Advocates for a Hawaii Victims’ Bill of Rights are asking state lawmakers to pass a measure that will spell out the rights of crime victims in the state Constitution.

Hawaii is among 18 states that do not have a constitutional provision that protects victims’ rights. While victims and their families have statutory rights, victims’ advocates maintain they’re not enforceable.

The proposed bill, known as Marsy’s Law, is based on the California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008. It aims to provide a balance between the rights of crime victims and offenders in the criminal justice system, supporters say.

While both victims and offenders have legal rights, criminal defendants have constitutional rights in place on both state and federal levels that must be enforced. Examples include the right to a speedy trial and the right to remain silent.

“Over time criminal defendants were given a lot of rights, at a statutory level, a state constitutional level and a federal level,” said Stacy Evensen, director of the organization Marsy’s Law for Hawaii, said last week. “However, over time crime victims were not given the same level of protections. Right now there’s a pretty significant imbalance.”

Marsy’s Law proposes an amendment to the state Constitution — to be presented to voters at the next general election — to make victims’ rights enforceable.

Some of the rights that are listed in the bill would ensure that victims and their surviving immediate family would be “treated with courtesy, fairness and respect for their dignity and privacy throughout the criminal justice process.” Victims would also have to be informed of their constitutional rights and any available financial assistance and other services available for crime victims and witnesses.

“What Marsy’s Law is seeking to do is to put victim rights on the same constitutional level as the rights that are afforded to defendants,” said Evensen. “Nothing more, nothing less.”

The bill would also make sure that victims are notified of any court proceedings and have the right to attend and speak in court.

“This will help victims to participate in the court proceedings, which will allow them to feel that they’re treated fairly with respect, but it will also allow for that closure and healing,” said Evensen. “That’s an important thing for families: to feel like they gave their voice, that they had a voice and that they were able to comment.”

The bill would require that victims also be given protection from physical harm and be notified of any changes made to their offender’s whereabouts.

Last year both the House and Senate held hearings on versions of House Bill 1144 and Senate Bill 679 but deferred the matter until this year’s session.

In written testimony last year, Department of Public Safety Director Nolan Espinda opposed the measure because he said it would contribute to population growth in community correctional centers. “If victims have a constitutional right to participate in these processes and deliberations, the rate of release will decline, as more likely than not, victims would oppose release on furlough or parole,” Espinda said.

Another opponent of the bill, the Department of the Attorney General, expressed concern last year in written testimony that the victims’ rights could have a negative impact on the criminal justice process. For example, ensuring that the victim is present in court proceedings could lead to scheduling conflicts if the victim is unable to attend the assigned date.

Evensen said the legislators’ decision to hold out for a revised version of the bill is a step in the right direction.

“That was very encouraging because they didn’t kill the bill,” she said. “We believe that they recognized the merit and the issue. Any time you tackle opening up the Constitution to amend it, one does not do that without good reason and very carefully. It’s appropriate that legislators are taking their time to look over the issue.”

Advocates for Marsy’s Law, state legislators and prosecutors spent time over the summer discussing changes in the bill’s language.

Rep. Karl Rhoads (D, Chinatown-Iwilei-Kalihi), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is hoping to have a new version of the bill drafted before Feb. 19.

“We’re still working on the language, but the plan is to pass something out and use last year’s bill and amend it,” Rhoads said. “It’s a constitutional amendment, so we just want to be sure we got one that was flexible enough to be able to adapt to future circumstances but still cover the victims’ rights issue.”

Sen. Gilbert Keith-Agaran (D, Waihee-Wailuku-Kahului), chairman of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor, added that two new versions of the bill have been introduced this session, SB 3034 and HB 2120.

In order for the proposed constitutional amendment to make its way into the general election ballot in November, it will need a two-thirds majority vote from both the House and Senate.