Our Constitution should include a Bill of Rights for crime victims, along the lines of the Victims’ Rights Amendment which has been introduced in Congress. This amendment is rooted in the simple idea that victims of crime deserve a role in the criminal process. It matches constitutional protections for criminal defendants with rights for crime victims. They would be guaranteed the rights to notice of court hearings, to attend those hearings, and to speak when appropriate, for example, at proceedings for bail, plea bargains, and sentencing. Victims would also have the right to see their cases proceed without unreasonable delay, to be notified when an offender is released or escapes, to have judges consider their safety before granting bail, and to restitution from a convicted offender.

Because that constitutional rights for criminal defendants thing was working so well.

These rights restore victims to their original place in the criminal justice system. When the Constitution was drafted, victims could actively pursue criminal cases, even serving as their own private prosecutors. The diminishment of their role over time shortchanged their interest in the outcome of government-determined prosecutions.

Now if Cassell is suggesting that we put an end to “government-determined prosecutions” and let accusers (because they aren’t victims until after a crime has been proven) “actively pursue criminal cases, I’m jumping on his bandwagon.  But I don’t think that’s what Cassell has in mind.

Rather, this screed is his typical melodramatic appeal in the age of victimhood, play on emotion combined with straw arguments designed to make every self-anointed victim feel empowered to demand personal recourse.  If we are now in the age of victimhood, Cassell will usher in the age of vengeance, where every victim’s wildest dream of retribution will be indulged.

Of course, none of this is new. After leaving the bench (yes, this is that Paul Cassell, former federal district court judge) to become a lawprof in Utah and expert witness wherever the system is in jeopardy of a defendant’s rights being honored, this quest to add a third table to the well where the victim can stamp his feet and scream “off with his head” has become Cassell’s primary mission.  It has been discussed at great length here, and has been roundly rejected by all except those who either make a living off victims or wallow in their victimhood.  Unfortunately, the latter group is rather large.

The question that’s begged is why Slate loaned its bully pulpit to this nonsense?  Will  Orly Taitz be next?

Maybe so, as Cassell’s proposal falls into a hole called The Hive, where Slate will give space to (apparently) anyone with an ax to grind, under the guise of the internets’ “collective wisdom.”

The U.S. Constitution is no spring chicken. Our founding document turns 225 this year, and after more than two centuries of wear and tear, it’s begging for a few nips and tucks. Maybe even some full-on body work. Luckily, Daily Show writer Kevin Bleyer spent the last few years pledging his life, fortune, and sacred honor—not to mention his nights and weekends—to rewriting a new foundation for our floundering nation.

As patriots ourselves—and grateful beneficiaries of the First Amendment—we at Slate are joining the cause. And calling on you to do the same. After reading Kevin’s call to arms below, dip your quill and submit your brilliant, ludicrous, offbeat, dead-serious, self-serving, nation-building, game-changing, crowd-pleasing, or outrageous idea for how to improve on the text the framers bequeathed to us.

Well, it looks like they’ve got “ludicrous,” “self-serving” and “outrageous” pretty well covered.  The problem is that Slate’s need for content, a means of filling empty space with black squiggles, undermines the fundamental notion that the great right to publish be exercised with sufficient care as to not make people stupider for having read it.  Based on this criterion, publication of Cassell’s piece, without juxtaposition of an explanation of why it’s so utterly nuts, is an epic fail.

It’s not that I suggest censoring the stupid from the internet. Indeed, the sheer effort would kill anyone who even tried.  Rather, Paul Cassell (and Orly Taitz, for that matter) can post any damn thing they want on the internet. It’s a big place, and no matter how wrong they are, their right to publish should be secure.  But why would a web publication which pretends to enlighten and inform to a mass audience contribute to the spreading of such nonsense?

With great power comes great responsibility.  The power of the media, and Slate is certainly a mainstay of the new media, is in the exercise of discretion in the public trust.  By giving room to ideas such as this, it suggests that they are worthy of public consideration, that they aren’t just some bizarre outlier position that can’t withstand rational scrutiny.  It brings such ideas closer to the mainstream, to public acceptance, by the mere fact that Slate has chosen to give it space.

And everyone who reads it is a little bit stupider for having done so.

H/T Radley Balko