Matthew T. Mangino
GateHouse Media
November 10, 2017
There are no two words associated with the criminal justice
system that are more maligned and misunderstood than “plea bargain.”
Crime victims despise those two words; defense attorneys
thrive on them; and prosecutors can’t survive without them. Politicians deride
the system because of the underhanded “deals” made with vicious criminals. Even
frontline police officers challenge prosecutors when they perceive that the
terms of a plea bargain are too lenient.
Victims typically do not have veto power over plea bargains.
However, after Tuesday’s election in Ohio, crime victims in that state have
some of the most expansive powers in the nation.
Ohio voters overwhelmingly approved a measure which would
amend the state constitution to include crime victim rights. The Ohio ballot
issue, known as Marsy’s Law, won by a whopping 83 percent of the vote--one of
the largest margins in Ohio history.
The plea bargain, however unpopular or unseemly, is a
much-needed tool in the administration of justice. The truth is that 97 percent
of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains. As the
system currently operates, it would be impossible to provide a constitutionally
mandated trial-by-jury for every criminal defendant.
Setting aside the fact that trying every criminal case is
beyond the capacity of the courts, there are other compelling reasons to plea
bargain. Prosecutors are intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses
of every case. There are circumstances where a plea to a lesser offense is
better than a not-guilty verdict. A reluctant witness or a poor witness may
also influence plea negotiations.
Crime victims often do not want to hear about the strength
or weakness of a case. They want justice. What does justice mean to a crime
victim? Often it may be playing a meaningful role in the process. A victim who
is being heard and participating in the process is empowered--and often that
may be enough to restore a victim’s faith in the system.
Marsy’s Law was named for Marsy Nicholas, the sister of
Henry Nicholas, the Co-Founder and former CEO of Broadcom Corporation. Marsy
was stalked and killed by her ex-boyfriend. Henry used his considerable wealth
to rally support for the California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act in 2008 as well
as the ballot issue in Ohio. Besides Ohio, Marsy’s law has gained traction in
Georgia, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada and South Dakota.
All states and the federal government have passed laws to
establish a set of victims’ rights. In general, these laws require that victims
have certain information, protections, and a limited role in the criminal
justice process.
Victims of crime in Ohio will have their rights included in
the state constitution. Those rights include:
- Timely notification of all court proceedings
- Being present and heard in all court proceedings
- The right to refuse an interview or other requests made by the accused
- Notice when the accused is released or escapes from prison.
- Being present and heard in all court proceedings
- The right to refuse an interview or other requests made by the accused
- Notice when the accused is released or escapes from prison.
Most importantly crime victims will now have the right to a
hearing before a judge if they feel their rights have been violated.
The measure drew token opposition from prosecutors and
defense attorneys alike. Ohio Public Defender Tim Young told the Columbus
Dispatch. “This was a mistake for us to put this in the constitution.”
“It makes a false comparison between a victim’s rights and a
defendant’s rights,” Young said, explaining that defendants’ rights are in the
U.S. Constitution.
Opposition to Marsy’s Law was politically difficult, Young
said, because people are understandably sympathetic to victims’ rights. He said
he’s concerned that Marsy’s Law could undercut protections for people accused
of crimes.
Although constitutional protections for those accused of a crime are firmly entrenched in the Bill of Rights, trying to balance those rights with those of victims is an ongoing challenge for policymakers and practitioners.
Although constitutional protections for those accused of a crime are firmly entrenched in the Bill of Rights, trying to balance those rights with those of victims is an ongoing challenge for policymakers and practitioners.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett,
Kelly & George P.C. His book “The Executioner’s Toll, 2010” was released by
McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him
on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.
To visit the Column CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment