• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marsy's Law

Would You Vote For Marsy's Law?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • No

    Votes: 11 61.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18
I very much like the restitution requirement. And it has priority over all other fines and fees. It also means the victim doesn't have to sue the perp in civil court if the perp has the means to offer restitution. Meaning, if the perp writes a best seller about the crime, the profits go to the victims first. Mandatory restitution is an excellent idea.

All in all, an excellent law on all counts. Victims should have "victims" rights.
 
It seems odd to me because at first glance I'm unclear on what benefit that serves for the victims, so I'll wait on more information before jumping to conclusions.
I think that might be intended to prevent the defendant from using the law and/or their lawyer to badger the victim with requests for this or that.

I could see it backfiring though.
 
I very much like the restitution requirement. And it has priority over all other fines and fees. It also means the victim doesn't have to sue the perp in civil court if the perp has the means to offer restitution. Meaning, if the perp writes a best seller about the crime, the profits go to the victims first. Mandatory restitution is an excellent idea.

All in all, an excellent law on all counts. Victims should have "victims" rights.

Well written W. Therein, is the essence of the law(in Florida, anyway)
Regards,
CP
 
I hear all of those talking points for those who favor it but I want to hear the reasons to vote against it.
I don't know much about it, but I saw this in the Wikipedia article that you linked:

"The approach taken by Marsy's Law includes rights that could actually strengthen the state's hand against a defendant, undermining a bedrock principle of our legal system -- the presumption of innocence."

If it truly undermines the presumption of innocence, then it is very bad, and very unconstitutional.
 
This is up for a vote in my state. I'm not up on the law much other than the talking points issued by those who favor and push it. I don't hear much of anything from the other side. At first glance you would think that 100% of the people would be for it. But, I'm interested in both sides of the issue and don't believe those who push it have altruistic motives for it's passage. I hear all of those talking points for those who favor it but I want to hear the reasons to vote against it. In any event, this poll and replies will help me in determining if this is a good thing as advertised or a bad thing as not advertised. Anyone wanting to learn more about it can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsy's_Law
I am against all referendum votes in principle. I don't vote on any of them. We elect represents to ask the questions you're asking. These votes are a way for politicians to escape accountability.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
To secure for victims of criminal acts or public offenses justice and due process and to ensure crime victims a meaningful role throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, a victim, as defined by law which takes effect upon the enactment of this section and which may be expanded by the General Assembly, shall have the following rights, which shall be respected and protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded to the accused in the criminal and juvenile justice systems:
victims shall have the reasonable right, upon request, to timely notice of all proceedings and to be heard in any proceeding involving a release, plea, sentencing, or other matter involving the right of a victim other than grand jury proceedings;
the right to be present at the trial and all other proceedings, other than grand jury proceedings, on the same basis as the accused;
the right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;
the right to consult with the attorney for the Commonwealth or the attorney's designee;
the right to reasonable protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused throughout the criminal and juvenile justice process;
the right to timely notice, upon request, of release or escape of the accused;
the right to have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in setting bail, determining whether to release the defendant, and setting conditions of release after arrest and conviction;
the right to full restitution to be paid by the convicted or adjudicated party in a manner to be determined by the court, except that in the case of a juvenile offender the court shall determine the amount and manner of paying the restitution taking into consideration the best interests of the juvenile offender and the victim;
the right to fairness and due consideration of the crime victim's safety, dignity, and privacy;
and the right to be informed of these enumerated rights, and shall have standing to assert these rights. The victim, the victim's attorney or other lawful representative, or the attorney for the Commonwealth upon request of the victim may seek enforcement of the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to the victim by law in any trial or appellate court with jurisdiction over the case. The court shall act promptly on such a request and afford a remedy for the violation of any right. Nothing in this section shall afford the victim party status, or be construed as altering the presumption of innocence in the criminal justice system. The accused shall not have standing to assert the rights of a victim. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the prosecuting attorney. Nothing in this section or any law enacted under this section creates a cause of action for compensation, attorney's fees, or damages against the Commonwealth, a county, city, municipal corporation, or other political subdivision of the Commonwealth, an officer, employee, or agent of the Commonwealth, a county, city, municipal corporation, or any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or an officer or employee of the court. Nothing in this section or any law enacted under this section shall be construed as creating:

(1) A basis for vacating a conviction; or
(2) A ground for any relief requested by the defendant.[7]

There are a number of ways this interferes with the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights of the accused. I find it deeply problematic.
 
IF a person is actually guilty of a violent crime, he (or she!) should never, ever be forgiven.


Have you (or a loved one) ever been raped?

Have you ever been sucker-punched by a thug as you were walking down the street?


Have you ever lost a loved one who was shot dead by some thug?



If you have, you have a right to vengeance, the more the better.


Why do you think there is so much violent crime? Because those thugs know that there is NO real punishment for violent crime in this country.
 
Last edited:
At first, I was all for it, especially the bit where victims are notified when the accused/convicted is up for parole or bail, but I must admit that I skimmed the second half of the Wikipedia article, did not understand the ACLU's gripe against the law, and after reading through this thread, I now agree with those users who have a problem with this on the constitutional grounds of due process, particularly the bit that allows prosecution to deny the release of exculpatory evidence.

What a shame.

On a semi-related note, I fail to see why it makes sense to ever release convicted rapists or murderers. I'm against the death penalty because of the reality of false convictions, because state-sanctioned killing is unbecoming of a civilized society, and because of the vague constitutional restriction against 'cruel and unusual punishments'; but I do feel that people convicted of rape and murder should be removed from society indefinitely.
 
IF a person is actually guilty of a violent crime, he (or she!) should never, ever be forgiven.


Have you (or a loved one) ever been raped?

Have you ever been sucker-punched by a thug as you were walking down the street?


Have you ever lost a loved one who was shot dead by some thug?



If you have, you have a right to vengeance, the more the better.


Why do you think there is so much violent crime? Because those thugs know that there is NO real punishment for violent crime in this country.

This has nothing to do with the OP but can you point me to the "right to vengeance".
 
This is up for a vote in my state. I'm not up on the law much other than the talking points issued by those who favor and push it. I don't hear much of anything from the other side. At first glance you would think that 100% of the people would be for it. But, I'm interested in both sides of the issue and don't believe those who push it have altruistic motives for it's passage. I hear all of those talking points for those who favor it but I want to hear the reasons to vote against it. In any event, this poll and replies will help me in determining if this is a good thing as advertised or a bad thing as not advertised. Anyone wanting to learn more about it can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsy's_Law

I voted yes. I read the history of the law as to how and why it came about. From what I could discern 5 states have added Marsy's law to their state constitutions. 32 states have victims rights laws enshrined in their state constitutions and may not have a need to consider Marcy's Law. 15 states victims rights laws closely follow those in Marsy's law. This should be mostly a non partisan issue. The reasons why this law came about were altruistic. Opposing points are based on the increased burden victims right laws place on law enforcement and prosecutors offices. I would try to find out what victims rights already exist in my state to inform my decision as to vote for it or not. These laws are not unusual and insure that victims have rights beyond just making victim impact statements at sentencing.
 
It is a terrible idea....justice is about all of us not just the victims, and victims should not be super citizens with extra rights.

Terrible idea? Your state probably has victims right laws on the books that may resemble those found in Marsy's law. Some are as simple as informing victims families of parole hearings or letting victims families know when a perpetrator of crime is being let out of prison.
 
Terrible idea? Your state probably has victims right laws on the books that may resemble those found in Marsy's law. Some are as simple as informing victims families of parole hearings or letting victims families know when a perpetrator of crime is being let out of prison.

Those are the parts of the law that everyone seems to agree with. Read through the thread.
 
This has nothing to do with the OP but can you point me to the "right to vengeance".

If X kills a completely innocent Y, then Y's family of course has the "right" to do everything legal in order to make X's life a nightmare.


Period. End of discussion.
 
If X kills a completely innocent Y, then Y's family of course has the "right" to do everything legal in order to make X's life a nightmare.


Period. End of discussion.

Okay, thanks for the opinion.
 
Okay, thanks for the opinion.

It's like living 400 yrs ago. Or in Game of Thrones.

Or perhaps with "my people," the Klingons. :lol:
 
This is up for a vote in my state. I'm not up on the law much other than the talking points issued by those who favor and push it. I don't hear much of anything from the other side. At first glance you would think that 100% of the people would be for it. But, I'm interested in both sides of the issue and don't believe those who push it have altruistic motives for it's passage. I hear all of those talking points for those who favor it but I want to hear the reasons to vote against it. In any event, this poll and replies will help me in determining if this is a good thing as advertised or a bad thing as not advertised. Anyone wanting to learn more about it can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsy's_Law

Interesting topic. Thank you for posting this.

I would largely agree with Captain Adverse on this, who largely agrees with the ACLU. While certain aspects of this law make sense (victims can be heard at various stages in the trial), prosecution of a case is about violations of the law. It is the State that prosecutes the case because the defendant may have violated laws of the State. That said, the victim is a aggrieved party and thus the primary witness for the prosecution, so the prosecutors must respect the victims wishes in the process. But, if the victim has a particular grievance with the accused, there is a civil court that is the proper forum for such a grievance.
 
First thing I told my wife when I heard about this is that the law was stupid because here we are concentrating on the rights of the victims when instead we should be concentrating more on there being fewer victims. IE, we should be spending our time decreasing sentences for minor crimes while increasing sentences for people who are an obvious danger to society and pre-emptively locking up people who are an obvious danger to society before they commit a crime with victims. If someone has a history of domestic violence and terroristic threatening and this person is on record of saying that they are going to kill someone or multiple people, this person should be locked up until it can be determined that they are no longer a threat to society where there can be victims. If that length of time is forever then let it be forever. Why let someone commit two murders and give them a sentence of 20 years and then let this person out in 20 years (or less if they get off early for "good behavior" (hey, they murdered two people!)). It's also just plain ridiculous to arrest people 10, 20, 30 times and let them go right back out the revolving door. I mean, really, why arrest the people in the first place if you are going to let them commit 30 crimes (being only the ones we actually know about)? We seem to live in a society where we do everything we can to have as many victims as we can and then we want to press for victim's rights. How about not having any victims in the first place?
 
Last edited:
If the family or victim wants rough justice, then it is incumbent upon them to enact it immediately, otherwise the state has greater interests at hand including the keeping of the peace.

That is true, but after leaving the courthouse with proper judgement in hand, victims all too often find later that sentences were reduced and the criminals released for overcrowding. I can't see the reason why sentencing has a min/max(5-10, 10-20, etc.) make it final. If a person is sentenced to life in prison, how do they get out? The system is broken, and inequitable to the victim.
I understand new evidence and new facts being presented as cause for release, but not good behavior.
Regards,
CP
 
That is true, but after leaving the courthouse with proper judgement in hand, victims all too often find later that sentences were reduced and the criminals released for overcrowding. I can't see the reason why sentencing has a min/max(5-10, 10-20, etc.) make it final. If a person is sentenced to life in prison, how do they get out? The system is broken, and inequitable to the victim.
I understand new evidence and new facts being presented as cause for release, but not good behavior.
Regards,
CP

That's my main gripe with laws. Our system seems perfectly fine with having as many victims as possible and passing laws of victim's rights but we never seem to do a damn thing to pass laws creating less victims. Rather than passing stricter sentences for violent crimes and adhering to the original sentence, we let these people out and want to notify victims that they need to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, in essence making the victim a victim for the rest of their lives.
 
That's my main gripe with laws. Our system seems perfectly fine with having as many victims as possible and passing laws of victim's rights but we never seem to do a damn thing to pass laws creating less victims. Rather than passing stricter sentences for violent crimes and adhering to the original sentence, we let these people out and want to notify victims that they need to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders, in essence making the victim a victim for the rest of their lives.

Excellent point. I agree with you. I believe there are those who do foolish one-time things, that are out of character for them. There has to be some serious thought put into how we can recognize that aberration and return to society those we can. I do also believe there are those who can't be saved. The difference between the two types is the hard part to figure. But, it is a worthy study.
Regards,
CP
 
This is up for a vote in my state. I'm not up on the law much other than the talking points issued by those who favor and push it. I don't hear much of anything from the other side. At first glance you would think that 100% of the people would be for it. But, I'm interested in both sides of the issue and don't believe those who push it have altruistic motives for it's passage. I hear all of those talking points for those who favor it but I want to hear the reasons to vote against it. In any event, this poll and replies will help me in determining if this is a good thing as advertised or a bad thing as not advertised. Anyone wanting to learn more about it can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsy's_Law

Well, according to your wiki article there were several news media papers that were opposed to it. I'd suggest reading those articles. I would also find more information from the UCLA on why they're against it.

However reading through that wiki article if what it says is correct I would agree with the UCLA. Note: I haven't read the actual law itself and I am only basing my thoughts on what was in the wiki article. In a court of law the Defendants Rights should always supersede any Rights held by the victim based on our system revolving around "innocent until proven guilty". Once found guilty THEN the Rights of the Victim can supersede. Until then, Defendants first.
 
Well, according to your wiki article there were several news media papers that were opposed to it. I'd suggest reading those articles. I would also find more information from the UCLA on why they're against it.

However reading through that wiki article if what it says is correct I would agree with the UCLA. Note: I haven't read the actual law itself and I am only basing my re beyond the trilthoughts on what was in the wiki article. In a court of law the Defendants Rights should always supersede any Rights held by the victim based on our system revolving around "innocent until proven guilty". Once found guilty THEN the Rights of the Victim can supersede. Until then, Defendants first.

Reasonable. I do believe we are speaking of post-trial where the rights of the accused were fully extended. This would be protecting the peace of mind of the victim(as already decided in court).
Regards.
CP
 
This is up for a vote in my state. I'm not up on the law much other than the talking points issued by those who favor and push it. I don't hear much of anything from the other side. At first glance you would think that 100% of the people would be for it. But, I'm interested in both sides of the issue and don't believe those who push it have altruistic motives for it's passage. I hear all of those talking points for those who favor it but I want to hear the reasons to vote against it. In any event, this poll and replies will help me in determining if this is a good thing as advertised or a bad thing as not advertised. Anyone wanting to learn more about it can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsy's_Law

I would have to read it somewhere besides wikipedia to give my take on it.
 
Those are the parts of the law that everyone seems to agree with. Read through the thread.

I read through the thread before I posted. I think the due process and right to exculpatory evidence concerns of some are unfounded. More states just adopted Marsy's law in the mid terms.
 
Back
Top Bottom