Educate me. Why would I vote for it? Why would I vote against it.
Election has slipped up on me and I hate to confess I know very little about this bill.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
Printable View
Educate me. Why would I vote for it? Why would I vote against it.
Election has slipped up on me and I hate to confess I know very little about this bill.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
It is a "victim's rights" amendment. That sounds good, but in reading it the problem is it's so vague and broad that it will IMO end up being a complete mess.
There have already been problems with it in South Dakota where it was enacted a couple of years ago.
Quick scenario. Law is there to protect for example an abuse victim, but if that victim defends herself against someone then that someone can claim he was assaulted and those protections would likely trigger to protect HIM and his privacy, making it harder to get a restraining order, etc. The judge ends up having to basically determine who is a "victim" before the trial is settled.
Even the Ky Coalition Against Domestic Violence is against it in the form it has been written and presented.
As of right now the ballot measure was found by a Franklin judge to be too vague, so if his ruling stands even voting for it won't get it enacted, but if he is overturned then the vote will stand.
I'm all for victim's rights, very much so, but this reads to me like poorly conceived legislation written by people who think it sounds good but not people who are experienced in criminal law.
I'm sure it would solve some problems, but it seems it will create just as many as it solves if not more, and I'm never for just having more laws and rules simply b/c it sounds like a good idea.
And that's unfortunate, bc I do think criminals have too many rights compared to their victims and the honest citizenry of this nation in general. I just don't think this particular piece of legislation is the right solution for that problem.
The more I've read, I'm leaning toward no. It seems too broad for me and includes more than it should.
I'm open to changing my mind if anyone can convince me. Doubt I vote until tomorrow evening.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
And from your neighborhood Democrat..also, No
And I might be wrong. But I thought some of the victim rights were a law already. I guess I'm more of a reform person and less new laws.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
In the Florida iteration of this proposed law, it shares the ballot with a proposal to raise the age limit on when Judges can retire from age 70 to 75.
The crime victims bill wants Judges to independently interpret statutes & rules rather than deferring to government agency's interpretation.
I don't like how it is written, and I don't like the other issue for Judges being added to this proposed amendment.
If it can absolutely, positively, without a doubt be fouled up beyond all possible comprehension, the Florida Legislature will do it.
Marsy’s Law is unnecessary in Kentucky, as victims’ rights laws are already in place.
https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/4947-kentucky
A judge has ordered the vote not be certified until the new law is put through the judicial review process.
The language was so stunningly vague on the ballot IMO it's not valid on its face. Even if I supported it, voting yes on some very vague "do you want to see victims get more rights" kind of statement, with no publication of the actual law, is just absurd and invalid.
The Franklin judge was right to make that ruling. Lots of people with no clue about the law will vote yes on its face with that language. No one has a clue what they are voting for. I dont know the exact wording and I looked it up.
The judge's order was before the vote. If there had been a "No" decision it would've been moot. Since it passed, the appellate courts will now make a decision.
Yep, and my guess is the decision will be upheld. it's shockingly badly worded on the ballot. There's no actual text of the law at all in it, just a general statement if your'e for victim's rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSRBEvans
Next election will they have a statement asking if we support reducing pollution and the law they enact bans cars? The judge was right, you can't get proper voter intent or response for the law from that ballot statement.
I can't believe they even did it that way. In the past the actual text of the law is on the ballot. Now most people can't figure that out either, but at least the ballot is honest, even if democracy is still of questionable quality on such things.
Yet another attempt by a lawmaker to puff themselves up as a do something person but is poorly thought out. I see it like the "hate crime" stuff. Never got the idea where killing or assaulting somebody is bad , but its real bad if its done for "hate".
This one is full of unintended consequences. To me its a bit like what we did here in FL were we passed the ban on greyhound racing to save thousands of greyhounds. So what do you think will happen to these dogs that were racing? Does the greyhound fairy buy a 1,000 acre ranch to house them? While it sounds good, its not. This law protects victims rights. Who wouldn't want that? On face value that is a good thing, right? But lawmakers rely on gulliable voters to not look beyond and if you vote against them its you are opposed to victims rights. Its absurd.
Agree with every word Doc. Nailed it.
I'd like to think our judiciary has the sense to do the right thing here, but this is the same state's supreme court that decided endless panhandling and badgering innocent people on the streets is free speech. There are some real freaking morons in our judiciary apparently.
Are we still mostly against this? I'm still torn on this one 2 years later lol
I’m still a hard no. We don’t need the legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by KentuckyWildcat
The wording on the ballot was complete this time, with full language. At least that much they got right.
No. I read it..it didnt jibe with me.