Editorial: Right topic, but wrong solution

Monday, April 22, 2002 | 8:49 a.m.

President Clinton endorsed the push by Sens. John Kyl, R-Ariz., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to add a crime victims' rights amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After hearty debate in the U.S. Senate, the proposed amendment died in 1999 because most members, and even Clinton himself, felt the final wording was too cumbersome and imprecise. But today, just in time for National Crime Victims Week, the proposed amendment is alive once again, this time with an even stronger presidential endorsement. At a Department of Justice ceremony last week, before many members of Congress and the nation's most well-known victims' rights advocate, John Walsh, originator of TV's "America's Most Wanted," Bush said, "The protection of victims' rights is one of those rare instances when amending the Constitution is the right thing to do."

We agree with everything Bush said about crime victims and the rights they should have -- except the part about amending the Constitution. Crime victims do suffer from their ordeals and should have rights guaranteed by a constitution and fortified by law. In Nevada, for example, the state Constitution guarantees the rights of crime victims as they pertain to legal proceedings and our laws expand on those rights. Under Gov. Bob Miller, a nationally known champion of victims' rights, the laws were strengthened and could serve as a model for any state. There is even a state Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Board.

Our view is that the U.S. Constitution establishes the broad framework by which freedom and rights are guaranteed. It occupies a rarefied position in our nation's past, present and future -- a position that transcends issues of the day that are best left to lawmaking bodies. The treasured obligation of safeguarding the Constitution's meaning passes from Congress to Congress, from generation to generation. Amendments that would micro-manage the country's day-to-day affairs, once they begin to be tacked on, would add the dimension of politics to the one document in our country that now stands free of that flawed activity.

The U.S. Constitution, the pro-amendment argument goes, contains protections for those charged with crimes but none for victims. But those charged with crimes have the full power of the government going against them as the crimes are prosecuted. Victims already have the government on their side. And if the government isn't siding with them enough, it's federal and state laws that should be strengthened.