VOTE “NO” on HJRCA 29
Well-Intentioned but Flawed

HJRCA 29 is a constitutional amendment that creates standing for victims to participate in criminal proceedings as a party before the defendant’s guilt is established.

The Illinois State’s Attorneys’ Association and the Illinois State Bar Association oppose HJRCA 29. In its current form this proposal is unwise, unworkable, and unnecessary. We are concerned about its unintended consequences, such as court delays, longer incarceration awaiting trials, and wrongful convictions. HJRCA 29’s practical effect is that it will delay justice for victims by pitting prosecutors against victims instead of allowing them to be advocates for victims. That result isn’t helpful for victims or the public.

It is unwise. A criminal proceeding is a truth-seeking process that promotes public safety by adjudicating guilt and punishing the guilty. The awesome power to prosecute and imprison is vested with the government—not private parties. This means that victims and defendants are not contestants who require equal standing; the victim’s liberty and property are not at risk. But authorizing a victim to participate as a party with all of the standing of a prosecutor and defendant but none of their responsibilities, roles, and risks is a recipe for disaster. It is a return to the days of private, not public, justice.

It is unworkable. Illinois circuit courts annually process a staggering number of cases:

• 90,000 felonies
• 300,000 misdemeanors
• 52,000 DUIs
• 53,000 orders of protection
• 31,000 juvenile cases
• 2.4 million traffic cases

Giving victims standing as a third party to participate as a party in all pre-trial hearings simply isn’t workable. The Chicago Sun-Times had it right; “fiddling with a system that big is risky.”

It is unnecessary. Current law includes 16 pages of rights granted to victims to implement Section 8.1 of the Illinois Constitution. The General Assembly and the judicial system are capable of adjusting the law to address the rare problems that may occur. Like the physician’s Hippocratic Oath, the philosophy behind a constitutional amendment should always be: “First, do no harm.” There won’t be any opportunity for a do-over to address the harm caused by this amendment’s unintended consequences.  

No one is anti-victim. But this flawed constitutional amendment should be rejected and reworked. The Sun-Times again had it right; it’s unwise to rush to judgment.