Testimony of

Christine Long

Victims' Rights Committee Chair and

National Director

Law Enforcement Alliance of America

February 10, 2000

United States House of Representatives

Committee on the Constitution

On

Joint Resolution (HJ 64)

The Victims' Rights Amendment

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. I am honored and grateful for this opportunity.

My name is Christine Long. I am from Columbus, Ohio. I am the past Second Vice President and currently a Director of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA), the nation's largest coalition of law enforcement officers, crime victims and citizens. Additionally, I am LEAA's Victims' Rights Committee Chair and have been working with LEAA for nearly a decade to secure the rights of crime victims in this country.

In many ways the proposed constitutional amendment before you today is the fulfillment of the hopes and dreams of victims across this vast nation. For me, it is a validation of a twelve-year battle to secure rights of victims of crime. My crusade began in 1988 when I was the victim of a vicious crime committed by a serial rapist. And today I speak for LEAA's more than 65,000 members and supporters and from my own personal perspective as a victim of violent crime and a fervent activist for the rights of all victims.

In America today, where "justice for all" is a cornerstone upon which our great country was built, justice is not in any way, shape or form applied equally to all its citizens. The Constitution repeatedly outlines the rights of the accused but neglects to make one mention of crime victims.

It's important to understand why this is the case and why an amendment is necessary. The Constitution was written when the colonists were breaking away from the British rule. Wanting to ensure that the travesties of the past did not reoccur, progressive laws about search and seizure, court representation, due process and self-incrimination were created. At this time, victims were directly involved in the system. Our Forefathers could never have envisioned a time when victims of crime would be neglected. Then, the state assumed responsibility of prosecution and became the "injured party." Subsequently, victims became excluded from participation in the process.

Fortunately for victims, President Reagan commissioned the Task Force on Victims of Crime in 1982. For the first time, there was national recognition for victims of crime. The task force met with more than 1,000 victims and came back with 68 recommendations, including an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing the rights of crime victims. This laid the groundwork for the fight ahead and since then, over 30 states have adopted their own victims' constitutional amendments.

A federal constitutional change is necessary because if defendants' rights are guaranteed under the Constitution and victims' rights are only specified in statutes, the right of the accused will always prevail - victims will always be seen by our justice system as second class-citizens. The Constitution is our supreme law of the land and this is properly where our fundamental rights should guaranteed.

House Joint Resolution 64, the Victims' Rights Amendment, brings victims of crime one step closer to fair treatment. Today, our justice system renders crime victims powerless, voiceless and demoralized. And this includes the most overlooked segment of crime victims - law enforcement officers. Every day law enforcement officers put themselves in harm's way to protect the citizens of this country and tens of thousands are assaulted every year and dozens more are killed. Cops, who become victims, would also be afforded the basic rights outlined in this constitutional amendment.

Victims of crime should have the right of reasonable notice of public proceedings related to the crime he or she suffered. And, victims deserve notice of their assailant's escape or release from custody. No reasonable person should object to giving crime victims a voice at pardon and parole proceedings and no one should deny a crime victim the right to a speedy trial when that same right is granted to the accused. Make no mistake about it, defendants are the ONLY ones who benefit when trials are dragged out.

In 1988, I was raped by a brutal attacker named Robert Blankenship, who preyed upon women. Even after being convicted of rape and serving time, he raped again. I have no reason to believe that he will reform his life of sexual violence when he is again released back into society.

This attacker invaded my most personal and sacred space when he broke into my home and brutally raped me, destroying every shred of my dignity and my notions of personal security. My subsequent experience with the criminal justice system left me feeling violated again by placing greater value on the rights of the accused versus my rights. I was treated not as a victim but instead as a mere witness, as if I had only seen from afar the inhumane brutality inflicted against me.

The system saw me as a piece of evidence, like a fingerprint or a photograph, not as a feeling, thinking human being. As Reagan's 1982 Task Force reported, "The criminal justice system is absolutely dependent upon the cooperation of crime victims to report and to testify. Without their help, the system cannot hold criminals accountable and stem the tide of future crime."

In the 18 years that we have been discussing this issue, 1.8 million violent crimes have occurred each year -- in other words, a total of 32.4 million lives have been ravaged at the hands of violent offenders. How can we allow this injustice to continue? We must put a stop to this now!

My ordeal impressed upon me the total lack of crime victims' rights. I had no right to be apprised of the plea bargain negotiated with my assailant. And I had no right to voice my objections at subsequent parole hearings.

On behalf of LEAA and myself, I've traveled throughout the nation on behalf of crime victims, trying to bring attention to the fact that as a society and as a nation, we must address the issue of victims' rights. We must afford equal treatment and equal rights for victims under the Constitution of the United States. I fully understand the need for a defendant's right to due process. A victims' rights amendment is not intended to infringe on a defendant's rights in any way. We, the victims, are only asking to be treated equally, to be allowed involvement in the process and to be allowed the same consideration under the law.

I have done countless radio, television and print news interviews, speaking on behalf of other victims of crime and I have spoken with countless other victims across the nation; I have even testified before Congress in the past, voicing my support for a victims' rights amendment. In fact, I testified before the Committee on the Judiciary in 1996 in favor of a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to establish and protect the rights of crime victims.

Today, I am here again, speaking for all victims, fighting the same fight. I'll say again today what I said in 1996: victims of crime - from robbery to the most brutal and dehumanizing crimes - have no federal guarantee that we will ever receive justice, let alone fair and equal treatment under the law. This is a sad truth that must be changed.

For twelve years I've made it my life's goal to fight for fair treatment of crime victims. We, the victims, are asking to be treated with the same respect, with the same dignity due any human being, any American citizen. I believe that House Resolution 64, the Crime Victims' Rights Constitutional Amendment, does that. And I thank you for it.