Thursday, November 17, 2005

ACLU Only Wants the Criminals to Have Rights...

It has always struck me as bizarre that the Constitution (is interpretted) to provide for everyone but the VICTIM. The person who lost something against their will and by no fault of their own is the person that doesn't get a bit of consideration...

When I was 19, my GMC Jimmy was stolen and destroyed. The ADA (assistant District Attorney) made a "deal" without ever informing me. The kid got "time served" which was one night and was ordered to pay damages to all "victims". He was in five hit-and-runs with my truck. None of us have ever received a dime. When I called the ADA to ask how he could have done that -how could he make a deal when I had no vehicle, no money to get a new one and no way to get to my job. His response, "Oh, I didn't realize it was that bad." Maybe that's because he never asked, and isn't obligated to....and the crime committed against me was very small in the scheme of things.

Finally someone has realized that "And Justice for All" means all, and not just the criminals. National Victims' Constitutional Amendment Passage is looking to secure and amendment that would provide some rights for the ones wronged.

"The proposed federal victims' rights constitutional amendment would provide victims of violent crime with constitutionally guaranteed rights including the rights: to be notified of proceedings in the criminal case; to attend public proceedings in the case; to make a statement at release proceedings, sentencing, and proceedings regarding a plea bargain; and to have the court order the convicted offender to pay restitution for the harm caused by the crime." (source)

I hope what you're thinking right now is -Who would be against this?! The National Association of District Attorneys are for it (and it would mean more work for them) the Fraternal Order of Police are for it...but low-and-behold, the ACLU is against it. You will find this on their website:
"The amendment is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it would undercut basic due process protections that are designed to keep innocent defendants out of jail. Victims of crime would likely be able to deliver inflammatory remarks during different stages of a trial, which could serve to unfairly prejudice juries against an innocent defendant."

I know people feel like the constant criticism of the ACLU is not only partisan, but redundant. For me, it's more a matter of being constantly amazed at whom they champion and who they whack in the knees...

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at or Gribbit at You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.

Also, Go Read Jay's Post on the ACLU vs. National Security.

No comments: