Marsy's Law. Vote No.

[libertysteeth]

Folks please look deeper into this "victims right" law. We already have a pretty expansive victims right law set in Georgia. This law looks to be unconstitutional in the sense that it limits the defense from interviewing or obtaining information about "victims". I put victim in quotations because this law presumes any accuser to be an automatic victim and the accused to be guilty. Montana voted it in then it got overturned in the courts. The fishy smell that automatically tipped me off to look deeper was 1- more laws(like we need it) 2- It originates in Commiefornia.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

I just glanced over the Wikipedia page on Marsy's law.
Some of it seems OK to me. Some provisions are flatly unfair and easily abused to deny fundamental rights to an accused person.

The idea of a private lawyer serving as the prosecutor in a criminal case is unheard of in modern times, as all prosecutors are public employees without any private clients. But, that's the problem that Marsy's law is trying to fix-- public prosecutors don't see the crime victim as a client to be served, and whose interests should be advocated. They just see the victim as a witness. Private prosecutions and privately-funded and managed appeals could be good, or bad.

I'm against very long time periods between parole reviews of a prisoner. It should be every couple of years, OR, only longer than that if there are no significant changes in the prisoner, the victim, or the circumstances of the case. Any prisoner that can come up with a good reason that they should have another parole consideration after having already been denied parole ought to be able to have another hearing based on that new information or new argument, if it's good enough.

The criminal records and other personal information about a crime victim should be only available to a criminal defendant if it's relevant. Depending on what use the defense attorney has in mind, the relevancy factor may be low or high. Some stuff is simply inadmissible and would always be excluded from trial anyway. Even if the defense attorney could see it, he or she could not USE it. It's also possible that some sensitive personal information can be disclosed to a defense attorney but not necessarily the client, and the attorney will investigate the matter as to weight and relevance without telling the private info to his client. If the information is used to make a tactical decision about the nuts and bolts of lawyering or how to conduct a trial, the attorney can do this solo. Clients only have to be consulted and give approval for the big decisions about trial strategy, but not every step along the way. Cutting off defense attorneys from any info about the victim's background is absurd. WHat if the "victim" is somebody the accused says attacked him first, and sure enough the "victim" has been arrested and convicted of such attacks on other people before? What if the victim says he reasonably assumed X to be true because he saw situation "Y" was present, but at other times in his life that same victim has seen situation "Y" occur without "X" ever happening. So maybe his assumption was not reasonable after all?

 

[libertysteeth]

I just glanced over the Wikipedia page on Marsy's law.
Some of it seems OK to me. Some provisions are flatly unfair and easily abused to deny fundamental rights to an accused person.

The idea of a private lawyer serving as the prosecutor in a criminal case is unheard of in modern times, as all prosecutors are public employees without any private clients. But, that's the problem that Marsy's law is trying to fix-- public prosecutors don't see the crime victim as a client to be served, and whose interests should be advocated. They just see the victim as a witness. Private prosecutions and privately-funded and managed appeals could be good, or bad.

I'm against very long time periods between parole reviews of a prisoner. It should be every couple of years, OR, only longer than that if there are no significant changes in the prisoner, the victim, or the circumstances of the case. Any prisoner that can come up with a good reason that they should have another parole consideration after having already been denied parole ought to be able to have another hearing based on that new information or new argument, if it's good enough.

The criminal records and other personal information about a crime victim should be only available to a criminal defendant if it's relevant. Depending on what use the defense attorney has in mind, the relevancy factor may be low or high. Some stuff is simply inadmissible and would always be excluded from trial anyway. Even if the defense attorney could see it, he or she could not USE it. It's also possible that some sensitive personal information can be disclosed to a defense attorney but not necessarily the client, and the attorney will investigate the matter as to weight and relevance without telling the private info to his client. If the information is used to make a tactical decision about the nuts and bolts of lawyering or how to conduct a trial, the attorney can do this solo. Clients only have to be consulted and give approval for the big decisions about trial strategy, but not every step along the way. Cutting off defense attorneys from any info about the victim's background is absurd. WHat if the "victim" is somebody the accused says attacked him first, and sure enough the "victim" has been arrested and convicted of such attacks on other people before? What if the victim says he reasonably assumed X to be true because he saw situation "Y" was present, but at other times in his life that same victim has seen situation "Y" occur without "X" ever happening. So maybe his assumption was not reasonable after all?

Many of the helpful points of this law are already law. The ones that aren't can be added without an amendment to the constitution. Marsy's Law has many vague parts and even says it allows expansion as "needed".

 

[41mag]

So bottom line....should we vote for or against this Marsy’s law? Sounds like there are both good and bad arguments on both sides ?

 

[boomdad]

So bottom line....should we vote for or against this Marsy’s law? Sounds like there are both good and bad arguments on both sides ?

I'm going to vote no.

 

[41mag]

I'm going to vote no.

 

[spencer60]

I would have no problem with the notification of a victim when a CONVICTED attacker is being released, up for parole, escapes, etc.

I don't like the whole idea of apply this to people accused of a crime though. At that point the victim is a witness, and the accused still has the 'presumption of innocence'. I can see that they should be notified if a case is dropped, but hopefully that would happen anyway. If it's not, it should be required, but a Constitutional Amendment seems way too much.

 

[gh1950]

Victims have a right to be present in court and prosecutors are trained to call victims who will be witnesses in the case to testify first so they can remain in the courtroom for the entire trial.

This is already routinely done in Georgia. If not the victim, then the lead investigative police officer.

Marsy's Law also gives victims the right to be represented by counsel of their choosing, rather than relying on the prosecutor, who has a legal obligation to represent the people of his or her jurisdiction, and not the victim.

This has been done in Georgia in the past, not so much recently, as there are more career prosecutors who are much more experienced. My opinion is that the whoever is the prosecutor will always have a legal and ethical obligation to represent "the people" or "the state", who is the prosecuting party. I don't think that a "private prosecutor" would ever have access to the vast investigatory machinery of the state.

To be reasonably protected from the defendant
and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.

Already the lao w.

To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family or which disclose confidential communications made in the course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law

"or which disclose confidential communications made in the course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law"

Already the law mostly, except for medical treatment which is non-psychiatric can be discovered.

The rest I do not believe would stand up to a constitutional challenge.

To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.

Already the law, and routinely applied.

To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of
incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of
the defendant, and the release of or the escape by the defendant from custody.

Not sure if this is the actual law in Georgia, but routinely applied.

I don't approve with long mandatory periods between parole hearings - especially as in most cases they are pretty perfunctory anyway. Long periods of mandatory incarceration do not fit in with any theory of penology.

 

[rockyfatcat]

I hear the stupid commercials for this on pandora. The girl who was splashed with chemicals cries and tells us that her boyfriend was not even jailed for even one night (like that is the only punishment he will ever get). No mention of whether or not he bailed out.

And this was her boyfriend? I guess she has issues with picking the right kind of Freinds. But do we need to reinvent our legal system for the latest snowflake variant?

 

[HERMET]

I would have no problem with the notification of a victim when a CONVICTED attacker is being released, up for parole, escapes, etc.

I don't like the whole idea of apply this to people accused of a crime though. At that point the victim is a witness, and the accused still has the 'presumption of innocence'. I can see that they should be notified if a case is dropped, but hopefully that would happen anyway. If it's not, it should be required, but a Constitutional Amendment seems way too much.

Kind of nullifies the" innocent until proven guilty".