With so many controversial propositions on the ballot in California’s November election, it was easy to overlook Proposition 9, also known as the Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008 or Marsy’s Law. Prop 9 was passed by just over 50% of voters, despite wide opposition from many groups, including the ACLU, the Democrat Party, the teacher and firefighter unions, all major state newspapers, and even the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.
Opponents take issue with many of Pro 9’s provisions. First, by requiring prosecutors to notify crime victims’ families at each stage of proceedings, it may create huge new public liability. Specifically, under Prop 9, the District Attorney and sometimes judges must seek victims’ opinions prior to deciding which charges to file, whether or not to let a defendant post bail, which plea agreements the prosecution may accept, and what probation conditions to impose.
Prop 9 allows crime victims’ families, who are often (understandably) filled with a desire for vengeance, to impact a system that strives to be impartial. Should these biased individuals who usually lack a firm knowledge of police, court, and prison procedure really be allowed to exert such a strong influence on the criminal justice system? Prop 9 may also cause the District Attorney to more vigorously pursue those cases involving the most tenacious families, leaving victims with less vocal or connected families to endure a lesser standard of justice.
Additionally, Prop 9 may be a waste of time – and money. First, some say it merely reiterates laws already in place. For example, judges regularly slap victims’ attackers with restraining orders. And California already passed a “Victims Bill of Rights Act,” which guarantees people the right to notification of and the right to present at sentencing and parole hearings; the Act also orders offenders to pay victims restitution. Moreover, opponents claim that the California Supreme Court will likely strike down Prop 9 because it fundamentally overhauls the prosecutor’s role within the criminal justice system by making the D.A. represent crime victims rather than the state. By doing so, Prop 9 could muddy criminal prosecutions by converting victims into independent parties who can oppose sentences and refuse to comply with defense attorneys’ requests.
Finally, implementing Prop 9 is simply not feasible during this time of financial crisis. Not only is California’s budget strained, the state prison system is in crises. Recently, the feds ordered California to spend $8 billion to fix its ailing prison medical facilities to conform to federal standards. By imposing tougher parole eligibility requirements and severely limiting early releases while California prisons are at 200% capacity, Prop 9 just doesn’t make sense.
While Prop 9 was enacted with good intentions, California cannot afford to implement a measure which will ultimately fail to serve its intended purpose while unfairly burdening an already over-stressed budget.