Jon Kyl: “I think the two distinguished law professors make a very important point. They point out the example of paralleling a…”

“I think the two distinguished law professors make a very important point. They point out the example of paralleling a defendant's constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial. Our amendment confers on victims the right to consideration of their interest in a trial, free from unreasonable delay. By definition, the professors note, these rights could not collide since they are both designed to bring matters to a close within a reasonable time. If any conflict were to emerge, courts retain ultimate responsibility for harmonizing the rights at stake. We have also gone one other step. That is, whereas the defendant had an absolute right to a speedy trial--and frequently, also, courts determine he has a right to delay things--we have provided for victims merely that the judge must 'consider' their desire to bring the trial to a speedy conclusion. In this case, we have created a right of victims which, indeed, is subservient to the right of the defendants. Theirs is absolute. The victims have a right to have their views considered. We have been very careful to ensure we don't trample on defendants' rights.”