I noted in a rather inaccurate Washington Post editorial of yesterday that somehow victims would have a right to speak to the jury. That is what the Washington Post thought. They were very wrong, as they were in other comments in the editorial. There is nothing in here about anything like that. It is only during the time of a release, like the parole hearing I talked about earlier, or sentencing or pleading there would be an opportunity to speak. They would have a right to full and timely restitution in appropriate cases, and the right to be treated fairly, with respect for their dignity and privacy. Most importantly, they would be granted the right to enforce these rights. They would have legal standing to enforce their rights in court with the appropriate writ procedure to be able to take the court's decision to the higher court. That is one of the problems with existing Federal law which the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals noted did not grant the victims the standing to sue. So that had to be corrected here. Finally, we authorized an appropriation of funds to assure the proper oversight of these rights is exercised, that moneys would be made available to enhance the victim notification system, managed by the Department of Justice's Office for Victims of Crime, and the resources additionally to develop state-of-the-art systems for notifying crime victims of important states of development.
Jon Kyl: “I noted in a rather inaccurate Washington Post editorial of yesterday that somehow victims would have a right to speak…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing victims' rights and legal standing in relation to a Washington Post editorial.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
I just want to thank my colleague, the majority leader, for his comments about me. He asked if there were differences between the time that I served before and this most recent time, and I must say that the thing that I have noticed most…
I certainly appreciate this comment by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because the Secretaries of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have all said our strategic deterrent has to be our No. 1 priority. Why is…
I would like to make just a couple of comments on my friend's having left the Senate and with respect to the remarks that he just made. The Senate has had some very good people over the years, and currently, but none have been more…
we would not be recommending that the United States start a new arms race, that is not something this commission would do





