| Letters
to the editor from this week's Chronicle:
Should we redefine
"Victim" in the Idaho Constitution?
By Representative Priscilla Giddings
Another polarizing issue waiting for Idaho’s 64th legislative session has
to do with changing crime victims’ rights in the Idaho Constitution, commonly
referred to as Marsy’s Law.
“Marsy’s Law” refers to the California law, the Victims’ Bill of Rights
Act of 2008. The movement began after a billionaire doctor’s sister was
killed by her ex-boyfriend while attending college in Santa Barbara in
the 1980’s. The victim’s family was not notified of the killer’s
release on bond, ultimately jeopardizing their safety. The doctor donated
5 million dollars toward the California initiative, and he continues to
fund ongoing efforts to get other states to adopt laws which strengthen
victims’ rights.
During the 2017 Idaho legislative session, a senator proposed several
versions of a Senate Joint Resolution (titled “Rights of Crime Victims”),
in order to modify victims’ rights in the Idaho Constitution. The
third SJR was passed in the senate with 34 votes, but got held up in the
House State Affairs Committee of which I am a member. After the resolution
failed in the House, the national lobby group Marsy’s Law for All launched
a chapter in Idaho. Marsy’s Law lobbyists have now contacted every state
legislator and are requesting resolutions supporting their efforts from
every county central committee. They are working hard to get Marsy’s
Law passed in Idaho.
Arguments on both sides of the issue were discussed during the public
hearing. Victims testified that they wanted more protections solidified
in the constitution, and they felt that current laws were not being effectively
implemented. Victim advocates want additional notification to be required
at post-conviction release, parole discharge, change of probation status,
and commutation or pardon.
Legislators and defense lawyers questioned the economic impact, the
need for a constitutional change versus a change in statute, and expressed
concerns that the new definition of victim increased the ambiguity surrounding
juveniles and victims of emotional or financial injury. At the time of
the vote, the fiscal impact was unknown, but last week a new economic impact
study found that the proposal could cost tax payers $553,000 annually,
require 13 new state employees, and have a one-time $200,000 constitutional
change burden.
I strongly support victims’ rights, yet I voted against the proposed
constitutional amendment in committee. I couldn’t support drastic changes
to definitions in our constitution without first attempting to strengthen
the existing statutes. It did not seem wise to implement an ambiguous change
with unknown fiscal consequences for Idaho tax payers.
Lobby Idaho, one of Idaho’s largest lobbying firms, has announced their
intentions to reintroduce the resolution once the legislature convenes
in January. If the resolution passes the house and senate with 2/3 majorities,
Idahoans will see this phrase on the 2018 ballot, “Shall Section 22, Article
I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended to provide equal
rights to crime victims, including the right to notification of court proceedings,
reasonable protection from the accused, and a voice in the criminal justice
process?”
Confusingly, that statement does not completely address all the changes
that would be implemented. It is misleading because these protections are
already in place in statue and the constitution but the wording of the
constitution would be slightly modified. The effects of the proposed modifications
are yet to be determined.
My question is: do the voters of District 7 want to support sweeping
changes to the constitution and the associated costs required to implement
Marsy’s Law? Please email me at pgiddings@house.idaho.gov
with your thoughts regarding this issue.
Redneck Review!
No. 141 - 1/1/2018
Wow! Another New Year is here already! 2018 in with a bang
and a taste of very frigid weather, at least in some parts of the country!
Five feet or more of snow and temps far below zero we see in the news daily!
One wonders what tomorrow's weather will be!
On the other hand, we have repeated stories of the threat of "climate
change" or "global warming" which causes thawing ice bergs and rising sea
levels, threatening our coastal areas. And the need to reduce our use of
fossil fuels to stop the process! Yes, we might be tempted to ask,
what does the future hold?
No bold predictions here, but it is asserted that common sense tells
us that resources found on earth are meant to be used and will not destroy
us! Thus, if a starving individual stumbles across a fruit tree,
it makes sense that the fruit should be eaten to preserve life! If a person
who is freezing has access to wood to build a fire, does it not make sense
that the wood be used? If not, then why was the resource put there to begin
with? And why not use the oil and gas and coal found in abundance in our
time to fuel our factories, our cars and our homes in a manner that sets
us apart from earlier and more primitive societies?
So, it is asserted here that the argument we get from the backers of
global warming and climate change caused by use of these resources,
makes no sense and is not convincing! Besides, there is ample evidence
that the opposite climate change may be in the offing! As discussed at
length in earlier reviews, #s 37-41, there is convincing evidence
that our earth is in the beginning stages of another cold period that is
predicted to begin between 2015 and 2020 and hits its coldest level around
2035. The book DARK WINTER by John Caseyquotes dozens of reputable scientists
around the world who argue that long range weather patterns over the centuries
tell us that this is to happen. Graphs that can be found on Google
suggest that the current warming period has peaked, and may well be leading
us into another so called "ice-age" that many of us my age were warned
about as we endured -30 degrees weather and weeks of deep and drifting
snow in the mid 1950's. Study the winter of '48,'49 for on example
of the weather during that period! Then of course, remember the 31,000
scientists who signed the PETITION PROJECT who challenged the conclusion
reached at Kyoto in 1997 that global warming was caused primarily by fossil
fuels being burned!
So it is suggested here that arguing who is right is fruitless!
Why not just wait another dozen or so years and see what happens!
In the meantime, certainly ignore the disaster warnings of the Al Gore
type who would return us to primitive living conditions of the past!
And by the way! How much faith should be put in the many articles and
letters to the editor in our local daily recently which condemn the recent
change in tax laws? There you find scathing condemnations of corporate
rates lowered from around 35 to 21%. Seems that commonsense, or the "wisdom"
claimed by our guest featured last week, Maurice Vincent, tells us that
the reduction is a blessing for all! After all, what caused hundreds
of large companies to move overseas? Lower taxes had a lot to do
with it! And how many middle class individuals own stock in the corporations
who will now find it easier to compete, to stay at home, to hire more workers,
to pay them and the middle class owners more? Should it not also be asked,
who is it that starts new companies, that hires people, that produces more
goods that make life more worth living, rich people or the poor?
And who is it that spends the large amounts that creates employment for
the working class? And what about the dozens of corporations already paying
bonuses because of the tax change? Why condemn! Maybe just wait and see
what happens!
Jake Wren |
Home
Classified
Ads
Template Design by:
 |
