No: It could backfire against victims by complicating, delaying justice

State Issue 1 would place a Crime Victim’s Bill of Rights in the Ohio Constitution. Members of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association are sensitive to the needs and wishes of victims. We do our utmost to pursue justice on their behalf and we strongly support their rights to have their privacy protected; to be treated with respect; to receive adequate notices; and to be heard. We are concerned, however, that Issue 1 in fact creates serious impediments to these important rights and could damage the interests of victims. Because of this, we urge voters to vote no on Issue 1.

Marsy’s Law is not a response to an Ohio problem. Marsy’s Law was first adopted in California, where the mother of a young woman who had been murdered was confronted in a grocery store by the accused murderer. In response, Marsy’s brother successfully backed a victim’s bill of rights in California. He has since proposed and backed similar proposals in other states.

The Ohio Constitution already affords victims the rights to reasonable and appropriate notice, information, protection, and to a meaningful role in the criminal-justice process. Chapter 2930 of the Revised Code is devoted to victims’ rights. It obligates prosecutors to confer with victims to the extent practicable. It requires that victims receive notice of proceedings, have identification information protected, be notified of substantial delays in the case with an opportunity to object, and gives them the right to be present for portions of a trial conducted on the record, unless otherwise limited by the court.

Marsy’s Law could be bad for victims. Legal protections for victims need to be adaptable. Statutes can be changed, and Ohio’s prosecuting attorneys stand ready to work with others to strengthen the Revised Code. A constitutional amendment is not adaptable. It is set in stone, as are its deficiencies.

In addition to the direct victim of a crime, Issue 1 includes in the definition of “victim” anyone who is “proximately harmed by the commission of the offense or act.” This definition is too broad. Because the proposal requires notice to victims and grants them the right to be present at proceedings, the definition could require notice to family members, extended family members, or even corporations.

This could create a scheduling quagmire for courts and will lead to conflicts with a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The notice requirement might require that notice be given to family members even when the direct victim would prefer to keep the matter private. All of this could be detrimental to the direct victim.

Marsy’s Law could negatively impact Ohio communities. The amendment grants “the victim’s . . . lawful representative” the right to assert a victim’s rights. Courts could determine that this grants the victim the right to an attorney. The victim would then have the right to a court-appointed attorney if indigent.

Taxpayers could be paying for the prosecutor; for counsel for an indigent defendant; and for counsel for an indigent victim. This duplication of responsibilities and costs is bad enough in one case. Multiplied by thousands of cases each year, it could delay justice at best and deny it at worst.

Ohio’s prosecutors applaud advocates for victims. They deserve praise for raising awareness of the cause and plight of victims of crime, and we stand ready to work with all to improve victim’s rights in a meaningful way. Enshrining Marsy’s Law in Ohio’s Constitution in response to a problem case in California, however, is not beneficial. Ohioans should be concerned about the consequences for our justice system.

We urge you to vote no on Issue 1.