The Freedom Minute

PROP 9 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the VICTIMS’ RIGHTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE amends the State Constitution and various state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the payment of restitution by criminal offenders, (2) restrict the early release of inmates, and (3) change the procedures for granting and revoking parole.

Background:

In June 1982, California voters approved Proposition 8, known as the “Victims’ Bill of Rights.” Among other changes, the proposition amended the Constitution and various state laws to grant crime victims the right to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, sentencing and parole hearings. Other separately enacted laws have created other rights for crime victims, including the opportunity for a victim to obtain a judicial order of protection from harassment by a criminal defendant.

Proposition 8 established the right of crime victims to obtain restitution from any person who committed the crime that caused them to suffer a loss. Restitution often involves replacement of stolen or damaged property or reimbursement of costs that the victim incurred as a result of the crime. A court is required under current state law to order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons not to do so. Sometimes, however, judges do not order restitution. Proposition 8 also established a right to “safe, secure and peaceful” schools for students and staff of primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools.

Changes Made by This Measure:

Restitution. This measure requires that, without exception, restitution be ordered from offenders who have been convicted, in every case in which a victim suffers a loss.

Notification and Participation of Victims in Criminal Justice Proceedings. This measure expands the legal right for crime victims to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, all public criminal proceedings, including the release from custody of offenders after their arrest, but before trial. In addition, victims would be given the constitutional right to participate in other aspects of the criminal justice process, such as conferring with prosecutors on the charges filed.

Other Expansions of Victims’ Legal Rights. This measure expands the legal rights of crime victims in other ways, including the following:

• Crime victims and their families would have a state constitutional right to (1) prevent the release of certain of their confidential information or records to criminal defendants, (2) refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant, (3) protection from harm from individuals accused of committing crimes against them, (4) the return of property no longer needed as evidence in criminal proceedings, and (5) “finality” in criminal proceedings in which they are involved. Some of these rights now exist in statute.
• The Constitution would be changed to specify that the safety of a crime victim must be taken into consideration by judges in setting bail for persons arrested for crimes.

Restrictions On Early Release Of Inmates. This measure amends the Constitution to require that criminal sentences imposed by the courts shall not be “substantially diminished” by early release policies to alleviate overcrowding in prison or jail facilities.

Changes Affecting The Granting And Revocation Of Parole. This measure changes the procedures to be followed by the board when it considers the release from prison of inmates with a life sentence.

• It would extend the time between parole hearings to between 3 and 15 years, as opposed to the current one to five years
• It would remove the limit on the number of family members (3) who could attend and testify at parole hearings, and would allow victim representatives to attend and testify at the hearing without regard to whether members of the victim’s family were present.
• Crime victims would be eligible to receive 90 days advance notice of parole consideration hearings, instead of the current 30 days.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. Again, changing the State Constitution and other criminal justice laws by ballot initiative based on emotion is generally a bad idea unless there is compelling reason to do so. This initiative duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. In addition, there are a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed. First, crime victims and their families would be given a state constitutional right to refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant. This could make it impossible for a defendant’s lawyer to mount a proper defense and would strike at the very heart of our discovery laws. Second, this measure grants crime victims the legal right to testify at bail hearings. While the safety of alleged victims should be taken into account when a judge considers a defendant for bail, allowing the alleged victim to testify prior to trial seriously changes the right of a non-convicted defendant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty as nothing in the proposed law would give the defendant the right to question or challenge that testimony. Finally, the restriction on early release does not distinguish between different classes of criminals. Therefore, someone incarcerated on a minor non-violent conviction would be just as ineligible for early release as a convicted killer. While there are certainly some provisions of this measure that warrant consideration for inclusion in our penal code, on balance I believe it would be prudent to reject this proposition.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 9

Related posts:

1. PROP 4 – Vote NO
2. PROP 5 – Vote YES
3. PROP 6 – Vote NO
4. PROP 7 – Vote NO
5. PROP 8 – Vote NO

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments