Rather than form a minimum baseline of protections, the state provisions have produced a hodgepodge of rights that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution will receive greater recognition and respect, and will provide a national baseline. A number of legal commentators have reached similar conclusions. In the 1997 Harvard Law Bulletin, Professor Laurence Tribe has explained that the existing statutes and state amendments are likely, as experience to date sadly shows, to provide too little real protection whenever they come into conflict with bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, sheer inertia, or any mention of an accused s rights regardless of whether those rights are genuinely threatened. He has also stated, there appears to be a considerable body of evidence showing that, even where statutory or regulatory or judge-made rules exist to protect the participatory rights of victims, such rights often tend to be honored in the breach . . . .
Federal statutes are also inadequate.
Professor Cassell s detailed 1998 testimony about the Oklahoma City Bombing Case shows that, as he concluded, federal statutes are insufficient to protect the rights of crime victims. Judiciary Committee Action Mr. President, I was pleased that in July 1998 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the amendment, S.J. Res. 44, by a bipartisan vote of 11 to 6. The amendment has strong bipartisan support. Again, I would like to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein for her hard work on this amendment and for her tireless efforts on behalf of crime victims. Mr. President, for far too long, the criminal justice system has ignored crime victims who deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity, and respect.