. The proposed amendment to the U.S.
Constitution will provide uniform treatment and guarantees for victims across
our nation.
As the
supreme law of the land, our Constitution reflects the core values of our
nation. As such, it is critical to
adopt constitutional rights for victims.
As we have experienced in Arizona, our nation’s system of justice will
be profoundly changed — to provide for balance. Constitutional rights for victims will also impact the way we
think about crime and justice as a nation.
I strongly
support S.J. Res. 6 which proposes an amendment to the United States
Constitution to protect the rights of crime victims. Such rights will help restore faith in our justice system by
balancing the rights of those accused of crime with rights for law-abiding
victims
of
crime. As the public prosecutor for one
of the largest prosecuting offices in the country, I urge you to pass Senate
Joint Resolution 6.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Richard M. Romley
Maricopa
County Attorney