Every year, more than half a million Americans are victims of crimes that are punishable under federal law. Those accused of perpetrating these crimes are accorded numerous rights under the law and the Constitution. Until recently, however, crime victims themselves were often relegated to second-class status during judicial proceedings. They had no rights to be informed, present, or heard while a court was considering the case against the accused.
To help balance the scales of justice, I sponsored legislation with California’s Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, to give victims a meaningful opportunity to participate in the administration of criminal justice. The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which became law in 2004, guarantees crime victims the rights to be informed, present, and heard in judicial proceedings relevant to their case – the least the system owes to those it failed to protect.
Consider the case of Nila Lynn of Phoenix. Nila was murdered at a homeowner’s association meeting on April 19, 2000 by a man unhappy with the way the association had trimmed the bushes in his yard. She died on the floor in the arms of her husband, Duane, three months short of their 50th wedding anniversary. Duane Lynn wanted his wife’s killer to be sentenced to life without parole, rather than have to wait through the endless appeals of a capital case. But he was not even allowed to make this recommendation to the judge. The killer received the death sentence.
The CVRA was named after several crime victims, including Nila Lynn. The law grants the victims of federal crimes the following rights:
(1) The right to be reasonably protected from
the accused.
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of
any public proceeding involving the accused, and to notice of
his or her escape or release.
(3) The right to be included in any such public proceeding.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding
involving the release, plea, or sentencing of the accused.
(5) The right to confer with the attorney for the government
in the case.
(6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided by
law.
(7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
(8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for
his or her dignity and privacy.
The new law requires federal law-enforcement officials to make their “best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded” these rights. It also grants victims standing in court to enforce these rights, including the right to seek enforcement relief in federal appeals courts, and provides legal-assistance grants to establish programs for the enforcement of crime victims’ rights.
To ensure that crime victims have access to the rights and protections made available to them by the CVRA, I wrote to the Judicial Conference of the United States, asking that the criminal rules of procedure be amended to acknowledge and protect these new rights. The Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure subsequently amended the criminal rules to ensure that crime victims have access to the substantive rights and protections accorded by the CVRA.
I also helped win funding to provide crime victims with legal assistance to enforce the rights granted them by the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.
As a result of the new law, victims will no longer be excluded from participating in federal cases against their attackers. Now, they too can aid in the pursuit of justice, as they should be allowed to do.
In 2006, Congress approved legislation that I wrote that expands the use of DNA to solve crimes and prevent criminals from committing new ones. The legislation authorizes the federal government to collect DNA samples from persons arrested for federal crimes and from illegal immigrants who are in detention-and-removal proceedings. It authorizes the states to add analyses of DNA taken from arrestees to the national DNA database, where these analyses can be compared to crime scene evidence from around the country. It also authorizes states to use federal DNA grants to analyze arrestee samples; fifteen states, including Arizona, now collect samples from arrestees.
As a result of these changes, when someone is arrested for a samplable offense in Arizona, state law enforcement can now check the national database to learn if that individual is linked to evidence left at a crime scene anywhere else in the United States. This will help to identify dangerous predators before they commit more crimes.
A recent study conducted by the City of Chicago documented 22 murders and 30 rapes that could have been prevented in that city just by sampling 8 individuals who had previously been arrested for committing crimes there.
Such testing could also have helped identify Santana Aceves, the so-called “Chandler rapist,” in Arizona, and prevented him from continuing his reign of terror against young girls. Aceves was arrested in January 2007 and linked by DNA to the sexual assaults of half a dozen young girls in Chandler during the previous year and a half.
The Chandler rapist targeted preteen and early-teen daughters of single mothers, stalking them to learn the family’s schedule and then attacking the girls in their homes when their mothers were at work. Aceves was in the United States illegally and had been deported several times, most recently in 2003. If Aceves’s DNA had been collected at his deportation at that time, he would have been identified by the national database as the perpetrator of the first rape that he committed in 2005, and it is likely that the subsequent sexual assaults that he committed would have been prevented.
In January 2009, the federal government published final regulations that implement this new sample-collection authority.
In 2006, I won enactment of an amendment that authorizes the Justice Department to certify states as eligible for a special appeals system that will speed up federal court reviews of state-imposed death sentences. In Arizona and other Ninth Circuit states, it is not unheard of for death-row convicts to spend 10 or 20 years appealing their convictions in the federal courts (and federal appeals begin only after state appeals are completed). In the vast majority of these cases, the prisoner does not even present a reasonable argument that he did not commit the crime. These endless delays cause the death penalty to lose its deterrent effect on other criminals, and they are unnecessarily painful for the surviving members of the victim’s family, who must watch cases grind forward in the courts and in press coverage literally for decades.
The new system that my amendment authorizes imposes a series of time deadlines on federal court review of state death sentences if a state agrees to provide post-conviction counsel to its capital prisoners. Arizona enacted a counsel system in 1996, and has been providing post-conviction counsel to capital defendants ever since. The theory behind this system is that if states like Arizona that provide counsel to prisoners then get the benefit of the new time deadlines, other states that do not provide post-conviction counsel to capital prisoners will be encouraged to do so.
The Justice Department issued regulations to implement this system in January 2009. Unfortunately, however, the new regulations were stayed by a district court in the Northern District of California. The case is still pending a resolution by the court.
As Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism
and Homeland Security, I have sponsored bills designed to
crack down on criminals who evade the law by using new technology.
Identity Theft
New technology has made it easier for criminals to steal the identity of others on a grand scale. Personal information is regularly stored electronically by businesses and government agencies, making data breaches a particular threat. According to the Congressional Research Service, “[d]ata security breaches occur when fraudulent accounts are created, laptops or computers are stolen or hacked, passwords are compromised, insiders or employees steal data, or discs or back-up tapes are misplaced.”
To address the problem, I cosponsored the Personal Data Protection Act to establish standards for data breach notification and require data brokers to maintain a personal data privacy and security program. The bill is expected to be reintroduced this year.
To learn about additional efforts I’ve undertaken to combat identity theft, helpful hints on how to avoid becoming a victim, and what steps you should take if your personal information has been compromised, I invite you to visit the identity theft section of my website.
Internet Gambling
Internet gambling has been illegal for some time, but law-enforcement agencies lacked effective mechanisms to enforce the ban. No one is entitled to circumvent the law simply because it is hard to enforce. With that in mind, I sponsored legislation to better enforce existing laws prohibiting Internet gambling. That measure became law in 2006.
Internet gambling is unique: online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children can play without effective verification of their age; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player’s perception of the value of the money that the player is losing – leading to possible addiction and, in turn, to bankruptcy, crime, and suicide. Professor John Kindt of the University of Illinois put it best when he called Internet gambling the “crack cocaine [of gambling]…There are no needle marks. There’s no alcohol on the breath. You click the mouse and lose your house.” (“Online Wagering Under Attack in Congress,” Associated Press, July 10, 2006.)
The Federal Trade Commission has warned that computer-savvy young people are at particular risk, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, concerned about the risk to college students, urged enactment of a legislative remedy. The impact of Internet gambling on young people is well documented. For example, the one-time president of the sophomore class at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania robbed a bank to pay off his Internet gambling debt, and a young man in Scotland attempted suicide after using 13 of his parents’ credit cards and running up Internet gambling debts in excess of $300,000. (“The Hold-‘Em Holdup,” N.Y. Times, June 11, 2006; “Internet Addict Gambled away £158,000 on his Parents’ Cards,” The Times (London), June 16, 2006.)
Internet gambling is more than a social problem. It “carries a potential for fraud and money laundering and the involvement of organized crime in online gambling,” according to officials at the Department of Justice. The FBI’s Assistant Director pointed out that “Internet gambling is a multibillion-dollar industry. A significant portion of that is the illegal handling of Americans’ bets with offshore gaming companies, which amounts to a colossal criminal enterprise masquerading as a legitimate business. . . . The FBI is adamant about shutting off the flow of illegal cash.”
To thwart those who seek to evade the existing ban on Internet gambling, I sponsored the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. This legislation was supported by the National Football League, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, pro-family groups, anti-gambling groups, and 49 state attorneys general. It directed the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, in consultation with the Attorney General, to write regulations to halt financial transactions for Internet gambling businesses and shut off the cash flow. The regulations have been issued and will take effect in December 2009. Off-shore gambling operations and others would like to overturn the regulations, and they’re spending millions to do so; they know shutting down illegal payments could put them out of commission.
Illicit Drug Use
Those who argue that people will use drugs regardless of what the law says, suggest that we should give up and legalize drugs. But a variety of terminal illnesses continue to afflict millions of Americans, and we have not abandoned efforts to find cures for those ailments. As a result, advances have been made that provide many with a prolonged and improved quality of life. Even though we may not be able to eliminate the problem entirely, saving some of these lives is worth the effort. The same should hold true with respect to the fight against illegal drugs.
Some also argue that legalizing illicit drugs would eliminate most drug-related crimes. However, under any form of legalization, the black market for drugs would in all likelihood continue. Legalization advocates acknowledge that the government, in order to discourage abuse, would have to place limitations on the availability, potency, and price of these drugs. These limitations, coupled with the increased demand that would accompany legalization, would only further encourage illegal channels of supply. For instance, in light of the large amount of illegal drugs that are sold to youths today, we know that the black market would be just as strong for children “under age” in a legalized regime, and there is little reason to believe that under a legalized regime the violence currently associated with drug trafficking organizations would decrease.
Drug-Related Violence
According to the National Drug Intelligence Center’s National Drug Threat Assessment for 2008, there has been a significant escalation in the level of drug-related violence along the southern border, attributable largely to Mexican drug trafficking organizations. The Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Drug Market Analysis made a similar finding, stating that “drug smugglers have noticeably increased their level of violent assaults against USBP [U.S. Border Patrol] and other federal law enforcement officers and agents who protect the border.” These assaults include “ramming USBP vehicles, attempting to run over agents, and firing upon agents, often with automatic weapons.” As a result of competition among these organizations, there has also been an increased frequency of assaults, kidnappings, and hostage situations.
In response to these unsettling trends, I have supported a multifaceted, well-funded approach to tackling the drug problem, including effective anti-drug education programs; increased penalties for drug offenders; and funding for programs to reduce border violence. For instance, in 2008, I sent a letter to the then-Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), requesting that ONDCP commit the resources necessary to launch an anti-meth advertising campaign through the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign in Arizona. That effort proved successful and, in 2008, ONDCP agreed to allocate funds for advertising in Arizona through its anti-meth and tribal programs.
I am also an original cosponsor of the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, which would impose strong penalties for violent acts that are committed in connection with drug trafficking. This year, I have cosponsored the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act, which would authorize funding for programs to prevent the sale and transfer of firearms to Mexican drug trafficking organizations.
These efforts are an important first-step toward controlling substance abuse and drug-related violence in Arizona. The Drug Enforcement Agency, however, has stated that Arizona serves as a major distribution hub, staging area, and transshipment point for drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Therefore, I believe that one of the most important steps we could take toward remedying the illicit drug problem in Arizona is to gain control of our southern border.
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine remains a persistent problem in Arizona. Although statistics suggest that some progress is being made in reducing the domestic production of the drug, those reductions have been offset by increased transportation and distribution of meth produced in Mexico.
Increased bilateral law enforcement cooperation and the Mexican government’s adoption of policies to restrict imports and better regulate the sale of precursor chemicals are promising trends; but the ease with which Mexican drug trafficking organizations transport methamphetamine and other drugs across the border is just further evidence that Congress must do more to secure the southern border.
It must also act to reduce meth use and limit domestic production. In 2008, I helped secure funding for the San Carlos Apache Tribe’s police department to institute a badly needed law enforcement initiative to combat drug use, drug trafficking, gang violence, and violent crime resulting from meth use. I am also an original cosponsor of the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act, which would help reduce domestic meth production by more carefully regulating the sale of precursor chemicals.
Judicial Nominees
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I take great care in examining each nominee’s record to ensure that he or she demonstrates personal integrity, a commitment to the rule of law, and a judicial temperament.
With that in mind, I have supported such exceptional nominees as John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who were nominated by President Bush to serve as Chief Justice and Associate Justice, respectively, of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judicial Ethics
In 2008, I sponsored an amendment, which is now law, to bar federal judges from receiving greatly reduced-rate or free club memberships. To reign in unreasonable expenses by judges on domestic and overseas travel, I also cosponsored an amendment to require greater transparency by judges on financial disclosure forms; the amendment was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but the underlying bill was not acted upon before the end of the Congress.
I am committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens. When contemplating the regulation of firearms, I am always mindful of the individual’s right to own a gun, which is clearly stated in our Constitution. Efforts to restrict a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a gun do not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, nor do they deter criminals from committing crimes with guns.
