Ohio residents will vote on a new law next month that could set extraordinary limits on a defendant’s due process rights. Why is Ohio proposing the so-called Marsy’s Law? Purportedly, to protect crime victims’ rights. According to the proponents of the measure, crime victims are not kept abreast of the goings on of criminal procedures, causing undue stress in their lives. In the name of victims’ rights, the measure would impede a defendant’s ability to obtain evidence from the victim during the discovery process.
Opposition
In proposing the measure, Ohio legislators may have forgotten to consider the human costs. Opponents of the law say that impediments to procedure would do more harm against the defendant than it would help the victims, who under the statute, would be able to refuse to submit a deposition. Gary Daniels, of ACLU Ohio, voiced his vehement opposition to the bill, saying “There are perfectly logical and reasonable reasons why somebody might seek information from a crime victim when they are being accused of a crime.”
Brandon Brown, an attorney with the ACLU, has indicated that the law would only lead to longer sentences. “We’re already critical of the criminal justice system for being overly punitive,” he said. “You don’t want to add another emotional component to that.” Additionally, Brown contends that parole would be postponed more often. This is due to the fact that the law would require the government to notify the victim every time a prisoner is up for parole and effectively allow the victim to offer input every step of the way.
Breakdown of the Law
The law, also known as Issue 1, would effectively be written into the Ohio constitution. According to a fact sheet circulated by the state Supreme Court, there are six constitutional rights that Marsy’s Law would protect:
- To be treated respectfully and with dignity
- To be at the trial and available to speak with the prosecutor
- To receive restitution
- To be notified of proceedings
- To be heard during the trial – specifically sentencing proceedings
- To be informed of rights and services
In 2008, the law – named after Marsalee Nicholas who was shot in 1983 – was first introduced in California where each crime victim is given a card (Marsy’s Card), which contains an enumeration of the rights and a list of potential resources, such as the Victim Compensation Program. Were the law to pass, a similar card would be given out in Ohio.
The rights listed on the state Supreme Court fact sheet omit some rather important elements. Civil liberties advocates are most concerned about the rights allowing the victim to refuse being interviewed by the defense.
Proponents of the Law
Aaron Marshall works with the Issue 1 campaign and thinks the procedural obstacles to obtaining evidence from the victim are completely justifiable: “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,” he told WOSU Radio.
The Office of Budget and Management has indicated that the implementation of these provisions would most likely result in added costs. Nonetheless, according to a poll conducted by an Issue 1 supporter, 71 percent of the expected voters support the measure, leading some to think that the law will become a reality next month.
Similar laws have already passed in states like Illinois, North Dakota and South Dakota; and Oklahoma and Nevada will likely vote on versions of Marsy’s Law next year.
Leave a Comment