Enshrining victims' rights in the Constitution will damage the justice system, bend constitutional rights in an unhealthy way, and do little to help victims. It arrives at the public doorstep only because politicians are afraid to appear heartless toward victims. The proposed Victims' Rights Amendment raises many difficult questions, beginning with the basic and seemingly obvious questions of who is the victim? And is the person arrested really guilty?

"The presupposition is that someone is a victim before a judgment of guilt or innocence," says William B. Moffitt, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "They may be victims… They may not be victims… The process is designed to determine if there is a victim."

Battered women's organizations also raise concerns. Abused women are victims who sometimes -- after years of suffering -- strike back. What will happen in these "Burning Bed" scenarios? Does an abuser who terrorized a battered woman get a new constitutional status as a victim?  Would a battered woman be constitutionally obligated to provide restitution to him?  "We absolutely think victims need support," says Sue Ostoff, director of the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, "but this has real and devastating consequences."

Troubling situations arise in other cases as well. Rachel King of the ACLU conducted research on dozens of death penalty cases, interviewing victim families. Family members often changed their minds from the beginning of the process to the end. "People are not in a rational state, and why should they be?" says King.

In a rare expression of public opinion, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist also voiced his concerns about the proposed amendment.  A letter from 450 law professors concurs, warning Congress that an amendment is "unnecessary and dangerous."