The PA Victim Rights Law (AKA Marsy's Law) on the 2019 ballot deserves a "NO" vote for a number of reasons. First, it really adds no rights that victims don't already have. Second, it usurps the constitutional rights of the accused. Remember, VERY many people are falsely accused, particularly when the alleged crime involves a domestic dispute or is a crime of passion. Also remember YOU may become the victim to a false accusation. This bill takes away the right of the accused to deposition of the alleged victim. This is a guaranteed right in the U.S. Constitution! Please READ the law, and Vote NO Nov 5.
Please scroll down for the reasons it is bad (a Montana group wrote it best - same law, and applies to PA.)
Scroll further for the complete House bill No. 276 that is being voted on. PLEASE READ IT.
The complete bill is posted below the links section.
----------------------->>
----------------------->>
TOP REASONS WHY MARSY’S LAW IS WRONG FOR VICTIMS AND
FOR MONTANA
JUNE 20, 2017 -
8:45PM
When Montana voters
approved CI-116 in 2016, they had no idea that the initiative jeopardizes some
of our most cherished Constitutional protections. The following list provides
examples of why CI-116 is wrong for victims, and wrong for Montana.
1.
CI-116
is unconstitutional. Although
CI-116 was presented as a “yes" or “no” question to Montana voters, CI-116
amended multiple sections of the Montana Constitution. The
Montana Constitution requires a separate vote by Montana voters on each section
that is amended. Therefore, CI-116 is unconstitutional because only one vote
occurred for multiple amendments. Under the new CI-116 amendments,
victims’ rights will be compromised and defendants’ rights will be eroded. In
addition, Constitutional guarantees such as a fair trial, due process,
effective counsel, the right to know and the presumption of innocence will be
compromised.
2. CI-116’s redefinition of “victim” will
compromise the privacy of the victim who was injured, especially in domestic
abuse and sexual assault cases. The dramatic redefinition of “victim” gives new rights to
family, friends, corporations and other non-human entities. Family members
would be ‘victims’ with a group right to be fully informed and involved in
every decision. This removes the right of privacy for the traditional victim
if, for example, a rape victim is deciding whether to obtain an abortion, or
when family members pressure an abused spouse to drop charges and return home.
CI-116 robs victims of the decision whether and when to involve their families,
and instead gives that power to the state. The new definition leaves victims
less empowered and less safe.
3. CI-116 gives corporations such as Walmart constitutional
rights on par with Montana victims and defendants. CI-116 provides a new right to privacy and
requires notice to crime victims, who are defined as “persons” not
“individuals.” This change in language imbues corporations and other
“non-human entities” with privacy rights that before CI‑116 were limited to
“individuals” (humans), and removes the right-to-know balancing requirement
that creates informational transparency in court proceedings. This blocks
the ability of the defendant to understand the charges brought against them and
obstructs the press and the public’s ability to be informed.
4. CI-116 is redundant with current Montana law. Retired Montana Supreme Court Justice
Jim Nelson called Marsy’s Law “A solution in search of a problem.” He explained: “Montana’s
Legislature has already enacted a comprehensive body of laws that provide
virtually the same victim’s rights as does I-116.” The issue is not that victim
protections have not been legally prioritized. They are. Enforcement must
improve and those responsible for enforcement must be held accountable.
Creating a duplicative law in no way ensures that enforcement of these
statutory protections will improve.
5. CI-116 is fiscally irresponsible and
financially unpredictable. CI-116 is a classic unfunded mandate. It will impact every
community in the state and, seven months after it passed, we still do not know
how much it will cost to implement. The ballot initiative had no fiscal note
and as an unfunded initiative, it never had a funding mechanism in place to
finance its implementation. Now, local governments must respond to CI-116’s
undefined staffing, compliance and procedural requirements. To do this, state
and local taxes must be raised or services cut to fund Marsy’s Law. These cuts
could diminish existing services for victims.
6. CI-116 will clog Montana’s overburdened criminal
justice system. CI-116 requires that
all victims, including corporations and family members, have the right to
notice and to be present “at all proceedings involving the criminal conduct” of
the accused. This will create an administrative quagmire. Furthermore,
the initiative gives victims the right to be “present” and “be heard” before
bail or release is granted, even for misdemeanors. By requiring notice to
all victims for bail hearings, CI-116 effectively prohibits cite-and-release
signature bonds and “set amount” bail procedures. This means that a
Montanan who wrote a bad check at a Pizza Hut would remain in jail, without an
option to post bail, until anyone identified as a “victim”—even a corporate
representative from Pizza Hut—could exercise their right “to be heard.” |
7. CI-116 denies the press and the public the
right to know. The Great Falls
Tribune recently editorialized: “Montana has a whole new slew of
unintended consequences now dealing with the victims’ rights Marsy’s Law. This
time we can’t point a finger at elected officials. We passed this law, actually
a constitutional amendment, in November, with 66 percent of the voters saying
yes. Now Montana crime victims have new constitutional rights in our
state. That sounds reasonable, even desirable. Except for the unintended
consequences. In Cascade County, we’ve learned that Marsy’s Law may mean
that law enforcement will no longer release the identities of homicide victims.
In the past, as is the case with all deaths, the deceased’s family members are
notified and then that person’s name is released publicly.”
Because the law requires notice be provided to all alleged victims, the press and the public’s constitutional right to know is irrevocably compromised.
Because the law requires notice be provided to all alleged victims, the press and the public’s constitutional right to know is irrevocably compromised.
8. CI-116 throws out the presumption that a
defendant is “innocent until proven guilty.” Our Constitution guarantees an accused person the
presumption of innocence, holds the government to proof beyond a reasonable
doubt, and otherwise promises a fair and unbiased trial. If an alleged
victim (in particular for a specific intent crime like assault or fraud) is
presumed the victim of a crime before a jury returns a verdict, then the
accused is not presumed innocent. The presumption of innocence and right
to a fair trial are further diminished by allowing crime victims’ counsel to
participate at each and every legal proceeding, which has the potential to
further clog our judicial system. As a result, both Montana and
Federal Constitutional law may require that charges against the defendant be
dismissed or may require a second trial — the victims’ rights notwithstanding.
This could cause a case where the defendant is guilty to be overturned, harming
the victim. That, obviously, is the last thing a crime victim needs.
9. CI-116 did not originate in Montana and is not
a response to a localized, Montana issue. In 2016, “Marsy’s Law” was bankrolled
with $2.4 million from a California millionaire who is leading
a disingenuous campaign to insert a “victim’s bill of rights” into states’
constitutions across the country. Minimal discussion occurred around this
initiative, voters were misled about the content and eventual impacts, and
local victim advocate organizations were not meaningfully consulted during the
initiative process.
Links with information on Marsy's Law and the PA Victims Rights Bill:
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-victims-rights-ballot-question-lawsuit-20191010-4cbo3stl3jhdlkobizjybswn2a-story.html?outputType=amp
https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/10/23/why-you-should-vote-no-on-the-proposed-pa-constitutional-amendment-marsys-law-hb-276-in-november/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
https://www.aclumontana.org/en/news/top-reasons-why-marsys-law-is-wrong-for-victims-and-montana?fbclid=IwAR1tWHOj66G1mbZJTSMGHaFUvXC8M-UNGTzNr3gTZWrBN76vzz6F31faAHg
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/414675-marsys-law-the-rights-of-victims-shouldnt-trump-due-process
https://papost.org/2019/10/14/aclu-of-pa-files-lawsuit-to-remove-victims-rights-measure-from-november-ballot/
https://whyy.org/articles/aclu-files-last-minute-suit-arguing-pa-s-marsys-law-amendment-is-unconstitutional/
https://whyy.org/articles/is-marsys-law-constitutional-a-pa-judge-will-make-the-first-decision-soon/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-victims-rights-laws-are-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
https://reason.com/2019/01/02/are-we-about-to-see-a-wave-of-police-usi/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/henry-nicholas-broadcom-founder-tech-billionaire-drug-trafficking-counts-vegas-reported-ex-wife-wells-fargo-fortune-heir/
https://www.ocregister.com/2016/01/14/ex-girlfriend-of-broadcom-co-founder-henry-nicholas-sues-for-70-million/
https://www.conservativechalkboard.com/marsys-law-you-decide/
https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/marsys-law-pennsylvania-crime-victims-amendment-20190411.html?fbclid=IwAR0bNGr_NdsKOvklPR2hbCqNqAZToW2AjOc-TVQfyTBS5mppYuHKT0dW1VE
https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/the-peculiar-history-behind-marsys-law-the-victim-rights-referendum-on-the-pa-ballot/Content?oid=16048922&fbclid=IwAR2tjD2pD85jEMcxfRGu-B4cohCf-F7endAlJjReGij5eq9vxtqDkO66Uuw
https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/10/23/why-you-should-vote-no-on-the-proposed-pa-constitutional-amendment-marsys-law-hb-276-in-november/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0EFFCWGp594mBVIDC2B9frQZkYGffOj5np2Fd7wci19QqEranjHZjL-9g
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-victims-rights-ballot-question-lawsuit-20191010-4cbo3stl3jhdlkobizjybswn2a-story.html?outputType=amp
https://www.aclumontana.org/en/news/top-reasons-why-marsys-law-is-wrong-for-victims-and-montana?fbclid=IwAR32CPI1RwZbCatcSXt18lufgDCgZ5RpM4QSesJIYHO-Rahg9O1JVjo_1Zs
https://medium.com/@ACLUPA/why-pennsylvanians-should-vote-no-on-marsys-law-c7b438e2e78a
https://www.pittsburghcurrent.com/pa-marsys-law-too-ambiguous-to-help-all-victims/
https://reason.com/2019/03/18/marsys-law-is-a-gift-to-bad-cops/
https://nypost.com/2008/06/15/rockin-the-coked-out-orgy-cave/
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/11/nicholas200811
------------------------------->>
PRIOR PASSAGE –
J.R. 2018-1
PRINTER'S NO. 284
PRINTER'S NO. 284
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL
No.
|
INTRODUCED BY DELOZIER, BENNINGHOFF, BARRAR, BERNSTINE,
BIZZARRO, BOBACK, CALTAGIRONE, COMITTA, COOK, CUTLER, T. DAVIS,
DiGIROLAMO, ECKER, EVERETT, FARRY, FLYNN, FRITZ, GLEIM, GREGORY, HERSHEY,
HICKERNELL, HILL-EVANS, KAUFFMAN, KEEFER, KLUNK, KORTZ, MALONEY, MATZIE,
McNEILL, MIZGORSKI, MURT, NELSON, OBERLANDER, ORTITAY, PASHINSKI, PICKETT,
RAVENSTAHL, READSHAW, RYAN, SAYLOR, SCHLOSSBERG, STRUZZI, TOEPEL, TOOHIL,
TOPPER, ZIMMERMAN, KINSEY AND ROZZI, FEBRUARY 1, 2019
A JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for rights of
victims of crime.
Section 1. The following
amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is proposed in
accordance with Article XI:
(a)
To secure for victims justice and due process throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim shall have the following rights, as further provided
and as defined by the General
Assembly, which shall be
protected in a manner no less vigorous than the rights
afforded to the accused: to be treated with fairness and
respect for the victim's safety, dignity and privacy; to have
the safety of the victim and the victim's family considered in
fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the
accused; to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present
at all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent
conduct; to be notified of any pretrial disposition of the case; with the exception of grand jury proceedings, to be heard in any proceeding where a right of the victim is implicated, including, but not limited to, release, plea, sentencing, disposition, parole and pardon; to be notified of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide information to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be notified of the parole of the offender; to reasonable protection from
the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused; to
reasonable notice of any release or escape of the accused; to
refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request
made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the
accused; full and timely restitution from the person or entity
convicted for the unlawful conduct; full and timely restitution as determined by the court
in a juvenile delinquency proceeding; to the prompt return of
property when no longer needed as evidence; to proceedings free from unreasonable delay and a prompt and final
conclusion of the case and any related post-conviction proceedings; to confer with the attorney for
the government; and to be informed of all rights enumerated in
this section.
(b)
The victim or the attorney for the government upon request of the victim may assert in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority, with jurisdiction over the case, and have enforced, the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law. This section does not grant the victim party status or
create any cause of action for compensation or damages against
the Commonwealth or any political subdivision, nor any
officer, employee or agent of the Commonwealth or any
political subdivision, or any officer or employee of the
court.
(c)
As used in this section and as further defined
by the General
Assembly, the term
"victim" includes any person against whom the
criminal offense or delinquent act is committed or who is
directly harmed by the commission of the offense or act. The term
"victim" does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor or incapacitated victim.
(a) Upon the first passage by the
General Assembly of this proposed constitutional amendment,
the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall proceed immediately to
comply with the advertising requirements of section 1 of Article
XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and shall transmit the required advertisements to two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers are published in sufficient time after passage of this proposed constitutional amendment.
(b)
Upon the second passage by the General Assembly of this proposed constitutional amendment, the Secretary of the Commonwealth shall proceed immediately to comply with the advertising requirements of section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and shall transmit the required advertisements to two newspapers in every county in which such newspapers are published in sufficient time after passage of this proposed constitutional amendment. The Secretary of the Commonwealth shall submit this proposed constitutional amendment to the qualified electors of this Commonwealth at the first primary, general or municipal election which meets the requirements of and is in conformance with section 1 of Article XI of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and which occurs at least three months after the proposed constitutional amendment is passed by the General Assembly.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.