Nevada ballot questions 2018

So, does question 1 give crime victims more rights, or just inform them of rights they already have? For a while there I had am image in my head of crime victims being read something like the Miranda rights, perhaps call them the Marsy Rights.

Quote: rxwine

While I see the appeal of your rewrite, the point of the justice system should be neither.

After all, if you are falsely accused of a crime you'll want the justice system to be robust, treat you fairly and hopefully render you proper justice and not convict you with uneven balance weighted towards victims. One would think, right?



(no scoffing allowed at our imperfect justice system, but we should still keep hammering for ideals)

I was responding to the questions posed by Wiz, not the ballot measures verbatim. : )

Then after you responded, I had to go read the darn thing. Sheesh, way more than I wanted to know. https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/election/Documents/2018/NV1-18G.pdf

From link: "ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
Question 1, commonly known as Marsy’s Law, expands and elevates victims’ rights from a statutory
level to a constitutional level to ensure victims receive the fairness, respect and protection they deserve
as they navigate the criminal or juvenile justice process. Question 1 gives crime victims constitutional
rights equal in stature to those given to the accused and convicted."

Arguments against: Question 1 also creates complex and costly burdens on the State and local governments. The expanded
notification provisions will likely require additional staff, technological changes and other resources, all
of which will be paid for by taxpayers.

It always boils down to the money. Arguments that the measure will diminish funds the state wants? They already have asset confiscation.

When I first read it and during my reply I vacillated >once whether to use innocent or victim in my response. I thought of them interchangeably.

I envisioned poor victims like single mothers victimized by bullying ex's. or who had had their property ruined maliciously. I am more concerned with them continuing their pursuit of happiness, than the victimizer.

Either way it goes, it is a giant can of worms.

Quote: petroglyph

Either way it goes, it is a giant can of worms.

It's probably not a bad idea to make sure you know what you're getting on a proposition. It will probably show up again in some form if enough people believe in it.

I vote for very few of them most times.

Quote: rxwine

It's probably not a bad idea to make sure you know what you're getting on a proposition. It will probably show up again in some form if enough people believe in it.

I vote for very few of them most times.

I think AZ was the first state to have a "plain language" law that showed the legal wording at the polling but beside it had something most people could understand. When I lived there they once had 2 measures that if passed would contradict each other completely. I forget how that ended up.

Quote: AZDuffman

When I lived there they once had 2 measures that if passed would contradict each other completely. I forget how that ended up.

That happened here too, in 2006. Both called themselves "clean air" acts, but one was a trick (prop 4), giving smokers more rights and access, while prop 5 truly banned smoking in public places that served food, including bars, but having some exemptions for "casinos."

I don't remember what was supposed to happen if both passed, but they would have completely contradicted each other. However, only prop 5 was passed, which I was very pleased for. However, the legislature quietly overturned it five years later.

Just goes to show why I oppose the general idea of propositions in the first place. This is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy.

Quote: Wizard

Just goes to show why I oppose the general idea of propositions in the first place. This is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy.

Just saw a piece on the "more rights" one (love working from home!) Basically it just forces the courts to give the victim information about the proceedings of the case. Might also seal the victims personal info from the perp, the woman on TV said her perp was given her home and work addresses, supposedly so he would steer clear of them. Kind of crazy there.

So I would vote "yes" on that one. It is kind of what I figured it was about.

Quote: AZDuffman

Basically it just forces the courts to give the victim information about the proceedings of the case.
So I would vote "yes" on that one. It is kind of what I figured it was about.

Victims already have 8 rights in Nevada. In theory the first right should cover the general question of finding out about proceedings. The question is are the current set of right s inadequate. The Wizard's daughter may say yes, and the additional requirements are a redundant expense.


To know the status of the case in which you are involved
To be free from intimidation or dissuasion
To know when your impounded property may be released.
To receive a witness fee for lawful obedience to a subpoena.
To understand the existing victim compensation laws and receive compensation if applicable.
To a secure waiting area, which is not available to the defendant or his family, when you are at court.
To know when the defendant is released from custody before or during trial (upon written request).
To know when the offender is released from prison (upon written request).

Quote: Pacomartin

Victims already have 8 rights in Nevada. In theory the first right should cover the general question of finding out about proceedings.

If I heard it correctly the difference is making notifications active vs. passive.

Quote: Wizard

For a while there I had am image in my head of crime victims being read something like the Miranda rights, perhaps call them the Marsy Rights.

It is a Bill of Rights, but I don't think there is a standard sentence you must read. I don't know how they enact right #17.

Marsy’s Law significantly expands the rights of victims in California. Under Marsy’s Law, the California Constitution article I, § 28, section (b) now provides victims with the following enumerated rights:

1. To be treated with fairness and respect for his or her privacy and dignity, and to be free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile justice process.
2. To be reasonably protected from the defendant and persons acting on behalf of the defendant.
3. To have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in fixing the amount of bail and release conditions for the defendant.
4. To prevent the disclosure of confidential information or records to the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, which could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family or which disclose confidential communications made in the course of medical or counseling treatment, or which are otherwise privileged or confidential by law.
5. To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.
6. To reasonable notice of and to reasonably confer with the prosecuting agency, upon request, regarding, the arrest of the defendant if known by the prosecutor, the charges filed, the determination whether to extradite the defendant, and, upon request, to be notified of and informed before any pretrial disposition of the case.
7. To reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including delinquency proceedings, upon request, at which the defendant and the prosecutor are entitled to be present and of all parole or other post-conviction release proceedings, and to be present at all such proceedings.
8. To be heard, upon request, at any proceeding, including any delinquency proceeding, involving a post-arrest release decision, plea, sentencing, post-conviction release decision, or any proceeding in which a right of the victim is at issue.
9. To a speedy trial and a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings.
10. To provide information to a probation department official conducting a pre-sentence investigation concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim’s family and any sentencing recommendations before the sentencing of the defendant.
11. To receive, upon request, the pre-sentence report when available to the defendant, except for those portions made confidential by law.
12. To be informed, upon request, of the conviction, sentence, place and time of incarceration, or other disposition of the defendant, the scheduled release date of the defendant, and the release of or the escape by the defendant from custody.
    
13. To restitution.
    It is the unequivocal intention of the People of the State of California that all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to seek and secure restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes causing the losses they suffer.
    Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.
    All monetary payments, monies, and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to pay the amounts ordered as restitution to the victim.
    
14. To the prompt return of property when no longer needed as evidence.
15. To be informed of all parole procedures, to participate in the parole process, to provide information to the parole authority to be considered before the parole of the offender, and to be notified, upon request, of the parole or other release of the offender.
16. To have the safety of the victim, the victim’s family, and the general public considered before any parole or other post-judgment release decision is made.
17. To be informed of the rights enumerated in paragraphs (1) through (16).

This has been playing on TV a lot in Tampa
Pretty powerful