Wrong on rights

Washington Post: The Senate is due to take up a constitutional amendment designed to grant rights in criminal court proceedings to victims of violent crimes. The last time the proposal arose, its sponsors, Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had to yank it back to avoid defeat. But support for the idea has grown. Nobody likes to oppose crime victims, and on its face the amendment's promises seem unobjectionable: "reasonable and timely notice" of proceedings; the right of victims to attend those proceedings and to speak at sentencing, clemency and parole hearings; and the right to seek restitution from perpetrators. What harm can there be in placing victims' rights even with the rights of the accused?
Victims' rights
Quite a lot, actually. For starters, none of the amendments' terms are defined -- including, critically, who counts as a "victim." Is it limited to immediate relatives or can extended family members qualify? Nor does the amendment specify a remedy for violations of victims' rights. In fact, it specifically says that it does not "authorize any claim for damages." So it is unclear how exactly a victim is supposed to take advantage of his rights. The result will be litigation -- a lot of it -- as victims seek to exercise their new constitutional rights and defendants seek to ensure that victims' rights don't come at the expense of their own.
The fundamental trouble is that victims' rights, if taken seriously, will come at the expense of the rights of the accused. Sometimes a defendant's right to a fair trial cannot be reconciled with a victim's right to speak to the jury. Right now, the victims' rights yield in such cases, as they should. The state, after all, is not seeking to deprive the victim of liberty or, in the extreme case, life.