California Proposition 9, or the Victims' Rights and Protection
Act of 2008, also known as Marsy's Law,
appeared on the
Proposition 9 alters laws governing victim's rights in California.
It amends the California Constitution to add new provisions
regarding victims of crimes.[2]
Election results
|
|
|||
|
|
Votes |
Percentage |
|
|
|
6,518,511 |
53.8% |
|
|
No |
5,602,596 |
46.2% |
|
|
Total votes
|
12,121,107
|
100% |
|
Results according to the California Secretary of State[3]
Provisions
of Proposition 9
The California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is charged with providing
neutral analyses of the provisions of proposed
- Provisions requiring the
payment of restitution to victims.
·
Any funds collected by a court, or law
enforcement agencies, from a person ordered to pay restitution would go to pay
that restitution first, in effect prioritizing those payments over other fines
and obligations an offender may legally owe.
- Provisions regarding the
notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings.
- Provisions that expand
victims' legal rights.
- Provisions that affect how
parole is granted and revoked; this includes lengthening the parole
hearing wait for lifers from five to 15 years.[4]
- Limits the use of state-paid
defense lawyers in revocation proceedings to indigent offenders.[5]
Estimated
fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan state agency
charged with providing a neutral estimate about the fiscal impact on the state
of ballot initiatives and state legislative bills, has arrived at the following
summary of Prop. 9's estimated costs:
- Unknown potential increases
in state prison and county jail operating costs due to provisions
restricting early release of inmates.
- To the extent that any such
costs were incurred, they could collectively amount to hundreds of
millions of dollars annually.
- A potential net savings in
the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole
reviews and revocations if the changes related to parole revocation
procedures are not overturned by potential legal challenges.
Supporters
of Proposition 9
The initiative is sponsored by Henry Nicholas and his family. Nicholas, who donated
$4,845,000.00 to the campaign to put Marsy's Law on
the ballot, stepped away from active support of the Marsy's
Law campaign when a criminal indictment on drug and securities offenses was
unsealed in June 2008 so as not to serve as a distraction during the campaign. [6],[7]
Other backers of Proposition 9 are the California Coalition of Law
Enforcement Associations, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and Crime
Victims United of California.
Arguments in favor of Prop. 9
Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Proposition 9 include:
- Proposition 9 would save
money because under the current system, taxpayers are spending money to
fund hearings for criminals who have little chance of release. For
example, supporters of Prop 9 argue, "'Helter Skelter'
inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten,
followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have
had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved
have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to
attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to
subsidize."
- The rights of victims are
important.
- Parole judges could increase
the number of years between parole hearings typically to 15 years, saving
money.[8]
Donors
supporting Marsy's Law
As of September 24, campaign finance statements show one donor:
- Henry Nicholas, $4,845,000.00.[9]
Dr. Nicholas shows under Campaign Finance that his occupation is Business
Management.
Path to the ballot
Its supporters turned in over 1.2 million signatures, gathered by paying
signature gatherers with Henry Nicholas' money in late April to qualify the
measure for the November 2008 ballot, and on June
6, the California Secretary of State
announced that the measure had qualified for the fall ballot.[10],[11].
The petition drive to qualify the initiative for the ballot was managed by Bader & Associates at a cost of
$2,258,034.00.[12]
Opposition
to Proposition 9
The No on Propositions 6 & 9, Communities for Safe Neighborhoods and
Fiscal Responsibility committee has filed with the California Secretary of State as an
opposition group.[13]
Notable opponents include:
- the
- the
- the
- the
- the
- the
Arguments against Prop.
9
Notable arguments that have been made against Proposition 9 include:
- Voters already approved many
components of Prop. 9 when they passed California
Proposition 8 (1982), including the requirements that victims be
notified of critical points in an offender’s legal process as well as the
rights for victims to be heard throughout the legal process.
- Prop. 9 amounts to political
grandstanding without really changing any significant problems in the
criminal justice system.
- The provision in Prop. 9 to
stop early release of criminals could end up costing the taxpayer in the
"hundreds of millions"
- The annual parole rate for
those convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter has been less than
1% of those eligible for parole for the last twenty years. Opponents of
Prop. 9 say this means that the taxpayers would spend a lot of money with
minimal resulting changes, since at most Prop. 9 would affect early parole
of 1% of the most violent criminal population.
- Money spent enforcing the
provisions of Prop. 9 won't be available for other important government
programs.[14]
Donors
to opposition campaign
As of September 24, donors to the opposition group included:
- California Teachers Association,
$72,805.
- The