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
By Jo Ingles • 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.
INTERNET
SOURCE: http://wvxu.org/post/aclu-ohio-opposes-issue-one-marsys-law#stream/0
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.
INTERNET SOURCE: http://www.sanduskyregister.com/story/201710250029
 |
|
Black Lives Matter
protesters shut down an ACLU director's speech in Virginia. (Facebook)
|
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.
INTERNET
SOURCE: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2017-11-01/montana-supreme-court-strikes-down-victims-rights-law
No comments:
Post a Comment