Marsy's Law and Victims Rights in Wisconsin (Concerns and Benefits)

Someone I am close to was the victim of a minor sex crime a few months ago.  The perpetrator went through court in a different County, and a court system I am not often a fan of.  The person I know felt like she was treated with dignity throughout the process, which was resolved rather quickly.  I commend this court system for how they handled this specific incident.  By the way, if it seems like I am being vague, it is out of an interest to respect the privacy of the individual involved.

I've been hearing a lot about "Marsy's Law" over the past year or two.  Over the last few weeks, I have started to hear the commercials pushing for the public to support Marsy's law.  The commercials are low on information, and instead focus on making a strong emotional appeal.

So tonight I finally got an opportunity (and remembered that I wanted to) look up the actual provisions of the proposed law, which would be embedded into the State constitution.  In reading through it, there are some things I absolutely agree with, along with a few points of concern.

Good Provisions
Some of the provisions are very good and important.  Specifically, victims should know if the convicted perpetrator is released from prison or escapes prison.  Victims should know when all of the court hearings are, and under this law they would receive adequate notification.  They should also be able to confer with the prosecutor, and they should be able to make statements in court about how the crime has impacted them, especially at sentencing.

I think just about all of us would agree that victims should have these rights.

Concerning provisions
To understand why the provision I am about to mention is concerning, you have to remember that, prior to 1776, we were ruled over by a King.  That King could, either directly or via his government officials, throw somebody in jail, hold a court hearing without them knowing the charges, and convict them with flimsy evidence.  Often this was done to political enemies, who often had committed no crime.  As a result of that, we modeled our justice system on the premise that, when someone is accused of a crime, they have the right to a full and proper defense.  That includes:

1. Knowing the charges against them.
2. Knowing the evidence against them.
3. Being given the opportunity to prepare an adequate defense based on full knowledge of the charges.
4. Being given the opportunity to call witnesses to refute the charges and evidence against them.

One provision of Marsy's law proposes to prohibit the accused from being able to question the victim prior to the court hearing.  Specifically, it states that victims would have the right "to refuse an interview, deposition, or other discovery request made by the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused."  If this was enacted, it would mean that the victim could come into court, and give testimony for the 1st time.  The accused would have no opportunity to prepare a defense for those accusations, and no time to identify and call witnesses that could refute the victim's testimony.  A person that was wrongly accused would be unable to prepare a defense to establish his/her innocence.  The right to prepare the best defense is a basic rights afforded in the U.S. constitution, specifically to protect innocent people from going to prison, and this provision of Marsy's law undermines that right.

Marquette Law School and the Journal Sentinel (a newspaper I frequently disagree with) seem to share these concerns, and bring forth some others.  Here are their articles:

• Marquette Law School: https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2018/01/23/marsys-law-in-wisconsin/
• Journal/Sentinel Online: https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/10/30/strang-marsys-law-bill-unworkable-unconstitutional/799667001/

Make no mistake about it, I want the system to be conscious about not revictimizing victims.  I just have to look at Jayme Closs, who is both a victim and hero, and ask what justice I would want for her, to know that I want her kidnapper to spend a long time in Prison.  I have a strong feeling that we can get justice for her without infringing on her kidnapper's right to a fair trial, and that we can make sure that any depositions are handled in a manner that are sensitive to her.  Elizabeth Smart was able to do exactly this thing, and her testimony was a big part of how her kidnappers were forced to face justice for their crimes.

So I support most of the provisions of Marsy' law, and believe victims should be treated with dignity and respect, but I do have a few concerns that need consideration.