Dianne Feinstein: “I grant that the 1997 clarification act, which, as I understand it, meant to say that a victim could both be present in…”

“I grant that the 1997 clarification act, which, as I understand it, meant to say that a victim could both be present in court and make a statement, was simply not answered; it was ignored. The 1990 victims' rights amendment was a more considered bill, developed over a period of time, and was the one with which the Tenth Circuit essentially said that victims lack standing under article III because they had no legally protected interest to be present at the trial and had suffered, therefore, no injury. I don't know how one remedies by statute to withstand the test of time, the bureaucratic inertia, the equivocation that goes on. From 1850, we have a century and a half in this country where victims have had no rights in the process. The process has locked itself. The Senator is right, some district attorneys don't want to be responsible to send a victim or say, Give me your address and phone number if you want to come to court; I will notify you. Then it is up to the victim to provide that and be there at the appropriate time. Many don't want to do that. What makes me very suspect is, that reaction is disproportionate to what we are trying to achieve, which is basically status rights. It is not like the right to counsel, not like a right of a jury of your peers, it is not like protection against double jeopardy or unreasonable search and seizure.”