Victims’ rights bill dies in Capitol
A proposal to amend the state Constitution to guarantee certain rights to crime victims and their families during criminal proceedings failed to clear a critical deadline Friday, and is dead for this session of the state Legislature.
The measure known as Marsy’s Law is based on the California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008. The bill is named after Marsy Nicholas, a University of California, Santa Barbara, student who was stalked and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983.
Hawaii is among 18 states that do not have a constitutional provision that protects victims’ rights. Friday was the deadline to provide the final language of any proposed constitutional amendments to Gov. David Ige, and lawmakers failed to meet that deadline.
House Democratic Majority Leader Scott Saiki said a number of lawmakers in both the House and Senate were concerned the proposed new constitutional provision would have added to the burden on prosecutors and the courts, and that the scope of that extra burden “was not clearly identified.”
The proposed constitutional amendment would have established victims’ right to be heard during criminal proceedings; their right to be notified of proceedings and changes to the offenders’ custodial status; their right to be present at court proceedings; and their right to provide input in cases before plea agreements are finalized.
State Sen. Will Espero (D, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point) said victims’ advocates turned out to support the bill, “and it’s disappointing that at this hour it didn’t survive.”
“I know many, many people are sad and disappointed,” he said. The bill was supported by state Attorney General Douglas Chin, Honolulu Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro and Kauai Prosecutor Justin Kollar as well as an array of community groups including Mothers Against Drunk Driving Hawaii.
It was opposed by the Maui County prosecutor, the state Office of the Public Defender and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii.
Marci Lopes, executive director for the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said she understands some people don’t want to change the state Constitution because they feel the state should take the less drastic step of changing state laws to better protect victims’ rights. But Lopes said a constitutional amendment is needed because amending laws simply won’t provide enough protection for victims.
“I hear so many horrific stories and so much injustice, whatever excuse there is, it doesn’t satisfy me. It feels like an excuse,” she said. “So many victims have shared with me that they have not been notified of court hearings, they are not included in the process, they are re-victimized by the criminal justice system.”
21 responses to “Victims’ rights bill dies in Capitol”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“t was opposed by the Maui County prosecutor, the state Office of the Public Defender and the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii.” Come on SA writer Keven Dayton, how about explaining why these diverse groups, especially the ACLU, are opposed to this proposed constitutional amendment.
They hate victims.
Sure hate to see the legislature actually do something to protect the public. What a shame!
They do plenty. A constitutional amendment is a pretty drastic step that should only be made in the most extreme of circumstances. This should be done in regular law.
When our obtuse elected bureaucrats did not find the expected, stuffed brown envelopes of love on their desks, they killed the bill.
Pay to play is the name of the game in the Nei.
Homeless people get a key to a brand new “home” while crime victims and their families are given the “gutter”
No vote for all of those Legislaters that voted No!
Try voting against all incumbents. Even your legislators vote for the house and senate leadership that really control legislation.
The proposed law would have directly interfered with criminal proceedings and perhaps invalidated the verdicts. Victims always have the right to sue the offenders and payouts can be quite large.
“sue the offender”?? How often does that happen? ACLU = American Criminal Lovers Union.
I agree, whats wrong with suing the offender?
You completely missed the point of this law is in effect successfully in 32 other progressive states.
The Nei is not progressive. Just utterly backwards. Nei bureaucrats are utterly terrified of having to do real work, break a sweat, get their hands dirty.
The failure of this bill is a sad commentary on the work of this year’s Legislature. This is not the first year such Legislation has been introduced, and a way to implement vicim’s Constitutional Rights should have long since been figured out. Very disappointing.
As usual, the ACLU IS part of the problem. I was hoping the SA would provide reasons for not supporting a bill that the general public was strongly in favor or and why the Legislature caved in to anti victims rights groups. Shame on all of them.
The fat lady has not sung yet, so it is possible that this bill could be brought back but of course this does seem remote.
House Democratic Majority Leader Scott Saiki, willfully failed to do his job and check with the other 32 states with this law and see how much of a burden it was.
Then he willfully failed to consider the rights of victims who have not only suffered from the perp’s actions, and now the Nei’s 8th world legal system.
No surprise here how the Nei is afraid of change, afraid of progress, and afraid of doing what needs to be done.
Just another of thousands of reasons the Nei is known around the world at the backwards, Jurassic, little 8th world.
Yes, well said.
New drinking game, every time Localguy uses the following words, we all need to drink: Nei, bureaucrat, willful…with the bonus drain the beer phrase of “8th world”
LOL Drunk already, then!
Good idea but not quite 5 o’clock yet!
No thanks – don’t want to get alcohol poisoning!