Marsy's Law is good in theory, unconstitutional in practice
Last week, pending litigation from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), voters in Pennsylvania overwhelmingly approved a statewide ballot referendum to enact Marsy’s Law into their state constitution. Similar referendums have also been approved in 14 other states, including six in 2018. Marsy’s Law is designed to protect the rights of crime victims, and it has support from a broad array of advocacy groups across the political spectrum.
The proposed statewide referendums and duplicative, unnecessary ballot questions are designed to appear as a “feel-good” measure. After all, who doesn’t oppose safety and rights for the victims of murder, rape and assault? The rights of crime victims are valuable and should be enforced at the highest level, and it’s important to note that the federal government and all 50 states have passed legislation protecting the rights of crime victims, but the national Marsy’s Law push is flawed. It sets a dangerous standard with regard to the rights of people who are accused of crimes, which are bedrock principles in our Constitution, rooted from the Magna Carta. Here’s why.
The rights of victims are only designed to provide restitution or recompense to an individual. To the contrary, the rights of the accused are designed to protect an individual against the awesome power of the state. By advocating for conviction, the state attempts to deprive an individual of their property rights, their liberty and, in some cases, their life. While supporters of Marsy’s Law argue that the amendment promotes fairness and assures equal rights for victims, our Constitution purposely places the rights of the accused above the rights of victims. This is not because we value the perpetrators of crimes over the victims of crime, but because we fear government aggrandizement and abuse.
The constitutional amendment template, provided by the organization “Marsy’s Law for All,” provides crime victims with the right to be notified; the right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition or parole; the right to refuse an interview or deposition at the request of the accused and the right to restitution. Furthermore, it defines a victim as not just the person harmed or their immediate relatives, but also anyone who has a listed relationship with the victim. This does not provide equal rights for crime victims, but rather strengthens the hand of the state against the accused.
The rights of the accused to due process, impartial trial by jury, cross-examination of witnesses and assistance of counsel are granted in our Bill of Rights, and supporters of Marsy’s Law should recognize and respect this. We should be focusing on enforcing our current laws with respect to crime victims’ rights, rather than intruding on the unalienable principles that are the basis of a fair and impartial trial.
