Unit 1012 Cover Photo

Unit 1012 Cover Photo

Saturday, November 4, 2017


            Whenever an Anti-Death Penalty (also Anti LWOP) activist claim that by abolishing the death penalty (and LWOP), they can save enough money to provide services for victims of crime, please tell them that they are lying. Notice that the ACLU Demons are also fighting against victims’ rights using the same excuses like expensive etc.

            If you see these two cases, you will know why:

ACLU Of Ohio Opposes Issue One - Marsy's Law

Oct 18, 2017

Originally published on October 18, 2017 4:47 pm

One of the state’s leading civil liberties organizations is opposing Issue 1 – the victims’ rights constitutional amendment known as Marsy’s Law.

The ACLU of Ohio’s Gary Daniels says many parts of Issue 1 are already in law, and if there’s a problem with enforcement, he says that should be addressed. He also worries putting Marsy’s Law into the Constitution would make it difficult to fix possible problems. But Daniels says this ballot issue would endanger due process for people accused of crimes. Daniels says it would allow victims to refuse interviews or depositions.

“And there are perfectly logical and reasonable reasons why somebody might seek information from a crime victim when they are being accused of a crime. That’s just part of the everyday give and take of the justice system but this amendment would shut down many of those avenues.” - Gary Daniels, Ohio ACLU

Aaron Marshall with the Issue 1 campaign says that’s not the case.

“What we are trying to stop are these fishing expeditions that have nothing to do with the case which we are seeing around Ohio. If a defendant needs a piece of information from a crime victim to help their case and it is pertinent to their case, they can go through the proper procedures to get a judge rule on whether it is pertinent and admissible, and then they get their evidence.” Aaron Marshall, Issue 1 campaign spokesman

The state public defender and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association has also opposed the issue, though some individual prosecutors are supporting it.

ACLU opposes 'victim rights' question

10/25/2017 8:00 PM

SANDUSKY — The Ohio affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union has come out against Issue 1, “Marsy’s Law,” a state question that guarantees rights for the victims of crime.
The ACLU says the state question would hamper a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial and would also introduce delay and expense into the legal system by giving victims the right to interfere with court proceedings.

Issue 1, one of two state questions being decided this fall by Ohio voters, would amend the Ohio Constitution to provide a “bill of rights” for crime victims, including the right to be notified of, and present, at all public court proceedings, the right to be told when the accused has been released from jail, and the right to refuse discovery requests except as authorized by the Ohio Constitution.

The issue has plenty of supporters and has been endorsed by many public officials locally and statewide, including Ottawa County Sheriff Steve Levorchick.

Mike Brickner, senior policy director for the Ohio ACLU, said he’s concerned about making it harder for an accused person to depose a victim or obtain information from that person, jeopardizing a defendant’s rights to due process.

It is dangerous to tilt the law too far against the rights of defendants, he said.

“You may see more people wrongfully convicted,” he said.

Brickner said allowing victims to interject themselves at every stage could also delay trials and hamper the right to a fair trial.

He said that if voters approve the question, it could trigger a lawsuit from the ACLU.

“We always keep all options on the table,” he said.

Aaron Marshall, spokesman for the Yes on Issue 1 campaign, said Article 1, Section 10, of the Ohio Constitution, will still guarantee the right of the accused to obtain relevant information from a victim.

The point of the state question is to stop fishing expeditions, “where they paw through people’s personal information when it’s not relevant to the case,” said Marshall, who said victims should not be asked without cause for medical records or social media passwords.

“The last thing that crime victims want is more delays in their case. They want the cases to be over so that they can get closure and move on with their lives,” he said.

Polling shows Ohioans from all walks of life support Issue 1 by a comfortable margin, Marshall said.

Although few organizations have joined the ACLU in opposing Issue 1, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio also issued a statement urging a “No” vote, saying that it takes away the discretion of judges to find a proper balance between the rights of the accused and of the victim.

“This could lead to increased litigation time, taxpayer cost, and erosion of constitutionally guaranteed rights for the accused,” the caucus said.

The caucus says it is a group “working within the Republican Party to advance the principles of individual rights, limited government, and free markets.”
Reach reporter Tom Jackson at jackson@sanduskyregister.com and follow him on Twitter @jacksontom.

Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down Victim's Rights Law
The Montana Supreme Court has struck down a victim's rights law approved by voters last year as unconstitutional.

Nov. 1, 2017, at 3:45 p.m.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Montana Supreme Court has struck down a victim's rights law approved by voters last year as unconstitutional.

Justices said in a Wednesday split opinion that the law, dubbed Marsy's Law, made multiple changes to the Montana Constitution that should have been considered separately.

The law sought to give crime victims and their families the right to participate in judicial proceedings and to be notified of key developments in a case. It would also expand their privacy rights.

It had been put on hold by the court in June following a lawsuit from the Montana Association of Counties, the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

Dissenting Justices Jim Rice and Beth Baker said the law was not ready for review because it hadn't been implemented and its effects were unknown.

No comments:

Post a Comment