Proposition 9: Victims' Role in Criminal Proceedings – NO

By Peter L. Stahl
Pete Rates the Propositions

This proposition is a personal vendetta. In 1983 a UC Santa Barbara college senior was brutally shot to death. The perpetrator was convicted of second-degree murder and spent the rest of his life in prison. Since then, voters have made it even tougher on this type of criminal. Under Prop 18 of 2000, he would have been convicted of first-degree murder and likely given the death penalty, because he "lay in wait" for his victim.

Even so, relatives of the 1983 victim still feel they were "often treated as though they had no rights," and "experienced the additional pain and frustration of a criminal justice system that too often fails to afford victims even the most basic of rights." (These and other kvetches are written into the measure. See p. 128 of your Proposition Fun Book.) The victim's brother, who has become a high-tech tycoon, has spent $5 million to put Prop 9 on this ballot, to right the perceived slights his family has suffered.

But the state Constitution is no place to settle a personal score. This measure will go far beyond making its sponsor feel better. It will cause real damage to the system.

Prop 9 will flip criminal justice onto its head. It will fundamentally change the purpose of incarceration and other forms of punishment. Instead of making convicts pay their debt to society, under Prop 9 the goal will be to satisfy victims' desire for revenge. Prop 9 writes into the Constitution these new rights for victims:

• The "right to expect that persons convicted of criminal acts are sufficiently punished"
• The "right to expect that ... sentences ... will not be undercut or diminished by the granting of rights and privileges to prisoners"
• The right to "finality in their criminal cases," including freedom from "lengthy appeals," "frequent and difficult parole hearings," and "the ongoing threat that the sentences of criminal wrongdoers will be reduced"

This is not why we have a Constitution. Think about it. Remember, back in Civics class? The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect citizens, especially those who run afoul of the law, from unfair treatment by the government. There are amendments guaranteeing due process, preventing cruel and unusual punishment and prohibiting forced self-incrimination. The Constitution is there to avoid a fascistic police state. It is not there to ensure satisfaction for those wronged by others. The Los Angeles Times's editorial put it well:

Comments

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.