Sorry if this should be in the political thread but why should I vote against this? I'm not sure I completely understand it but from what I read I can't figure out why I should vote against it. Again, sorry if this should be in the political thread.
Marsy's Law
- Thread starter Glenn's Take
- Start date
Glenn, it's law to keep people like you from killing young girls and then placing their cut out sexual parts in your freezer.
That's my understanding so far from what I've read. I'm just not sure what the flip side is.
I dont know much about it..but a Google search provided:
The ACLU is against it.
The basis of the criticism is that equating victims’ rights to the rights of the accused is a fallacy that ignores the very different purposes these two sets of rights serve.
This is not because defendants' rights are valued more by society than victims’ rights. Defendants’ rights are rights against the state and apply only when the state is attempting 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.
The ACLU is against it.
The basis of the criticism is that equating victims’ rights to the rights of the accused is a fallacy that ignores the very different purposes these two sets of rights serve.
This is not because defendants' rights are valued more by society than victims’ rights. Defendants’ rights are rights against the state and apply only when the state is attempting 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.
Probably the electric chair.
It’s a horrible law that has no organized opposition. The commercials make it sound so great but it isn’t.
I’m a conservative right wing lawyer and former prosecutor and I don’t like it. Every lawyer I know and have talked to thinks it is a horrible law.
The sentiment behind is great but what it does and how it does is awful. Read the ACLU article on it. Most every lawyer I know agrees with it for the most part.
I’m a conservative right wing lawyer and former prosecutor and I don’t like it. Every lawyer I know and have talked to thinks it is a horrible law.
The sentiment behind is great but what it does and how it does is awful. Read the ACLU article on it. Most every lawyer I know agrees with it for the most part.
I really thought something was up the first time I heard it was going to be on the ballot.
“Do you believe that victims of crimes should be granted constitutional rights?” Or something like that. What non-sociopath would not say yes to that? That’s when I knew there had to be more to it.
“Do you believe that victims of crimes should be granted constitutional rights?” Or something like that. What non-sociopath would not say yes to that? That’s when I knew there had to be more to it.
If the ACLU is fer it, then I’m ginst it
There wouldn’t be overcrowding in prison if folks quit committing violent felonies...but, you know...
Really ain’t hard to stay out of trouble abs lead a good life, leaving people alone...right?
https://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/l...cle_5cd725ec-4025-5dde-ac5d-7afa23e5cec9.html
Interesting read on this vague bill that will be a change in state constitution. Kentucky already has a victim's Bill of Rights that covers much of this such has notifications of parole proceedings and release.
Basically making it harder for the accused to defend themselves especially this day where social media can smear someone's innocence.
The victim encompasses all related to the person harmed and even could be interpreted as a corporations since they are considered individuals now.
-The right to refuse an interview or deposition at the request of the accused
So a relation to the victim can now refuse to give sworn evidence to the case?
This may give the METOO movement more firepower.
Interesting read on this vague bill that will be a change in state constitution. Kentucky already has a victim's Bill of Rights that covers much of this such has notifications of parole proceedings and release.
Basically making it harder for the accused to defend themselves especially this day where social media can smear someone's innocence.
The victim encompasses all related to the person harmed and even could be interpreted as a corporations since they are considered individuals now.
-The right to refuse an interview or deposition at the request of the accused
So a relation to the victim can now refuse to give sworn evidence to the case?
This may give the METOO movement more firepower.
No. But doesn’t change the fact that most inmates are not in prison for violent crimes.
https://corrections.ky.gov/About/re...nthly Report/2018/Inmate Profile 08-2018.pdf
This law is a wolf in sheep' s clothing. It will turn our already strained criminal justice system on its head. Worst law I have seen in a loooooong time. Anyone who votes for this better hope they are never wrongfully accused of a crime bc this law will almost assure the wrongfully accused becomes the wrongfully convicted
Buckethead is saying anyone that is conservative has a low IQ.
IE
Tom Sowell has a low IQ compared to Madonna.
Horrible law. Any of the seemingly good aspects are already law and part of the prosecutorial practice.
The rest of it is pure trash and likely wouldn't stand up to a constitutional challenge. That's assuming they ever get to certify the outcome. Trying to trick people into voting for it tells you all you need to know.
Any legislator pushing it should be voted out or physically removed from office. Not just because they're terrible. But mainly because they're blatant shameless whores who'll say whatever just to get donations take from a California billionaire.
The rest of it is pure trash and likely wouldn't stand up to a constitutional challenge. That's assuming they ever get to certify the outcome. Trying to trick people into voting for it tells you all you need to know.
Any legislator pushing it should be voted out or physically removed from office. Not just because they're terrible. But mainly because they're blatant shameless whores who'll say whatever just to get donations take from a California billionaire.
OK, all I needed to know is that California likes it. I'll be voting against it.
I have seen zero ads or anything against this. If folks are against it, how are they getting word out?
That’s the problem. Everyone who really reads it says it’s horrible. But no one is doing an organized opposition.
As a lawyer I don't know of a single prosecutor that is for this law as it is written. I believe a judge has ruled the outcome of the vote is moot on this?
Not that I need any more information than California like it to vote against it but what in particular is so bad about it?
He can’t rule on until it is passed. I know a suit was filed seeking an injunction to keep it from being on the ballot but that wasn’t granted.
Yeah, the ACLU is a complete joke 9 out of every 10 times. This is 1 of those times.
The wording of the amendment is VERY misleading. Politicians should not be allowed to mislead the public/constituency to the degree this law does. I agree with the poster above. Any politician that votes for a law that is unconstitutional ought to be impeached automatically IMO. They all take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Yet, this law is a total a front to the Constitution. However, the way they are selling/presenting it to the public is a sham. Do not allow them to get away with this. Vote No!
Actually, if possessing a plant that grows naturally from the ground wasnt seen as devil grass it probably wouldnt be as crowded.
^ people don't spend time in jail for meth or heroin possession down here. They sure as heck aint' staying for grass, but whatever...
Anyway, this is on today's Herald Leader webpage....in case you need any more reasons to not support this Marsy's Law junk (which should be spelled marcy, or marcie):
Tech mogul facing drug charges paid $5 million to push Marsy’s Law on Kentucky ballot
BY JOHN CHEVES
[email protected]
October 26, 2018 10:00 AM
Updated October 26, 2018 10:57 AM
A California tech billionaire facing felony drug trafficking charges in Las Vegas has spent about $5 million this election cycle to convince Kentuckians to adopt a “crime victim’s bill of rights” as a state constitutional amendment on Nov. 6.
As part of a $45 million national push that will include six states this fall, Henry T. Nicholas III of Orange County, Calif., has underwritten the cost of an aggressive marketing campaign in Kentucky to promote “Marsy’s Law,” named for his sister, who was murdered in 1983. It cost him $383,894 in Frankfort political lobbying over the last three years just to get the Kentucky legislature to put it on the ballot.
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article220556670.html#storylink=indep
Anyway, this is on today's Herald Leader webpage....in case you need any more reasons to not support this Marsy's Law junk (which should be spelled marcy, or marcie):
Tech mogul facing drug charges paid $5 million to push Marsy’s Law on Kentucky ballot
BY JOHN CHEVES
[email protected]
October 26, 2018 10:00 AM
Updated October 26, 2018 10:57 AM
A California tech billionaire facing felony drug trafficking charges in Las Vegas has spent about $5 million this election cycle to convince Kentuckians to adopt a “crime victim’s bill of rights” as a state constitutional amendment on Nov. 6.
As part of a $45 million national push that will include six states this fall, Henry T. Nicholas III of Orange County, Calif., has underwritten the cost of an aggressive marketing campaign in Kentucky to promote “Marsy’s Law,” named for his sister, who was murdered in 1983. It cost him $383,894 in Frankfort political lobbying over the last three years just to get the Kentucky legislature to put it on the ballot.
https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article220556670.html#storylink=indep
Why do convicted felons have rights? Haven't they essentially given them up? This is my biggest issue with people hoping to reform killers for example.
You do know this law doesn’t really have anything to do with convicted felons, right. It is taking rights away from those accused but not yet convicted.