THE PROPOSITIONS: Prop 9 – Victims’ Rights

USC students Kelsey Clark, Steffi Lau, and Maria Niklas wrote about the very confusing Proposition 9, the so-called Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights. (Frankly, I thought they each did a better job in explaining the issue than the talking head who was talking about Prop. 9 on NPR station, KPCC the other day.)

After writing their stories on Prop. 9, both Kelsey and Maria decided they would vote NO on the measure, while Steffi was on the fence. Eventually she decided she would go with a YES vote.

Read what they have to say, and decide what you think.

************************************************************************************************************

KELSEY CLARK

Amidst all of the controversy surrounding the upcoming election, Proposition 9 on the California ballots seems to be slipping through under the radar. The proposed legislation would add a Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights to the state Constitution and delegate additional funding for prisons.

Proposition 9 would change the state Constitution to require that crime victims be notified and consulted on developments in their cases. It would give victims first claim on any restitution to be collected from offenders, and it would force prosecutors to take their opinions into account. In addition, the proposal would bring fewer parole hearing for the most serious offenders and give victims opportunity to give input at criminal parole hearings. The bill would delegate funding to insure that all California prisons have sufficient money to keep prisoners incarcerated for their full sentence. Currently, the prisons don’t have the funds, which leads to early release for some prisoners due to overcrowding.

Supporters of the bill believe that victims of crimes are unfairly treated in the current system. Friends of Marsy’s, a group of individuals in favor of Proposition 9, describe its member as “concerned citizens who want to balance the scales of justice.” These supporters believe “victims and survivors will be treated with respect and dignity in all phases of the criminal process.”

People in opposition find Proposal 9 to be an “expensive and unnecessary effort to reform California’s prison system.” Majority of the opposition arises from great amount of spending that the bill requests. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley adds that it could violate prisoners’ constitutional rights. Cooley argues that if prisoners aren’t able to reapply for parole for up to 15 years, there will be less motivation to reform.

Make an informed decision at this upcoming election. For more information, both groups have created websites expressing their beliefs: http://www.votenoprop9.com/ and http://www.friendsofmarsyslaw.org/

*****************************************************************************************************************

STEFFI LAU

California voters will have to make a choice between criminals’ rights and victims’ rights on Nov. 4.

Proposition 9, or Marsy’s Law, would establish a Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights in the California constitution, ensuring victims’ rights in a process that some say keep victims out of the loop.

“I remember the moment when my son, Reginald, was murdered. I didn’t have a clue of my rights. No one told me and my husband nothing,” said Lawanda Hawkins, who supports Prop. 9, to ABC7. “We didn’t know we had rights.”

Prop. 9 would give crime victims the right to be notified of any criminal proceedings and would allow their input in parole hearings. Payments of restitution to victims would be required. Any money collected from offenders would have to go to the payment of restitution before any other obligations. In addition, while prison inmates can currently request parole hearings every one to five years, the measure would lengthen that time period to 15 years.

Opponents to the proposition say this could potentially discourage good behavior in prison since there would be less incentive. They also say that victims’ rights are already protected under state law, resulting in repetitive laws if the measure is passed. Opponents also argue that the measure gives victims too much influence in the judicial proces, potentially making the trials biased.
Prop. 9 would also increase the circumstances under which a juvenile can be tried as an adult. It would prevent the early release of inmates to reduce jail overcrowding, a practice that is currently allowed. Supporters of the measure say that this practice allows the release of dangerous criminals into the streets.

However, opponents of Prop. 9 say that the measure would be detrimental to California’s jail system which is already overcrowded and facing a lack of money.

From an economic perspective, many worry that the costs for law enforcement, prosecution, and victim notification would cost the state millions in an already tight budget. However, supporters of the measure say it would actually save money by reducing the frequency of parole hearings.

Steffi Lau was against Prop. 9, but has now decided for it

*************************************************************************************************************

MARIA NIKLAS

Victim’s rights or criminal’s rights? You decide.

Some citizens are up in arms claiming proposition 9 is an unnecessary addition to the criminal justice system, while others see it as a necessary step to better criminal victim’s rights.

If passed, Proposition 9 will institute in California’s Constitution a “Crime Victims Bill of Rights” in hopes to give criminal victims the right to information and the right to be heard during hearings. For example, the measure will give victims and the family the right to hear updates on criminal proceedings and will be notified when a criminal is released.

Victims will also be given the constitutional right to decline the release of their personal information, which supporters argue will further ensure a victim’s personal privacy. While proposition 9 gives victims additional rights, family members of a victim will also gain new rights. For instance, family members will be given the right to choose a representative to speak during hearings. Supporters of proposition 9 believe instilling the measure will guarantee the safety of victims, increase the justice in violent crime and give victims justified rights.

However, citizens who argue against proposition 9 , believe the measure will instead give victims an “inappropriate” role in prosecutions and take away the rights of criminals. For instance, the number of hearings for a prisoner will be significantly reduced, and a victim will have influence on a criminal’s prosecution. By reducing the number of hearings and concerning the victim in prosecution decisions, proposition 9 would increase victim’s rights while taking away a criminal’s rights. Not only do people argue a victim shouldn’t influence a prisoner’s punishment, but also argue that “engraving” proposition 9 into the constitution will limit the possibility to update or change the law.

Putting the prisoner’s rights aside, the Legislative Analyst warns there could also be a loss of future state savings for prisons and an increase in county jail operations costs. While California is currently encountering a budget crisis, the money spent towards proposition 9 could cut funds toward education, health care and the prison system.