Frequently Asked Questions
Explore answers to frequently asked questions about Marsy’s Law for Idaho.
Search through the list...
-
Why do we need to change the State Constitution?
Victims of crime are the persons most directly impacted by crime. They deserve to have rights that are recognized at the highest levels, just as accused and convicted criminals. When victims’ rights are only statutory then legally they are always less than those of the criminal who perpetrated the crime against them. Victims of crime will never be treated equally in Idaho until their rights are elevated to the constitutional level.
-
Will crime victims' rights trump the long-established rights of the defendants?
Not at all. Victims’ rights will not supersede defendants’ constitutional rights. Instead, victims’ constitutional rights will create balance with those of the defendants. Our government, both state and federal, is founded on a system of checks and balances. The courts will have the authority to balance rights if a conflict arises between a victim’s right and those afforded a defendant.
-
What happens if a victim’s constitutional rights are violated?
If victims are granted constitutional rights it would be a rare occurrence that their rights would not be granted because of the legal standing provided by Marsy’s Law, as well as increased awareness of victims’ rights as a whole. In the case where their rights are violated, there could be remedies that would require certain proceedings to be rescheduled or repeated in a manner that protects the rights of victims, consistent with the constitutional rights of the accused.
-
How would Marsy’s Law for Idaho impact the criminal proceedings for the person accused of the crime?
There is nothing in the language of Marsy’s Law for Idaho that diminishes any right an accused already possesses under state and federal constitutions. There is no case law in the country that can show Marsy’s Law has infringed upon a defendant’s right to due process. Conflicting constitutionally protected rights come before the courts every day. Courts have weighed and considered these, together with the totality of the individual circumstances, and reached balanced decisions.
-
Has an economic analysis been done on the costs associated with implementation?
This is an excellent and legitimate question that should be considered in any debate of new public policy. Several years ago, an independent group studied the costs of implementing Marsy’s Law for Idaho. The analysis showed the costs of implementing the notification requirements would be minimal, and overall just a fraction of the tens of millions of dollars dedicated each year to the state’s public safety budget. The minimal cost is attributed in large part to the fact that Idaho voters approved the Victims’ Rights Amendment in 1994. This established many of the rights that Marsy’s Law tries to establish for crime victims in other states, including the right to be heard and notified. As a result, Idaho has already created an effective notification system, called the VINE Network, which is used by most counties to notify victims when offenders are released or when court dates are scheduled.
-
Does Marsy's Law allow victims to withhold evidence?
No. Defendants have rights protected by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution to confront the witnesses against them at trial. Marsy’s Law for Idaho does not trump those rights. If the government has evidence that could exonerate a defendant, the government must always disclose it to the defendant.