The Cellar - Marsy's Law

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Marsy's Law (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=34627)

So this is going to be on your ballot:

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to grant certain rights to crime victims, including to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity; considering their safety in bail proceedings; timely notice and opportunity to take part in public proceedings; reasonable protection from the accused; right to refuse discovery requests made by the accused; restitution and return of property; proceedings free from delay; and to be informed of these rights, so they can enforce them?

This seems pretty broad to be messing with our PA Constitution.

We are having a national discussion about this stuff, see Brett Cavanaugh. I prefer we be more incremental, a fine adjustment versus a hammer blow.

Any thoughts?

"right to refuse discovery requests made by the accused"

This is total BS right here.

If you are going to press charges against someone, they have a right to defend themselves and question you. You can always object to the judge that certain discovery requests cross the line, and the judge can make a ruling, but being able to simply refuse a request for more information when you get to press charges is completely unfair.

That pretty much screws people who are falsely accused whether mistakenly; or, deliberately. It might even embolden people to make false accusations.

It sounds all wonderful like something you can get a crowd going Yeah, let it run Rev, let it run. But the possibilities for misuse are ominous. Vote no.

Thanks for the input guys. This is being pushed hard and I think it smells funny. Kelsey Grammer was on my phone this morning.

amendin' the amendin'

Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to grant certain rights to accuser and accused, including to be treated with fairness, respect and dignity; considering their safety in any proceedings; timely notice and opportunity to take part in any proceedings; reasonable protection from the opposing party; restitution and return of property; proceedings free from delay; and to be informed of these rights, so they can enforce them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff (Post 1040739)

Thanks for the input guys. This is being pushed hard and I think it smells funny. Kelsey Grammer was on my phone this morning.

So who is doing all the pushing? This sounds so much like the reasons for changing the dates of daylight savings time. For attacking Vietnam and Saddam. Ethanol in gasoline. Obstructing stem cell research. And Brexit. Too much hype targeting emotion. Too few facts. Apparently no investigative research. And not enough time for any sort of analysis to be disseminated.

Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved?

Quote:

‘Victims’ Rights’ Proposals Like Marsy’s Law Undermine Due Process

Marsy’s Law is premised on the notion that victims should have “equal rights” to defendants. This opening salvo is a seductive appeal to one’s sense of fairness. However, the notion that victims’ rights can be equated to the rights of the accused is a fallacy. It ignores the very different purposes these two sets of rights serve.

The U.S. Constitution and all 50 state constitutions guarantee defendants’ rights because they are rights against the state, not because they are valued more by society than victims’ rights. Defendants’ rights only apply 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.

Victims’ rights are not rights against the state. Instead, they are rights against another individual. The Marsy’s Law formula includes the rights to restitution, to reasonable protection, and to refuse depositions and discovery requests, all of which are enforced against the defendant. Such rights do nothing to check the power of the government. In fact, many of the provisions in Marsy’s Law could actually strengthen the state’s hand against a defendant, undermining a bedrock principle of our legal system — the presumption of innocence.

This risk further underscores one of the overarching concerns about Marsy’s Law: It pits victims’ rights against defendants’ rights. Creating such a conflict means that defendants’ rights may lose in certain circumstances. This result accepts that defendants’ rights against the state will be weakened or unenforced in some cases, potentially at a significant cost to constitutional due process. In other words, the chances that an innocent person could be convicted of a crime they did not commit could potentially increase. The proponents of Marsy’s Law may not intend for this outcome, but nothing in their formula prevents it.

There are ways of guaranteeing victim’s rights without making constitutional mistakes. For instance, in New Hampshire, our comprehensive victims’ rights statute preempts conflict between rights by stating that victims’ rights shall be enforced “to the extent . . . they are not inconsistent with the constitutional or statutory rights of the accused.” This language recognizes that victims’ rights may come into conflict with defendants’ rights and that our justice system works only if defendants’ rights against the state are upheld.

Marsy’s Law has no comparable language.

Unfortunately that is classic propaganda. It orders me how to think. It does not say why. It does not include the perspectives that must always exist in any honest statement. It is a soundbyte - woefully too short.

It makes blanket statements without the many reasons why that must be included after each paragraph. It is classic propaganda that does not meet any of the requirements for honesty. It is loaded with strawmen.

We know that right wingers say you have no Constitutional right to privacy. So why do so many insist on having their privacy protected? You have no right to privacy according to that 'we will tell you what to think' conclusion. First paragraph about one's rights is a classic example of a strawman. Everybody at one point or another makes that blanket statement when it is convenient to manipulate their followers ... who are waiting to be told how to think.

That article clearly does not honestly answer my questions. It is no different than reasoning used to justify the Mission Accomplished or Vietnam wars. It plays on emotions. And does not promote a single honest fact that says why.

Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved? All not answered.

Too few facts. That article is a classic example. Apparently no investigative research. And not enough time for any sort of analysis to be disseminated.

That ACLU article wasn't posted for you. It was posted for the more astute who already know the answers to your questions and have moved on to summation of their final analysis, for comparison. It's already going to be on the ballot. Front end analysis is done. You snooze, you lose … you missed the boat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon (Post 1040813)

That ACLU article wasn't posted for you. It was posted for the more astute who already know the answers to your questions and have moved on to summation of their final analysis,

So it was written for people who know only from their emotions. The target audience of wacko extremist lefties and rightists. People that Hitler also targeted to become Chancellor of Germany. He said to disparage the bourgeois and intelligentsia since they will not believe his lies; because they need the underlying reasons why with perspective.

Again, that is why most Americans also knew that smoking cigarettes increased health. That socialism is communism. That Trump is a world class leader because he is a bully who only insults people.

That article was written only for people who will automatically believe nobody has privacy rights because right wing extremist said so. It is not specifically in the Constitution. So a right of privacy does not exist. "I said so". That alone is enough for so many to know it was true.

That is also why I was so adamant almost 20 years ago here; that Saddam did not have WMDs. Because I did not blindly believe lies from the Central Committee of the Communist Party (ie Cheney). Instead I asked damning questions including why, what is his agenda, where are the underlying facts (they never existed), and 'show me the numbers'. Only adults who are thinking like adults do that.

But again - because it is never answered and because the questions are intentionally avoids - to protect the myths: Who is pushing all this? And why? What really is the objective? What really is the problem that must be solved? All not answered.

Only patriotic Americans will ask or try to answer those questions. Those are typically the same people who advance mankind by constantly pushing out the envelope. Learning new things. Asking damning questions. And did not swallow propaganda from Radio Moscow and Pravda (1960s), and Russian hackers (2016).

Can anyone answer those damning questions in a logical and adult manner - without demeaning commentary as in the Trump style? Can anyone answer those questions about Marsy's Law in an adult manner? Logical and not emotional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 1040818)

Again, that is why most Americans also knew that smoking cigarettes increased health.

No they didn't, no one who ever smoked more than one cigarette believed those ads you seem to think sold people on smoking. :headshake

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonah (Post 1040818)

… Waaaaaa ...

Sorry Jonah, you can wail on the dock all you want, we're not turning the boat around for you. As far as we can tell, the only thing you're good for is trying to harass others into doing your research for you. We're not buying your blubbering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 1040820)

No they didn't, no one who ever smoked more than one cigarette believed those ads you seem to think sold people on smoking.

I watch it being done. You did not. The overwhelming majority of American *knew* that smoking cigarettes increased health.

An honest answer would say why and post the relevant numbers. That is the point. That mistake is why we even have a president named Trump. And why Germany had a chancellor named Hitler.

You are wrong. And now to state it in a manner you understand /appreciate. You are a scumbag liar.

Why do you ignore those questions? Nasty people attack the messenger because they cannot understand how to reason logically. Why not, instead, answer the questions rather than attack examples? Scumbag liars routinely do not - that nastiest back in your face.

Let me know when you will post in an adult manner.

I apologize for tw folks. That last post was only five paragraphs long and one of them was a one liner. He just isn't the crazy old coot he used to be, now being a mere shadow of his former self. Please see the mods for a full refund of your thread admission price. Thanks for your understanding.