Marsy's Law

Last updated

Marsy's Law (Proposition 9)​California Victims' Bill of Rights
November 4, 2008 (2008-11-04)
Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Establishes victim safety as consideration for bail or parole. Fiscal Impact: Potential loss of state savings on prison operations and increased county jail costs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually on parole procedures. [1]
2008 California Proposition 9 results map by county.svg
Results by county (blue indicates support)
OutcomePassed
Website Marsy's Law; California Office of the Attorney General
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes6,682,46553.84%
Light brown x.svgNo5,728,96846.16%
Valid votes12,411,43390.31%
Invalid or blank votes1,331,7449.69%
Total votes13,743,177100.00%
Registered voters/turnout17,304,09179.4%

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. [2] Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. [3] [4] [5]

Contents

Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, [6] and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. [7] [8] The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021. [9]

Background

Henry T. Nicholas and his mother, Marcella Leach, join John Gillis, former National Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown at the annual National Day of Remembrance event in downtown Los Angeles. Henry t nicholas-lee baca-jerry brown-national day of remembrance-marsys law for all.jpg
Henry T. Nicholas and his mother, Marcella Leach, join John Gillis, former National Director, U.S. Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown at the annual National Day of Remembrance event in downtown Los Angeles.

Marsy Nicholas was the sister of Henry Nicholas, the co-founder and former co-chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer of Broadcom Corporation. In 1983, [10] Marsy, then a senior at UC Santa Barbara, was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend. Her murderer, Kerry Michael Conley, [11] was tried by a Los Angeles jury and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole in 17 years. Although Conley died in prison from a heart infection complicated by diabetes, [12] one year before Marsy's Law passed in November 2008, the Nicholas family attended numerous parole hearings, which bothered them for years. [13]

The Nicholas family was the main organizer of the campaign to pass Marsy's Law, whom former California Governor Pete Wilson called the "driving force" behind the constitutional amendment. [14] In late 2007, Nicholas convened a group, including Wilson, to consider putting a comprehensive victims' rights constitutional amendment on the ballot in California. He recruited legal scholars and former prosecutors to draft, rework and write the final version of the bill. In addition to Nicholas and Wilson, contributors included:

In late February 2008, California non-profit corporation Marsy's Law: Justice for Crime Victims proposed Marsy's Law as a way of giving crime victims constitutionally protected rights such as notifications to victims and informing those involved in the criminal justice process of the Marsy's Law victim rights. [16] Voters passed the Constitutional Amendment in November 2008 by a margin of 53.8% to 46.2%, despite being opposed by nearly every major newspaper in the state. [15]

In 2009, Henry Nicholas formed Marsy's Law for All, [17] which has the following objectives:

Impact of Marsy's Law

Marsy's Law grants protective rights to an alleged victim of a crime and revokes certain rights of people accused of a crime to defend themselves (see Criticism).

Since its passage, when any alleged victim of crime is contacted by law enforcement, just as the accused are read their Miranda Rights, that victim is immediately informed of his or her Marsy's Rights and provided with "Marsy's Card", a small foldout containing a full description of each of the 17 Marsy's Rights, which is also available for download in 17 languages on the California Office of the Attorney General website. [18] The California Attorney General has published these rights, which now are utilized by every law enforcement agency in the state. In addition, each of 58 county District Attorney's offices are required to inform alleged victims of these rights at the time a case is filed for criminal prosecution. [19] In 2010, the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) amended its Learning Domain 04 to include Marsy's Law Training in its Basic Police Academy. [20]

Alleged victims now have the right to be heard at every stage of the legal criminal proceedings, which means before the judge makes a sentencing offer in the case. Prior to the passage of Proposition 9, most alleged victims did not address the court until after a conviction or plea. In addition, actions to bar alleged victims from the courtroom under a "motion to exclude witnesses" are now routinely denied. Alleged victims have a right to be present in court and prosecutors are trained to call alleged victims who will be witnesses in the case to testify first so they can remain in the courtroom for the entire trial.

Marsy's Law also gives alleged victims the right to be represented by counsel of their choosing, rather than relying on the prosecutor, who has a legal obligation to represent the people of his or her jurisdiction, and not the victim. Marsy's Law rights are enforceable and an adverse ruling against a victim in any context involving these rights can be appealed to a higher court by alleged victims through their own counsel or the District Attorney.

Post-conviction, victims' rights have been impacted by the dramatic increase in the length of time between parole hearings. Before Marsy's Law, the maximum parole denial was five years for convicted murderers and two years for all other crimes. Marsy Nicholas' mother, Marcella Leach, suffered a heart attack at the second parole hearing for Marsy's killer and was unable to attend subsequent hearing for many years. [21] Now parole denials can be imposed for 7, 10 and even 15 years. Statistics show that in 2009, 20% or 656 inmates received parole denials of 7 years or more. In 2009, only 3.5% received denials of two years or less. [22]

Citing the impact of Marsy's Law in extending the time California prison inmates must wait between hearings after parole has been denied, a Stanford University study of 32,000 California prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole found the likelihood of parole for a convicted murderer is 6%. The study also found that the lifer population has increased from 8% of inmates in 1990 to 20% in 2010 and that the average number of years served is 20. [23]

In another study on the impact of Marsy's Law on the parole process, UCLA law student Laura L. Richardson found a doubling in the average length of time imposed between parole hearings since California voters passed the Constitutional Amendment in 2008. But while victims may impact parole decisions, her analysis of 211 parole hearings failed to reveal an increase in victim participation in the parole process. [24]

The California Supreme Court has said it will review two cases, In re Vicks and In re Russo, which address whether the parole impact of Marsy's Law is unconstitutional. In Vicks, the state Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One found that the risk of increased incarceration resulting from longer parole denials under Marsy's Law violated ex post facto principles if applied to prisoners sentenced before the law was passed. However, in Russo, a different panel from the same court ruled that the ability of a prisoner who had been denied parole to petition to advance the date of the next parole hearing protected Marsy's Law from an ex post facto challenge. [25]

Similar laws in other states

The passage of this law in California has led to efforts in other states to pass similar laws. In Illinois, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution, called Marsy's Law for Illinois. [26] In Ohio voters passed an amendment called the Ohio Crime Victims Bill of Rights (Marsy's Law).[ citation needed ] In April 2020, Wisconsin voters approved a version for their state's constitution. [27] There are efforts to introduce similar Marsy's Laws in Georgia, [28] Hawaii, [29] Montana, [30] Nevada, [31] South Dakota, [32] Florida, [33] Maine, [34] and North Carolina. [35] Voters in Pennsylvania approved a Marsy's Law amendment to the state constitution in November 2019, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court enjoined certification of the result. In December 2021, the court then held that the provision's inclusion of multiple essentially unrelated changes violated the state constitution's "single subject" limitation for each amendment. [36]

Overview of the Constitutional Amendment

Marsy's Law amended 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. These changes are discussed in more detail below. [37]

Expansion of the rights of victims and restitution

Background

In June 1982, California voters approved Proposition 8, known as the Victims Bill of Rights. [38]

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. [38]

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

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. The measure also requires that any funds collected by a court or law enforcement agencies from a person ordered to pay restitution would go to pay that restitution first, in effect prioritizing those payments over other fines and obligations an offender may legally owe. The victim also is entitled to be compensated for legal fees in hiring counsel under Marsy's Law on the issues relating to the securing of restitution. [39]

Notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings

As noted above, Proposition 8 established a legal right for crime victims to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, sentencing and parole hearings. This measure expands these legal rights to include all public criminal proceedings, including the release from custody of offenders after their arrest, but before trial. In addition, victims are given the constitutional right to participate in other aspects of the criminal justice process, such as conferring with prosecutors on the charges filed and arguing for increased charges. Also, law enforcement and criminal prosecution agencies are required to provide victims with specified information, including details on victim's rights. [40]

This measure expands the legal rights of crime victims in various other ways, including the following:

Restrictions on early release of inmates

Background

The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008 are estimated to be approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms in state prisons have been converted to house some inmates.

Both the state Legislature and the courts have been considering various proposals that would reduce overcrowding, including the early release of inmates from state prison. At the time this analysis was prepared, none of these proposals had been adopted. State prison populations are also affected by credits granted to prisoners. These credits, which can be awarded for good behavior or participation in specific programs, reduce the amount of time a prisoner must serve before release. [41] Collectively, the state's 58 counties spend over $2.4 billion on county jails, which have a population in excess of 80,000. There are currently 20 counties where an inmate population cap has been imposed by the federal courts and an additional 12 counties with a self-imposed population cap. In counties with such population caps, inmates are sometimes released early to comply with the limit imposed by the cap. However, some sheriffs also use alternative methods of reducing jail populations, such as confining inmates to home detention with Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. [42]

Changes made

This measure amends the Constitution to require that criminal sentences imposed by the courts be carried out in compliance with the courts' sentencing orders and that such sentences shall not be "substantially diminished" by early release policies to alleviate overcrowding in prison or jail facilities. The measure directs that sufficient funding be provided by the Legislature or county boards of supervisors to house inmates for the full terms of their sentences, except for statutorily authorized credits which reduce those sentences.

Changes affecting the granting and revocation of parole

Background

The Board of Parole Hearings conducts two different types of proceedings relating to parole. First, before CDCR releases an individual who has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, the inmate must go before the board for a parole consideration hearing. Second, the board has authority to return to state prison for up to a year an individual who has been released on parole but who subsequently commits a parole violation. (Such a process is referred to as parole revocation.) A federal court order requires the state to provide legal counsel to parolees, including assistance at hearings related to parole revocation charges. [43]

Changes made

This measure changed the procedures to be followed by the board when it considers the release from prison of inmates with a life sentence. Specifically:

Parole Suitability Outcomes

Marsy's law is one of several determining factors when denying an incarcerated individual parole suitability. If an individual is found unsuitable for parole, the board commissioners determine the incarcerated individual's denial length. Studies indicate a growing relationship between Marsy's Law and the next date of an incarcerated individual's suitability hearing. The board issued 5-year denials for only 18% of parole suitability cases presented to them before Marsy's Law. After Marsy's law, 57% of incarcerated individuals received a denial length longer than 5 years. [45] Statistics reveal that 70% of incarcerated individuals were denied parole in 2015. [46] Public safety concerns can be cited for the increase in denial lengths for incarcerated individuals. [47] An incarcerated individual may receive a shorter denial if commissioners are presented with evidence that reveals the incarcerated individual's potential suitability for parole. From all suitability hearings presented to the board, 75% of cases have received a denial length of 3 years or more. [48] Granting outcomes result in less parole and more lengthy denial with Marsy's Law.

Criticism

Distinction between government and accused

The ACLU has criticized Marsy's Law for undermining due process, [49] for being poorly drafted, and for being a threat to existing constitutional rights. 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.

Victims' rights are not rights against the state, but against another individual. The approach taken by Marsy's Law includes rights that could actually strengthen the state's hand against a defendant, undermining a bedrock principle of the U.S. legal system — the presumption of innocence. Parallels have been drawn to Title IX cases on campuses.

Marsy's Law has been used by prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence against police in states including:

Accused's right to evidence

Traditionally, a prosecutor is required to provide a defendant with evidence that could show innocence (exculpatory evidence). If the prosecution does not provide it, it may require a new trial. [50] Under Marsy's Law, however, a victim would be able to refuse to provide that evidence to the defendant, the court, and the jury. [51]

Criminal defense attorney Casey Hoff has criticized this loss of rights of an accused person who is still presumed innocent: [52]

The United States Constitution guarantees every person accused of a crime the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her and to obtain witnesses in his or her favor. Allowing alleged victims to refuse to provide evidence and discovery to the accused is, as we have learned throughout our history, the way innocent people get convicted of crimes and wrongfully imprisoned.

Prisoner Rights and Processes

Marsy's law was enacted in order to expand and assert victim rights and since the introduction of Marsy's Law, the number of prisoners serving life sentences has seen an increase. The United States as of 2021 currently has a lifer population of 203,000. [53] Ryan S. Appleby criticizes the consequences of Marsy's Law and the effects of demographics which place life-sentenced individuals at less of an advantage than those who voted for Marsy's Law. The life-serving individuals lacked the ability to counter the propositions of Marsy's Law on the lifer community. [54] Marsy's law has altered the rights and processes of incarcerated individuals further. [55]

Crime survivors are not parole suitability experts. Research conducted criticizes the factored weight of victim testimony during parole suitability hearings and grant outcomes. An incarcerated individual's parole suitability is affected by the crime victim's presence. The research indicates that parole denial will be a result of increased participation of crime survivors during suitability hearings. [56] A prisoner with low recidivism is faced with a board that decides parole suitability is not present due to victim participation. [57] Incarcerated individuals express the difficulty to reveal their efforts to re-enter their communities when victim participation decreases their chances for parole granting outcomes. [58] Criticisms raised the question of the fairness to the rights and processes of incarcerated individuals during their suitability hearings.

Newspaper endorsements

Editorial boards opposed

The Los Angeles Times encouraged a "no" vote on 9, saying, "If the concern is protection of families from further victimization, as proponents claim, that goal can be met without granting families a new and inappropriate role in prosecutions." [59]

Other editorial boards opposed:

  • Pasadena Star News [60]
  • Press Democrat [61]
  • Press Enterprise [62]
  • Tracy Press [63]
  • San Diego Union Tribune [64]
  • Orange County Register [65]
  • Sacramento Bee [66]
  • San Francisco Chronicle [67]
  • Bakersfield Californian [68]
  • La Opinion [69]
  • Fresno Bee [70]
  • Woodland Daily Democrat [71]
  • San Jose Mercury News [72]
  • Chico Enterprise-Record [73]
  • Stockton Record [74]
  • New York Times [75]
  • Contra Costa Times [76]
  • San Gabriel Valley Tribune [77]
  • Napa Valley Register [78]
  • Salinas Californian [79]
  • Monterey County Herald [80]
  • Long Beach Press-Telegram [81]
  • Desert Dispatch [82]
  • The Vacaville Reporter [83]
  • Los Angeles Daily News [84]
  • Santa Cruz Sentinel [85]
  • The Modesto Bee [86]

Editorial boards in favor

Results

Electoral results by county 2008 California Proposition 9 results map by county.svg
Electoral results by county
Proposition 9 [88]
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes6,682,46553.8
No5,728,96846.2
Valid votes12,411,43390.3
Invalid or blank votes1,331,7449.7
Total votes13,743,177100.00

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 11</span> Referendum on mandatory minimum sentences

Measure 11, also known as "One Strike You're Out", was a citizens' initiative passed in 1994 in the U.S. State of Oregon. This statutory enactment established mandatory minimum sentencing for several crimes. The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election with 788,695 votes in favor, and 412,816 votes against.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration. In some jurisdictions, the term probation applies only to community sentences, such as suspended sentences. In others, probation also includes supervision of those conditionally released from prison on parole. An offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer. During the period of probation, an offender faces the threat of being incarcerated if found breaking the rules set by the court or probation officer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in California</span>

Capital punishment is not allowed to be carried out in the U.S. state of California, due to both a standing 2006 federal court order against the practice and a 2019 moratorium on executions ordered by Governor Gavin Newsom. The litigation resulting in the court order has been on hold since the promulgation of the moratorium. Should the moratorium end and the freeze concluded, executions could resume under the current state law.

A parole board is a panel of people who decide whether an offender should be released from prison on parole after serving at least a minimum portion of their sentence as prescribed by the sentencing judge. Parole boards are used in many jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and New Zealand. A related concept is the board of pardons and paroles, which may deal with pardons and commutations as well as paroles.

Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), is a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling that held that laws permitting the compulsory sterilization of criminals are unconstitutional as it violates a person's rights given under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. The relevant Oklahoma law applied to "habitual criminals" but excluded white-collar crimes from carrying sterilization penalties.

In the United States, the Victims' Rights Amendment is a provision which has been included in some states' constitutions, proposed for other states, and additionally has been proposed for inclusion in the United States Constitution. Its provisions vary from state to state but are usually somewhat similar. There are likewise competing versions of the proposed federal amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steve Cooley</span> American politician and prosecutor

Stephen Lawrence Cooley is an American politician and prosecutor. He was the Los Angeles County District Attorney from 2000 to 2012. Cooley was re-elected in 2004 and again in 2008.

In the common law legal system, an expungement or expunction proceeding, is a type of lawsuit in which an individual who has been arrested for or convicted of a crime seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed or destroyed, making the records nonexistent or unavailable to the general public. If successful, the records are said to be "expunged". Black's Law Dictionary defines "expungement of record" as the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." While expungement deals with an underlying criminal record, it is a civil action in which the subject is the petitioner or plaintiff asking a court to declare that the records be expunged.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 6</span>

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT people in prison</span> Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people in prison

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people face difficulties in prison such as increased vulnerability to sexual assault, other kinds of violence, and trouble accessing necessary medical care. While much of the available data on LGBTQ inmates comes from the United States, Amnesty International maintains records of known incidents internationally in which LGBTQ prisoners and those perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender have suffered torture, ill-treatment and violence at the hands of fellow inmates as well as prison officials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1982 California Proposition 8</span>

Proposition 8, a law enacted by California voters on 8 June 1982 by the initiative process, restricted the rights of convicts and those suspected of crimes and extended the rights of victims. To do so, it amended the California Constitution and ordinary statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marcella Leach</span> American victims rights advocate

Marcella Nicholas Leach was an American victims' rights advocate based in Southern California and the mother of businessman Henry Nicholas. After the murder of her daughter, Marsalee (Marsy) Nicholas in 1983, she helped build Justice for Homicide Victims, one of California's early victims' rights organizations. Her late daughter is the namesake for Marsy's Law, the California Constitutional Amendment and Victims' Bill of Rights, which appeared on the November, 2008, ballot as Proposition 9.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michael Fell</span> American lawyer

Michael L. Fell is a California criminal lawyer and former prosecutor, who concentrates in representing victims under Marsy's Law, the state constitutional amendment that guarantees legal rights for victims of crime. He is the founder of Justice 4 Crime Victims (J4CV), representing crime victims and their families during the criminal prosecution of their offenders. J4CV offers legal representation to crime victims before, during and after the perpetrators have been tried for their crimes. Fell has represented victims' families in such notable cases as the molestation-murder of San Diego teenager Chelsea King, and the deaths at the hands of a drunken driver of major league baseball pitcher Nick Adenhart, aspiring sports agent Henry Pearson and Cal State Fullerton cheer leading beauty Courtney Stewart, as well as the serious injury of former Cal State Fullerton baseball great Jon Wilhite.

Prison overcrowding in the United States is a social phenomenon occurring when the demand for space in a U.S. prison exceeds the capacity for prisoners. The issues associated with prison overcrowding are not new, and have been brewing for many years. During the United States' War on Drugs, the states were left responsible for solving the prison overcrowding issue with a limited amount of money. Moreover, federal prison populations may increase if states adhere to federal policies, such as mandatory minimum sentences. On the other hand, the Justice Department provides billions of dollars a year for state and local law enforcement to ensure they follow the policies set forth by the federal government concerning U.S. prisons. Prison overcrowding has affected some states more than others, but overall, the risks of overcrowding are substantial and there are solutions to this problem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 36</span> Referendum changing the three-strikes law

Proposition 36, also titled A Change in the "Three Strikes Law" Initiative, was a California ballot measure that was passed in November 2012 to modify California's Three Strikes Law. The latter law punishes habitual offenders by establishing sentence escalation for crimes that were classified as "strikes", and requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 to life for a "third-strike offense."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felony disenfranchisement in the United States</span> Prohibiting criminals from voting in elections in the United States

In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation. Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense. In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens. As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens. As suffrage rights are generally bestowed by state law, state felony disenfranchisement laws also apply to elections to federal offices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marsy's Law (Illinois)</span> Illinois law establishing protections for crime victims

Marsy's Law for Illinois, formally called the Illinois Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, amended the 1993 Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act by establishing additional protections for crime victims and their families. Voters approved the measure as a constitutional amendment on November 4, 2014. It became law in 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 17</span> Restores right-to-vote after completion of prison term

The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illinois Crime Victim Rights Amendment</span>

On November 3, 1992, Illinois voters approved the Crime Victim Rights Amendment, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment which added Article I, Section 8.1 to the Illinois Constitution of 1970. This amendment guaranteed crime victims certain rights, including the right to receive information about cases in which they are involved.

References

  1. ↑ "Voter Information Guide for 2008, General Election". University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
  2. 1 2 3 Marsy's Law Victims' Bill of Rights, California Attorney General, January 20, 2012, retrieved December 18, 2015
  3. ↑ Marsy's Law: Harmful to Defendants, Civil Liberties Law Review, November 10, 2018, retrieved November 5, 2021
  4. ↑ Marsy's Law was meant to protect crime victims. It now hides the identities of cops who use force., USA Today, October 29, 2020, retrieved November 5, 2021
  5. ↑ Controversial victims' rights amendment Marsy's Law wins majority support; still faces court challenge, Pennsylvania Capital-Star, November 5, 2019, retrieved November 5, 2021
  6. ↑ Ballot Measures, CNN Politics, November 6, 2018, retrieved November 6, 2018
  7. ↑ Montana Association of Counties v. State by and Through Fox, 404 P.3d 733 (Mon. 2017)
  8. ↑ American Civil Liberties Union (November 1, 2017), Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down Marsy's Law as Unconstitutional – ACLU Lawsuit Voids CI-116 , retrieved November 6, 2018
  9. ↑ "League of Women Voters of PA v. Degraffenreid". ACLU Pennsylvania. American Civil Liberties Union. October 17, 2019. Retrieved June 25, 2022.
  10. ↑ Tracy Wilkinson (April 25, 1988), "Families of Crime Victims Share Grief, Resolve", Los Angeles Times , p. 8, retrieved December 18, 2015
  11. ↑ Julia Reynolds (September 26, 2007), "Rally Backs Victim Rights", The Monterey County Herald , p. B1, retrieved December 18, 2015
  12. ↑ "Kerry Michael Conley Obituary (2008) Los Angeles Times". Legacy.com . January 27, 2008.
  13. ↑ "On victims' day, Henry Nicholas recalls sister – Home – the Orange County Register". articles.ocregister.com. Archived from the original on July 10, 2012. Retrieved May 22, 2022.
  14. ↑ "On victims' day, Henry Nicholas recalls sister". April 20, 2010.
  15. 1 2 "Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law". January 20, 2012.
  16. ↑ "Marsy's Law proposal", Orange County Register , February 25, 2008
  17. ↑ "Marsy's Law for All – Fighting to Guarantee Basic Rights for All Victims". Archived from the original on March 8, 2012. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
  18. ↑ "Marsy's Card". August 14, 2021.
  19. ↑ "Serving Victims". December 27, 2010.
  20. ↑ Training, State of California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and. "Regular Basic Course Training Specifications". post.ca.gov.
  21. ↑ "Victims' rights supporters march to remember lost friends, family". Archived from the original on December 31, 2010. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
  22. ↑ ""Marsy's Law" Has Significantly Improved Victims' Rights, Henry Nicholas Tells Rally".
  23. ↑ School, Stanford Law. "Stanford Criminal Justice Center Issues First Major Study of California Prisoners Serving Life Sentences With Possibility of Parole". www.prnewswire.com (Press release).
  24. ↑ Richardson, Laura Lienhart (October 3, 2018). "Impact of Marsy's Law on Parole in California: An Empirical Study". doi:10.2139/ssrn.1878594. S2CID   152389409. SSRN   1878594.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. ↑ "California Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review on Marsy's Law Cases". uscpcjp.com. July 20, 2011.
  26. ↑ Tareen, Sophia (October 20, 2015). "Illinois voters to face a rare 5 ballot questions". The Associated Press . Retrieved November 2, 2015.
  27. ↑ Kremer, Rich (April 13, 2020). "Wisconsin Voters Approve State Constitutional Amendment Known As Marsy's Law". Wisconsin Public Radio. Retrieved April 14, 2020.
  28. ↑ Bluestein, Greg (February 1, 2016). "A national effort for "victims" rights' legislation is headed to Georgia". Atlanta Journal & Constitution . Retrieved May 15, 2017.
  29. ↑ "Hawaii lawmakers consider crime victims' right-to-know bill". KHON-TV . March 3, 2015. Retrieved November 2, 2015.
  30. ↑ Carter, Troy (October 25, 2015). "Elections 2016: Montana ballot measures proposed on marijuana, guns, criminal justice". Bozeman Daily Chronicle . Retrieved November 2, 2015.
  31. ↑ Corona, Marcella (June 12, 2015). "Bills to help child above, revenge porn victims". Reno Gazette-Journal . Retrieved December 7, 2015.
  32. ↑ Mercer, Bob (October 26, 2015). "Panel studying child sexual abuse seems inclined to favor victim-rights amendment". Rapid City Journal . Retrieved November 2, 2015.
  33. ↑ "Marsy's Law for Florida" . Retrieved August 20, 2018.
  34. ↑ "Maine - Marsy's Law" . Retrieved March 3, 2018.
  35. ↑ Campbell, Colin. "Crime victims would get new rights under plan that could go to NC voters". newsobserver. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  36. ↑ "League of Women Voters of PA v. Degraffenreid". ACLU Pennsylvania. American Civil Liberties Union. October 17, 2019. Retrieved June 25, 2022.
  37. ↑ "Statement of Purpose and Intent". January 20, 2012. Archived from the original on July 25, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  38. 1 2 "Proposition 8 And Crime Rates In California: The Case Of The Disappearing Deterrent" (PDF). www3.thestar.com. Toronto. 2006.
  39. ↑ "Victim-Witness: Marsy's Law – Alameda County District Attorney's Office". www.alcoda.org.
  40. ↑ "Marsy's Law – Criminal Appeal Victim Notification". January 20, 2012.
  41. ↑ Lagos, Marisa (February 18, 2010). "Rapist Moved From School Area/ Residents picketed boarding house". The San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on March 6, 2010.
  42. ↑ "Corrections Statistics for the State of California". Archived from the original on July 25, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  43. ↑ "Marsy's Law: Crime Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008 Campaign Announcement". Business Wire. April 16, 2008. Archived from the original on April 29, 2009.
  44. ↑ "Release No. 10-10, Ninth Circuit Reinstates Proposition 9 Parole Reforms". www.cjlf.org.
  45. ↑ Richardson, Laura Lienhart (May 16, 2011). "Impact of Marsy's Law on Parole in California: An Empirical Study". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1878594. S2CID   152389409. SSRN   1878594.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  46. ↑ "The Perils of Parole Hearings: California Lifers, Performative Disadvantage, and the Ideology of Insight". ResearchGate. Retrieved May 29, 2022.
  47. ↑ Friedman, David R.; Robinson, Jackie M. (2014). "Rebutting the Presumption: An Empirical Analysis of Parole Deferrals Under Marsy's Law". Stanford Law Review. 66 (1): 173–215. ISSN   0038-9765. JSTOR   24246731.
  48. ↑ Richardson, Laura Lienhart (May 16, 2011). "Impact of Marsy's Law on Parole in California: An Empirical Study". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1878594. S2CID   152389409. SSRN   1878594.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  49. ↑ Jeanne Hruska (May 3, 2018), "Victims" Rights' Proposals Like Marsy's Law Undermine Due Process, ACLU
  50. ↑ Justice 101: Discovery, Office of the United States Attorneys, November 7, 2014
  51. ↑ Jeanne Hruska & Holly Welborn (November 30, 2018), In Major Threat to Due Process, Marsy's Law Gains Ground Nationwide, ACLU
  52. ↑ Casey Hoff (January 11, 2019), Wisconsin: Marsy's Law has good intentions, but endangers accused's rights, Sheboygan Press
  53. ↑ "The Washington Post: Study: 1 in 7 U.S. prisoners is serving life, and two-thirds of those are people of color – Campaign to End Life Imprisonment" . Retrieved May 29, 2022.
  54. ↑ "Proposition 9, Marsy's Law: An Ill-Suited Ballot Initiative and the (Predictably) Unsatisfactory Results - Note by Ryan S. Appleby". Southern California Law Review. January 2, 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  55. ↑ "Proposition 9, Marsy's Law: An Ill-Suited Ballot Initiative and the (Predictably) Unsatisfactory Results - Note by Ryan S. Appleby". Southern California Law Review. January 2, 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  56. ↑ "Victims, Punishment, and Parole: The Effect of Victim Participation on Parole Hearings | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  57. ↑ "Experts question role of victims, survivors in parole hearings". sanquentinnews.com. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  58. ↑ "Experts question role of victims, survivors in parole hearings". sanquentinnews.com. Retrieved May 29, 2022.
  59. ↑ "Los Angeles Times - California, national and world news". Los Angeles Times .
  60. ↑ Pasadena Star News, "Vote "no" on props. 6 and 9", October 6, 2008 Archived July 21, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  61. ↑ Press Democrat, "Wrong Way," September 8, 2008 Archived July 20, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  62. ↑ Press Enterprise, "No on 9," September 12, 2008 Archived July 21, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  63. ↑ Newspapers, Golden State (September 15, 2023). "Tracy Press". Golden State Newspapers.
  64. ↑ "San Diego Union Tribune, "No on Prop 9: Measure is poorly drafted and wrongheaded," September 25, 2008".
  65. ↑ Orange County Register, "California Prop. 9 Editorial: Unnecessary tinkering with constitution," October 2, 2008 Archived December 5, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  66. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Proposition 9", October 9, 2008 Archived October 16, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  67. ↑ "Props. 6 and 9 are budget busters". Sfgate. October 9, 2008.
  68. ↑ "Bakersfield Californian, "Ballot-box budgeting: Vote NO on Props 6 and 9," October 9, 2008".
  69. ↑ "La Opinion, "Two Measures to Reject," October 12, 2008".
  70. ↑ Fresno Bee, "Vote "no" on Proposition 9, an ill-considered crime victims bill," October 13, 2008. [ permanent dead link ]
  71. ↑ "Woodland Daily Democrat, "Voters should turn down Props. 5, 6, and 9", October 14, 2008". Archived from the original on July 8, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  72. ↑ "Editorial: Proposition 9 would increase prison costs; vote no". October 14, 2008.
  73. ↑ "Chico Enterprise-Record, "Flawed measures should be rejected," October 16, 2008". Archived from the original on August 8, 2010. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  74. ↑ Record, The. "Mostly thumbs down".
  75. ↑ "Opinion - Fiscal Disaster in California". The New York Times. October 10, 2008.
  76. ↑ "Times recommendations on California propositions". October 18, 2008.
  77. ↑ San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Propositions in Review," October 19, 2008. Archived June 14, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  78. ↑ "Vote no on Proposition 9". October 16, 2008.
  79. ↑ Salinas Californian, "Vote no on state Props. 5, 6 and 9," October 18, 2008. Archived December 19, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
  80. ↑ "Monterey County Herald, "Proposition endorsements," October 17, 2008". Archived from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  81. ↑ Long Beach Press-Telegram, "No on Proposition 9," October 4, 2008. [ permanent dead link ]
  82. ↑ Desert Dispatch, "Victims' Rights Yes, Amendment No," October 8, 2008
  83. ↑ "The Reporter, "Vote No on Prop. 9," October 22, 2008". Archived from the original on July 17, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  84. ↑ "Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Props. 5, 6, and 9". Los Angeles Daily News . Archived from the original on June 21, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  85. ↑ "Santa Cruz Sentinel, "As We See It: Vote No on Props. 6 and 9," October 15, 2008". Archived from the original on June 11, 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2010.
  86. ↑ Modesto Bee, "Prop. 9 is too ambitious," October 9 2008. [ permanent dead link ]
  87. ↑ Eureka Reporter, "The Eureka Reporter recommends," October 14, 2008 Archived September 26, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  88. ↑ "Statement of Vote: 2008 General Election" (PDF). California Secretary of State. December 13, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 18, 2012.

Media

Short edit of full length promotional video for Marsy's Law.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.