Marsy's Law

roguenuke · Sep 7, 2018

So my state has this Amendment to be voted on that is being sold as "equal rights for crime victims".

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article142702004.html

Now, over the last few weeks I've just been getting more and more annoyed at the commercials for this both on the radio and Hulu because of that phrase. To me, these are not equal rights, but additional rights or privileges. Nowhere does an accused or convicted person have a right to know the movements of a victim or accuser. While yes, there is a right for an accused person to face their accuser, there is not a right to harass them and it is important that an accused person is able to know who is accusing them of doing something wrong. The victim should not have a right to refuse to answer any and all questions. Equal rights should mean just like the accused, the person can refuse to answer a question that would self-incriminate them, but not something material to the case. Accusers have no right to "full and timely restitution" from victims, unless they are falsely accused, which would be tried under a different set of laws or within a different court anyway.

I'm actually for many of those things that they advertised for being part of the law on the commercial. However, then I read up a little more and found that there are other things that are part of the law that I am not for. There are also far too many ways that this law could be used to harm law enforcement and/or the judicial process. I don't agree with this being an Amendment, between the extras that just go too far, imo, and the potential for abuse, not to mention the likelihood of being underfunded (which could lead to more lawsuits).

Crovax · Sep 7, 2018

roguenuke said:
So my state has this Amendment to be voted on that is being sold as "equal rights for crime victims".

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article142702004.html

Now, over the last few weeks I've just been getting more and more annoyed at the commercials for this both on the radio and Hulu because of that phrase. To me, these are not equal rights, but additional rights or privileges. Nowhere does an accused or convicted person have a right to know the movements of a victim or accuser. While yes, there is a right for an accused person to face their accuser, there is not a right to harass them and it is important that an accused person is able to know who is accusing them of doing something wrong. The victim should not have a right to refuse to answer any and all questions. Equal rights should mean just like the accused, the person can refuse to answer a question that would self-incriminate them, but not something material to the case. Accusers have no right to "full and timely restitution" from victims, unless they are falsely accused, which would be tried under a different set of laws or within a different court anyway.

I'm actually for many of those things that they advertised for being part of the law on the commercial. However, then I read up a little more and found that there are other things that are part of the law that I am not for. There are also far too many ways that this law could be used to harm law enforcement and/or the judicial process. I don't agree with this being an Amendment, between the extras that just go too far, imo, and the potential for abuse, not to mention the likelihood of being underfunded (which could lead to more lawsuits).

I know the article said that but where in the bill does it say that?

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2017/Bills/House/PDF/H551v0.pdf

I read the bill, its pretty short and simple and I didnt see it

roguenuke · Sep 7, 2018

Crovax said:
I know the article said that but where in the bill does it say that?

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2017/Bills/House/PDF/H551v0.pdf

I read the bill, its pretty short and simple and I didnt see it

It's not. Good call.

However, I don't approve of the vague language of that bill either. What exactly is "reasonable" protection? What does that entail? Who gets to decide? A court? Shouldn't illegal actions already be covered by other laws? I don't see why they should have more protections just for accusing someone.

What about "unreasonable delay and prompt concluding" of a case? Wouldn't they want as much evidence as possible against that person?

What about "fairness and respect for the victim's dignity and privacy"? This is where I am guessing the article writer inferred that victims could refuse to answer a lot of questions. Who gets to determine what is protected in that case? Is a person's past with the accused able to be brought up? How about past statements made by others against the victim that could show that the victim was trying to set up the accused? Or examinations that the victim doesn't want permitted because they consider it "too private"? There are thousands of such conflicts that could easily arise from having this enshrined as a matter of state constitutional rights rather than simply part of the law.

Beaudreaux · Sep 7, 2018

roguenuke said:
So my state has this Amendment to be voted on that is being sold as "equal rights for crime victims".

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/crime/article142702004.html

Now, over the last few weeks I've just been getting more and more annoyed at the commercials for this both on the radio and Hulu because of that phrase. To me, these are not equal rights, but additional rights or privileges. Nowhere does an accused or convicted person have a right to know the movements of a victim or accuser. While yes, there is a right for an accused person to face their accuser, there is not a right to harass them and it is important that an accused person is able to know who is accusing them of doing something wrong. The victim should not have a right to refuse to answer any and all questions. Equal rights should mean just like the accused, the person can refuse to answer a question that would self-incriminate them, but not something material to the case. Accusers have no right to "full and timely restitution" from victims, unless they are falsely accused, which would be tried under a different set of laws or within a different court anyway.

I'm actually for many of those things that they advertised for being part of the law on the commercial. However, then I read up a little more and found that there are other things that are part of the law that I am not for. There are also far too many ways that this law could be used to harm law enforcement and/or the judicial process. I don't agree with this being an Amendment, between the extras that just go too far, imo, and the potential for abuse, not to mention the likelihood of being underfunded (which could lead to more lawsuits).

Parts of that proposed amendment will probably stand the inevitable legal test. However, the parts that are obviously diametrically in contradiction of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights that have been incorporated to the states will not by any stretch of imagination stand-up to federal court scrutiny and will be struck down.

A lot of these things, unfortunately, have political red meat thrown into them to satisfy the base of whomever is drafting it. That applies pretty equally across party lines, as we've seen.

Although I agree completely that it's extremely frustrating and can most definitely be infuriating, just be confident in the fact that the 1st Amendment right to "... petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances" is irrevocable and ensures that this will be challenged, and the 6th Amendment rights "... to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel" are irrevocable, and the 14th Amendments right to "Equal Protection" are irrevocable and all those will be at the core of the legal review of this Amendment to the NC State Constitution - if the Amendment even passes.

Marsy's Law

roguenuke

Crovax

roguenuke

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend