Thirty-two states have already made provisions for victims' rights, either through state legislation or amendments to their state constitutions. But such measures have been wholly inadequate, making a national amendment necessary.  According to a study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, more than 63 percent of victims in states with "strong" victims rights laws and more than 74 percent in "weak" states are not informed of their offenders' bail release. In strong states, only half the victims whose cases ended in a plea agreement are informed of negotiations, although prosecutors are legally bound to consult with victims in advance. Also, one-fourth of the victims in these so-called "strong" states don't get an opportunity to present a victim impact statement at sentencing, yet another statutory guaranteed victim right.

"When you are trying to change the process on a day-to-day level down on Main Street," says Prof. Paul Cassells of the University of Utah, "you need a very potent weapon and the Victims' Rights Amendment is it."

Claims by opponents that a Victims' Rights Amendment could actually damage some prosecutions are just "rank speculation," says Steven J. Twist, a Phoenix attorney who is on the executive board of National Victims' Constitutional Amendment Network. "The nightmare of horribles has never happened.  My point is, sooner or later, it is inevitable.  It's not complicated and it works."

"The proposed crime victims' rights constitutional amendment attempts to balance the scales of justice," said Karolyn Nunnallee, MADD National President. "Currently the only right criminal defendants and victims have is the right to remain silent. Giving defendants constitutional rights while at the same time giving victims statutory rights only serves to re-victimize us. We are asking to be treated no less fairly than an offender."