Oklahoma Voters Could Add Crime Victims’ Rights to the State Constitution
Vote to see how others feel about this issue
What the Referendum Does
State Question 794 would amend the provision of the Oklahoma Constitution that guarantees certain rights for crime victims with a version of Marsy’s Law providing crime victims with specific rights. These rights would be protected in a manner equal to the defendant’s rights.
The measure would also make changes to victims’ rights:
- Expanding the court proceedings at which victims have the right to be heard;
- Adding a right to reasonable protection;
- Adding a right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay;
- Adding a right to talk with the prosecutor; and
- Allowing victims to refuse interview requests from the defendant without a subpoena.
This amendment would grant victims’ rights to crime victims and those directly harmed by the crime. Victims would no longer have a constitutional right to know the defendant’s location following arrest, during prosecution, and while sentenced to confinement or probation, but would retain the right to be notified of the defendant’s release or escape from custody.
Argument in Favor
Accused criminals shouldn’t have more rights than crime victims. Adding Marsy’s Law to the Oklahoma Constitution would ensure that victims’ rights are respected as the criminal justice process plays out and they aren’t forgotten by the system.
Argument Against
Oklahoma law already provides statutory rights to victims. Rather than adding those rights to the state constitution in a way that will be expensive and difficult to implement, Oklahomans should focus on ensuring that the existing protections for victims of crime are upheld.
In-Depth
Marsy’s Law for Oklahoma is leading the campaign in support of State Question 794. This amendment has nine co-authors in the Oklahoma House and Senate, all of whom are Republicans. Rep. Scott Biggs (R-51), one of the amendment’s coauthors, says, “What we are wanting to do is to make sure the victim’s rights are equal to the defendant’s rights not greater or less but to make them balance and make them equal moving forward." Jill Shero, the Campaign Director for Mary’s Law in Oklahoma, adds:
“I've seen that many times the justice system re-victimizes victims of crime and we can do better in Oklahoma… Many times, the victims are present already in the court cases. This would just require that by law, the victims receive notification of their case and that they have the opportunity to be present.”
Erin Sheley, a professor at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Law, argues that SQ 794 would have a limited effect on criminal law in Oklahoma, as the state already has a detailed list of rights for crime victims that includes a requirements that victims and families are informed about important court dates. Sheley argues that SQ 794’s attempt to make crime victims’ rights equal to defendants’ in court could pit victims’ rights against defendants’ rights in court, “Inviting some problems.” Criminal Defense Attorney Ed Blau adds that SQ 794 would cost Oklahoma money, add to prosecutors’ caseloads, lead to a risk of lawsuits against the D.A.’s office, and pit defendants’ rights against those of victims.
This proposed constitutional amendment was referred to Sooner State voters by the Oklahoma legislature, which approved it with bipartisan votes of 43-2 in the Senate and 88-0 in the House.
The effort to institute Marsy’s Law across the U.S. is primarily backed by Henry Nicholas, co-founder of Broadcom Corporation, whose sister, Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. A week after his sister’s death, Henry and his mother encountered Marsy’s ex-boyfriend at a grocery store after he was released on bail — they hadn’t been made aware of his release.
Due to this experience, Henry founded Marsy’s Law for All, the national organization advocating for Marsy’s Law. The organization’s mission is to “amend state constitutions that don’t offer protections to crime victims and, eventually, the U.S. Constitution to give victims of crime rights equal to those already afforded to the accused and convicted."
As of 2018, six states have enacted Marsy’s Law amendments: California, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Ohio, and Illinois. A seventh state, Montana, initially approved a Marsy’s Law amendment, but it was struck down in 2017 as unconstitutional by the state supreme court.
Summary by Lorelei Yang
(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / LPETTET)
The Latest
-
🌎 Are You Ready To Take Action Against Climate Change?Scientists claim that last year "smashed" the record for the hottest year by a large margin , offering a "dramatic testimony" of read more... Environment
-
Should U.S. Implement a New Tax on AI to Fund Worker Benefits?The debate As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into our society. While leaders in AI read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health
-
IT: ⛑️ It's American Red Cross Giving Day, and... How will you give back today?Welcome to Wednesday, March 27th, philanthropists and entrepreneurs... It's American Red Cross Giving Day - a time to ensure the read more...