By: Spencer Dirrig On November 7, the people of Ohio will be tasked with voting for or against an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Issue 1, also known as “Marsy’s Law,” claims to enshrine victims’ rights into our state constitution. While the campaign in favor of the amendment has received broad support and an influx of political contributions, the proposed amendment is facing a growing resistance. This week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio came out in opposition to the amendment, saying that it will infringe upon the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” With election day approaching, many Ohioans are unsure about the impact this amendment will have and why they should support or reject the issue.
The official ballot issue reads as follows: “Issue 1 - Proposed Constitutional Amendment to repeal and replace the existing language in Section 10a of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would expand the rights of victims under the current Section 10a and require that the rights of victims be protected as vigorously as the rights of the accused. More specifically, for the purpose of ensuring due process, respect, fairness, and justice for crime victims and their families in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, the amendment would provide victims with:
The Columbus Dispatch explains that “Issue 1, if approved, would enact constitutional protections for crime victims and their families, including the right to notification of all proceedings and to be heard at every step of the legal process. Victims could be involved in offenders’ plea deals and would be entitled to financial restitution.” According to the Dispatch, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, “not only supports the crime-victims’ proposal opposed by his former colleagues, but he also accepted the position of co-chairman of the Issue 1 campaign.” DeWine told the Dispatch, “I think this is the natural next extension of victims’ rights. It seems the right thing to do to engrave it in our constitution. ... Most prosecutors are doing everything that will be required by Marsy’s Law, but it make these things a matter of right, not discretionary.” Marsy’s Law, an organization that has spent nearly $3 million propagating this amendment in Ohio states that “We can all agree that no rapist should have more rights than the victim. No murderer should be afforded more rights than the victim’s family. Marsy’s Law would ensure that victims have the same co-equal rights as the accused and convicted – nothing more, nothing less. Marsy’s Law is not a partisan issue. Giving crime victims equal rights is a rare political issue that Republicans and Democrats are unified in supporting.” However, civil rights activists strongly disagree. The ACLU of Ohio explained that the law “will allow victims to refuse interviews, depositions, or other discovery requests made on behalf of the accused. Additionally, it will allow victims to intervene at various phases of the criminal proceedings and eliminate judicial oversight of the victim’s participation, threatening the fundamental rights to fairness and a speedy trial.” While the proposed amendment has been characterized as a saving grace for crime victims, many in the criminal justice system believe that the law will disrupt due process and unfairly prejudice the criminal defendant. In addition to the encroachment upon the rights of the accused, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio warns that this law will take the criminal justice system backwards, explaining, “The consequences will be felt systemically as well as individually. This initiative will result in longer prison sentences and higher incarceration rates, and will bolster the state’s power over the accused.” Despite their strong opposition to the proposed amendment, the ACLU continues to reaffirm their support for victims’ rights legislation as long as they do not impede on the Constitutional rights of the accused. Civil rights activists are not the only dissenters to this amendment. John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association said that “Marsy’s law goes too far and actually may slow down the criminal justice process and make it more expensive for taxpayers. What we’re concerned about mainly is it creates the ability of the victim to intervene in the criminal justice process at any point along the line if they think they aren’t getting their proper due,” he said. “It could be a real mess” (Columbus Dispatch). The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys are joined by the State Public Defender, Tim Young, who explained his opposition stating, “Issue 1 does not provide additional resources and the government remains immune to liability… This amendment will result in increased litigation, increased costs to taxpayers, and will delay cases, only hurting victims. This amendment is wrong for Ohio” (Columbus Dispatch). The Cincinnati Enquirer broke down the concerns that have ironically united the State Prosecuting Attorneys and the Public Defenders. Among their concerns: Victims could withhold evidence. Victims could recant and leave prosecutors scrambling – not wanting to violate victims' rights but still wanting to pursue the case. Victims could disagree with plea deals negotiated by the prosecutor and defense attorney. Victims could repeatedly interrupt court proceedings and violate the accused's right to a speedy trial. Who would pay for the attorney who represents victims” (Cincinnati Enquirer). In addition to the ethical and logistical opposition to the proposed amendment, Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, laid out a monetary and resource-based argument against the law, warning, “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” (Columbus Dispatch). Despite the growing opposition to the law, there is no official opposition organization and is therefore being outspent by the supporters by $3 million. As such, the amendment is expected to pass with ease. There is certainly merit to the amendment’s proposals and the effort to advocate on behalf of victims is incredibly admirable. While Issue 1 may give victims additional rights, it runs a very real risk of slowing down an already sluggish court system, impeding the right to a speedy trial, and accumulating massive costs to taxpayers. Given the dangerous domino effect of enshrining this law into our Ohio Constitution, citizens should think critically and act cautiously before voting.
0 Comments
By: Zack Valdman It is that time of year again. Law schools are in session, and most law school applications have either just opened or open within the next few weeks, prompting hopeful candidates around the country to begin the application process. With all the hubbub around LSAT’s, letters of recommendation, personal statements, and resumes, lost in it all is an often overlooked, but crucial part of deciding which law school is right for you: the law school visit.
After visiting six different law schools in the past couple months, I wanted to share some helpful do’s and don’ts with anybody currently struggling with the best approach to touring law schools. Based on personal experience, these are the tips I would recommend to any prospective law student hoping to narrow down their selection of law schools. DO: Research the school beforehand. You do not want to tour all 205 ABA approved law schools throughout the United States, narrow your search down to a reasonable number (whatever that number may be for you) before you begin your visits. DON’T: Forget to research parking, directions, and location of the law school on campus. Having this information ready to go before you arrive will help save you valuable time when you actually are on campus. DO: Schedule law school tours in the first place. While financial and time constraints may hamper some from visiting law schools (especially those out-of-state), a law school tour is incredibly beneficial not only in helping you determine which aspects of a school are truly important to you, but also in helping you discover if the environment and culture of the school fit you. DON’T: Schedule tours or visits on Saturdays or Sundays (or when the law school is not in session) if possible. While you may get to see the law school itself, you most likely will not see many students or professors in the hallways, the admissions offices may be closed entirely, and you will not be able to determine the general atmosphere of an average day at the school. DO: Schedule a tour guided by a current law student, preferably a 2L or 3L if possible. These students know the ins and outs of the school, and while all are hired to promote the law school, they generally will answer your questions honestly and to the best of their ability. DON’T: Arrange for a self-guided tour. While some self-guided tours are more helpful than others (such as audio tours wherein you are directed throughout the law school by a pre-recorded guide on the law school’s website), not having a current student to bounce questions off really detracts from your ability to determine if this is the right school for you. DO: Ask questions. Whether you are asking the law student leading your tour, various students you see walking down the hallway, or even professors or admissions officers you may happen to meet, asking good questions about the school, the process, finances, what life is like at the school, career placement opportunities, and so on are incredibly valuable in helping you make a decision. If you are specifically interested in a specific subject, clinic, or program offered by the law school make sure to ask those questions as well. DON’T: Just tour the law school. Explore the campus, living areas, and city (or area) surrounding the school. Especially if the school is not local, you will want to know whether you can see yourself living wherever the school is located for the next three or more years. DO: Sit in on a class or two if possible. This generally will help you understand the law school’s teaching methods and whether or not they mesh well with your own learning style. DO: Enjoy and make the most of your visit. As hectic as the tour and entire process may be, you are not on evaluation while visiting a school, it is your job to evaluate and properly assess whether the school is the best fit for you. So relax and treat law school visits as a mini-vacation rather than another chore or obligation to check off. By: Eleni Christofides This November, an issue regarding crime victims will appear on the Ohio ballot: Issue 1 is colloquially known as Marsy's Law, or the Equal Rights for Crime Victims amendment. Though the name implies nothing especially controversial, there is significant disagreement on how appropriate this amendment is for Ohio.
The Marsy's Law movement began in California after a young University of California Santa Barbara student, Marsy Nicholas, was killed by an ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her. Shortly after her murder, her brother and mother were confronted by the accused killer in a grocery store; they did not know he had been released on bail. The Marsy's Law For All movement, founded by the victim's brother, argues that their goal is to ensure that crime victims nationwide have the same number of rights as crime suspects during the criminal justice process (1). The actual ballot language of the proposed constitutional amendment for Ohio (2) states that it aims to "repeal and replace the existing language in Section 10a of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio," which covers Ohio's current protections for crime victims. The proposed amendment would add expansive and specific protections to Ohio's law, including "the right to be present and heard at all court proceedings, including the right to petition the court to protect the victim's rights; the right to a prompt conclusion of the case; to refuse discovery requests made by the accused, except as authorized by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio constitution" (2). These tenants are cause for concern, as they seem to go far beyond the issue of alerting victims of proceedings in a case, instead creating many opportunities for victims to affect the criminal justice outcome in a way that compromises suspects' rights more than it protects victims. Limiting the discovery process means that an accused person would be unable to secure evidence that could be essential to mount a thorough defense, and the right to a "prompt conclusion of the case," vaguely worded as it is, implies that the right of the accused to a full trial process could be compromised, especially as the victim's right to be "present at all court proceedings" allows them to be involved in a suspect's plea deals. Granting this broad reach for alleged victims into criminal proceedings would essentially presume victimization at the hands of the accused even before trial; ultimately, this could lead to the erosion of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty for the defendant. This would be detrimental not only to the rights of the accused, but also to the best interests of the community: if an appellate court rules that a defendant's right to a fair trial was undermined by these rules, they may choose to overturn a sentence and order a new trial, which would be emotionally difficult for the victim and expensive for the taxpayer. It is important to note that if Issue 1 passes it will become a significant alteration to Ohio’s very constitution. The current Ohio law, Ohio Public Defender Tim Young points out, does include a sufficient measure to require prosecutors to protect rights of victims, including the right to notification about a defendant's arrest or the possibility of his or her pretrial release (3); specifically, "In 1998, Ohio implemented one of the nation's first automated victim notification systems, which offers victims information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year" (4). If the legal system is not protecting these rights efficiently, he argues, then a constitutional amendment is not the answer. Ohio should start by allocating better resources to its existing victims' rights system, and providing a recourse against the state when it fails to protect these rights—a component that Issue 1 lacks. As it currently operates, the criminal justice system does in many ways ignore the needs of the victims it ought to protect, and there is certainly a need to prevent a victim's experience with the criminal justice system from feeling like a re-victimization. But as it stands, Marsy's Law appears not to provide appropriate rights to protect the victim; instead it would create a law that could undermine the interests of both defendant and victim, and prove costly to the state of Ohio. The 2017 general election in Ohio will take place on November 7th. Be sure to make it to the polls on election day, vote early at the Franklin County Board of Elections, or fill out an absentee ballot so you can make your voice heard on this significant issue. References:
By: Spencer Dirrig This week is the beginning of the Fall 2017 Supreme Court term and many say it may be the most consequential term in decades. Let’s take a closer look at the cases being heard and how they may play out. Immigration and Deportation: Crimes of Violence? Sessions v. Dimaya Issue: “Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague” (SCOTUSBlog). Summary: Under the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children can be deported if they have committed a “crime of violence.” However, some prosecutors have extended the meaning of “crime of violence” to include drug possession and non-violent theft. Is this constitutional? Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “Held that the INA’s crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague because it was largely similar to the violent felony provision in the ACCA that the Supreme Court struck down in Johnson. The appellate court found that both provisions denied fair notice to defendants and failed to make clear when a risk of violence could be considered substantial” (Oyez). My Take: The spirit of the law seems to sway to the side of the Respondent, James Garcia Dimaya. If, as understood, the point of the law is to allow deportation of criminals who pose a threat to citizen safety, the law should not be extended to include non-violent theft and drug possession as those are, by definition, non-violent crimes. Prediction: 5-4 Majority Opinion Upholding the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Gerrymandering: One Person, One Vote? Gill v. Whitford Issue (Basic): “Whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.” (SCOTUSBlog). Summary: “In 2010 Wisconsin voters elected a Republican majority in the state assembly and the senate, and a Republican governor. As a result, the Republican leadership developed a voting district map that its drafters calculated would allow Republicans to maintain a majority under any likely voting scenario. The redistricting plan was introduced in July 2011, and both the senate and the assembly passed the bill shortly thereafter. The governor signed the bill into law in August 2011… Plaintiffs in this case challenge the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. At issue is whether the plan systematically dilutes the voting strength of Democratic voters statewide” (Oyez). Lower Court: Federal District Court “A federal court upheld the plan as not violating the “one person one vote” principle nor violating the Equal Protection Clause” (Oyez). My Take: I concur with the ACLU’s stance, stated, a “Constitutional obligation of government neutrality stems from the First Amendment (and the Equal Protection Clause). It is the same principle that circumscribes government regulation of access to public fora and facilities… Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymandering scheme violates the First Amendment.” The principle of “One Person, One Vote” and equal protection and representation under the law are inherently diminished by partisan gerrymandering. Prediction: 5-4 Majority Opinion Upholding the Ruling of the Lower Federal District Court . LGBT Rights: Cake Discrimination? Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Issue: “Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?” (Oyez). Summary: “In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages” (Oyez). Lower Court: Colorado Court of Appeals “Administrative Law Judge issued a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission's ruling” (Oyez). My Take: According to the ACLU, “Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.” As such, I believe that this is clearly a case of illegal discrimination. While the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one’s religion, it does not negate the legal ramifications of civil rights violations. The fact that the cake-seller decided to open a private business that sells cakes to the public necessitates the understanding that he must now follow the laws of the State of Colorado. Here, the burden of religious liberty is outweighed by the force of illegal discrimination against an LGBT customer. Prediction: 5-4 Majority Opinion Reversing the holding of the Colorado Court of Appeals (with aggressively contradictory decisions by Justice Gorsuch in the Majority and Justice Ginsburg in Dissent). Works Cited "Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop." ACLU. American Civil Liberties
Union, 2017. Web. "Gill v. Whitford." ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, 6 Sept. 2017. Web. "Gill v. Whitford." Oyzez. Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2017. Web. "Gill v. Whitford." SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog, 03 Oct. 2017. Web. Katherine-howard. "Sessions v. Dimaya." SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog, 06 Oct. 2017. Web. "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." Oyez. Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2017. Web. Nilsen, Ella. "The Supreme Court Is Back in Session. Here Are the Top Cases to Watch." Vox. Vox, 02 Oct. 2017. Web. "Sessions v. Dimaya." Oyez. Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2017. Web. Vogue, Ariane De. "Supreme Court Kicks off Blockbuster Term." CNN. Cable News Network, 02 Oct. 2017. Web. |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |