Gavin Howe
In 2019, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court barred the state from counting and certifying votes on Marsy's Law, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would establish a crime victims' 'bill of rights', until courts decided whether the proposal was constitutional. The amendment was modelled on a California amendment from 2008 and has since been adopted in 11 states. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments, and the election results were not certified.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Supporters' Argument | Marsy's Law is clearly constitutional. |
| Opponents' Argument | Marsy's Law violates Article XI of the state constitution. |
| Judge's Opinion | Judge Ceisler doubted that many voters are paying close attention. |
| ACLU's Stance | ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ballot question. |
| Court's Decision | The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. |
| Voters' Decision | A majority of electors voted to approve the ballot measure. |
| Effect on Victims | Victims would gain the right to be notified about significant developments in their cases, be present at trial, and submit a victim impact statement before a sentence is handed down. |
| Effect on Accused | The ACLU has long held that Marsy's Law might jeopardize due process by stripping away the longstanding rights of the accused. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The ACLU's argument against Marsy's Law
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long held that Marsy's Law might jeopardize due process by stripping away the longstanding rights of the accused. The ACLU's argument against Marsy's Law is based on the premise that victims' rights are fundamentally different from the rights of the accused. While defendants' rights serve as checks against government abuse, victims' rights are not rights against the state but against another individual.
The ACLU argues that Marsy's Law pits victims' rights against defendants' rights, creating a conflict that could result in defendants' rights being weakened or unenforced in certain cases. This could potentially increase the chances of an innocent person being convicted and undermine a bedrock principle of the legal system: the presumption of innocence.
The ACLU also points out that Marsy's Law is poorly drafted and poses a threat to existing constitutional rights. They argue that it includes rights to restitution, reasonable protection, and the refusal of discovery requests, which are enforced against the defendant and do nothing to check the power of the government.
Furthermore, the ACLU claims that Marsy's Law makes sweeping promises that the state cannot keep and attempts to solve problems that constitutions cannot address, ultimately harming the justice system. They believe that adequate funding, better enforcement, and improvements in the system can more effectively serve survivors.
In the case of Pennsylvania, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the proposal, arguing that Marsy's Law is too broad to pass as a single amendment and violates Article XI of the state constitution, which requires multiple amendments to be voted on separately.
The ADA Law: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The state's argument for Marsy's Law
Marsy's Law is a nationwide campaign that seeks to place crime victims' rights in state constitutions. The law is named after Marsalee Nicholas, a 21-year-old murder victim who was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Days after her murder, her mother encountered the accused killer in a grocery store, as the family had not been informed that the accused had been released on bail.
The law was first passed in California in 2008, and has since been adopted in 11 other states. Pennsylvania's version of the amendment would insert an existing set of regulations protecting crime victims into the state constitution, with a few changes. Crime victims would gain the right to be notified about significant developments in their cases, be present at the trial, and submit a victim impact statement before a sentence is handed down.
Supporters of Marsy's Law argue that it would give victims recourse if those rights are ignored during the criminal process. For instance, a victim would gain the right to ask a judge for a new trial if they believe their views weren't heard. Moving these rights to the constitution would allow victims to influence their case in a way that a simple law cannot. In order for a victim to motion the court, they need to have standing in court, which is currently missing from the statute.
Lawyers for the state of Pennsylvania argue that there aren't any precedents for a court issuing a preliminary injunction in a case like this one. They also claim that amendments with multiple parts are acceptable if those parts are all working towards the same purpose—in this case, giving crime victims more rights. The state's attorneys also appealed to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court to get the injunction overturned.
Streamlining Law Office Workflow: A Systemized Approach
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The impact of Marsy's Law on the accused
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has criticised Marsy's Law for undermining due process, being poorly drafted, and threatening existing constitutional rights. The basis of the criticism is that equating victims' rights to the rights of the accused ignores the different purposes these two sets of rights serve. Defendants' rights are rights against the state and apply only when the state attempts to deprive the accused—not the victim—of life, liberty, or property. They serve as essential checks against government abuse, preventing the government from arresting and imprisoning anyone, for any reason, at any time.
Ronald Greenblatt, a Philadelphia defence attorney, testified that Marsy's Law might jeopardise due process by stripping away the longstanding rights of the accused. Specifically, Marsy's Law allows victims to refuse to provide evidence and discovery to the accused, which is a way that innocent people can be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned. This has already had an impact, as the number of prisoners serving life sentences has increased since the introduction of Marsy's Law.
Additionally, Marsy's Law may result in the loss of confidentiality of records pertaining to juvenile defendants, which is vital to the youth justice system. It also makes restitution punitive for defendants, impacting the financial health of their families and presenting barriers to successful re-entry after serving their sentences.
Supporters of Marsy's Law argue that it gives victims recourse if their rights are ignored during the criminal process. For instance, a victim would gain the right to ask a judge for a new trial if they believe their views weren't heard.
Administrative Law: How It's Created
You may want to see also
The implications of Marsy's Law for victims
Marsy's Law is a bipartisan effort that aims to give victims a voice in the criminal justice system by providing them with equal constitutional rights on par with those accused and convicted of crimes. It is modelled on a California amendment from 2008 and has since been adopted in 11 states.
Pennsylvania's version of the amendment would insert an existing set of regulations protecting crime victims into the state constitution, with a few changes. Crime victims would gain the right to be notified about significant developments in their cases, be present at the trial, and submit a victim impact statement before a sentence is handed down. Supporters of Marsy's Law argue that this would give victims recourse if those rights are ignored during the criminal process. For instance, a victim would gain the right to ask a judge for a new trial if they believe their views weren't heard.
However, critics argue that Marsy's Law may violate Article XI of the state constitution, which states that if the legislature wants to submit two or more amendments, those changes must be voted on separately. They also argue that it may jeopardize due process by stripping away the longstanding rights of the accused. There are concerns about the potential for unintended consequences, especially regarding the loss of confidentiality of records for juvenile defendants.
In conclusion, Marsy's Law has the potential to empower victims and ensure their rights are protected during the criminal justice process. However, it is important to carefully consider the potential implications for all involved parties and the overall impact on the criminal legal system.
Understanding Fick's First Law: Diffusion and Its Applications
You may want to see also
The legal history of Marsy's Law in Pennsylvania
In 2019, the Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment appeared on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The ballot question asked voters to decide whether they wanted to establish a crime victims' 'bill of rights', granting victims enforceable rights to "justice and due process" equal to those of the accused. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania filed a legal challenge to the constitutionality of the ballot question, arguing that Marsy's Law violated Article XI of the state constitution, which requires that multiple amendments be voted on separately. The ACLU also argued that the ballot question was a brief and incomplete summary.
Despite the legal challenge, a majority of electors voted to approve the ballot measure on November 5, 2019. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling barring the state from counting and certifying the votes on Marsy's Law until courts decided on its constitutionality. The state's lawyers argued that there was no precedent for a court issuing a preliminary injunction in a case like this and that the timing of the lawsuit could confuse voters.
In December 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the proposed Marsy's Law amendment violated the state Constitution when it was presented as a single question on the 2019 ballot, agreeing with the ACLU's argument. The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of following the constitution in the amendment process. The ruling meant that the election results were not certified, and the amendment was not added to the state constitution.
Asylum Laws: US Constitution's Promise of Protection
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Marsy's Law is a proposal to amend Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution to establish a crime victims' 'bill of rights'. This would grant crime victims comparable and enforceable rights to "justice and due process", equal to those provided to the accused.
Marsy's Law is modelled on a California amendment from 2008 and has since been adopted in 11 states. It is named after Dr. Henry T. Nicholas III's sister Marsy, who was killed in 1983 by an ex-boyfriend.
Backers of Marsy's Law argue that it would give victims recourse if their rights are ignored during the criminal process. For instance, a victim would gain the right to ask a judge for a new trial if they believe their views weren't heard.
The ACLU has long held that Marsy's Law might jeopardise due process by stripping away the longstanding rights of the accused. The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL) also filed a statement opposing Marsy's Law, arguing that it runs contrary to the reason why the Bill of Rights was enshrined in the Constitution.
No. While a majority of electors voted to approve Marsy's Law in 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. As a result, the election results were not certified and the amendment was not added to the state constitution.
