[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Talk:Marsy's Law

Latest comment: 2 years ago by PDGPA in topic Outdated references
Learn more about this page

Requested Additions: Illinois Campaign and Results

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

.

Hello, I have two requests for this article. Since it was written, a similar Marsy's Law is now state law in Illinois. Updating the introduction and adding a brief "Marsy's Law for Illinois" section at the end of this article are two good ways to provide a fuller picture of Marsy's Law. My stated financial conflict of interest (see above: I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting here as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) means that I should not edit this article, which is why I'm asking here rather than adding these two pieces myself.

(Note that this request replaces one I posted here on October 27 and October 28. After some advice, I realize that my last request was quite complicated, I have scaled it back. Also, I have had some help to properly format this request.)

First, I'd like to request the following paragraph to be added at the end of the current introduction:

Addition to Introduction
Voters in Illinois approved a Crime Victims' Bill of Rights constitutional amendment to create a similar Marsy's Law in their state on November 4, 2014. The implementation bill, House Bill 1121, was signed by Illinois' governor in August 2015. There are efforts to introduce similar Marsy's Laws in other states across the U.S., including Hawaii,[1] Montana,[2] Nevada[3] and South Dakota.[4]
  1. ^ "Hawaii lawmakers consider crime victims' right-to-know bill". KHON-TV. 3 March 2015. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  2. ^ Carter, Troy (25 October 2015). "Elections 2016: Montana ballot measures proposed on marijuana, guns, criminal justice". Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  3. ^ Stewart, Lynn; Kirkpatrick, Marilyn (26 April 2015). "Nevada needs Marsy's Law". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  4. ^ Mercer, Bob (26 October 2015). "Panel studying child sexual abuse seems inclined to favor victim-rights amendment". Rapid City Journal. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

Second, the following section outlining the campaign and results for Marsy's Law in Illinois could be added immediately after the "Results" section

Marsy's Law for Illinois
In April 2014, Illinois lawmakers in the state's House and Senate agreed to place a referendum on the fall ballot to amend the Constitution of Illinois.[1][2] The proposed amendment to Section 8.1 of Article I of the Illinois Constitution, the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, appeared on the ballot of the November 4, 2014, general election. Seventy-eight percent of voters who answered the question approved the referendum.[3]

The state House approved HB 1121, the implementation bill reconciling the 1993 Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act with the constitutional amendment, on April 23, 2015.[4][5] A month later, the state Senate approved the bill.[4][5] Marsy's Law became effective immediately when Governor Bruce Rauner signed the legislation on August 20, 2015.[6]

Leading up to the November referendum vote in Illinois, the campaign in support of Marsy's Law included a statewide television advertisement featuring actor Kelsey Grammer.[7] He urged Illinois voters to vote yes on the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights and spoke about his experience following his sister's murder of trying to keep the man convicted in jail.[8]

The editorial boards of the Chicago Tribune,[9] The Southern Illinoisan,[10] Herald & Review,[11] Rock River Times,[12] The Pantagraph[13] and Rockford Register Star[14] encouraged voters to approve the Marsy's Law amendment. The Daily Herald (Arlington Heights),[15] The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana)[16] and Quad-City Times[17] editorial boards opposed the amendment.

Provisions of the law

The Illinois Crime Victims' Bill of Rights amended the 1993 Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act by establishing additional protections for victims of crimes and their families.[6] The law says crime victims have the right to be free from harassment, intimidation and abuse throughout the court process.[6] The law ensures victims receive timely notice of all court proceedings and the accused's conviction, sentence, imprisonment and release.[6] Additionally, the law allows victims the right to communicate with prosecution; to be heard at proceedings on post-arraignment release decisions, pleas, or sentencings; to attend trials and other court proceedings, and to have an advocate attend hearings with them; restitution; and to have their safety and the safety of their family considered in bail decisions and conditions of release.[6]
  1. ^ Tareen, Sophia (20 October 2015). "Illinois voters to face a rare 5 ballot questions". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  2. ^ Chuck Sudo (11 April 2014). "Voters Rights, Crime Victims' Bill Of Rights Amendments Added To Illinois' General Election". Chicagoist. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  3. ^ Essley Whyte, Liz (5 February 2015). "Big business gave heavily to thwart ballot measures in 2014". Time. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  4. ^ a b "Bill Status of HB1121 99th General Assembly". Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  5. ^ a b Ruch, Amber (26 May 2015). "Marsy's Law legislation unanimously passes IL Senate". KFVS-TV. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
  6. ^ a b c d e "Public Act 099-0413" (PDF). Illinois General Assembly. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  7. ^ "Kelsey Grammer Touts Crime Victims Amendment in Illinois". WMAQ-TV. 28 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  8. ^ Mitchell, Kirk (29 July 2014). "Kelsey Grammer forgives sister's killer but doesn't want him released". Denver Post. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  9. ^ "Vote yes on the Illinois constitutional amendments". Chicago Tribune. 27 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  10. ^ "Voice of The Southern: Vote yes on Crime Victims' Bill of Rights". The Southern Illinoisan. 30 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  11. ^ "Two amendments that deserve passage". Herald & Review. 19 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  12. ^ "Nov. 4 General Election endorsements". Rock River Times. 29 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  13. ^ "Editorial: Constitutional proposals worth your vote". The Pantagraph. 19 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  14. ^ "Our View: Support victims' rights". Rockford Register Star. 30 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  15. ^ "Endorsement: No on well-meaning but uncertain amendments". Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). 19 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  16. ^ "Phony issues on the ballot". The News-Gazette (Champaign-Urbana). 24 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  17. ^ "Six times 'no'". Quad-City Times. 31 October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

Feedback is welcome. Please can you add this new detail to the article if it all looks good? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed the proposed text. It largely appears to be objective and due weight for the article. I have the following specific concerns:
  • In the first proposed section, the cite to the Las Vegas Review-Journal is to an editorial endorsing the legislation. Instead of an editorial, please find an objective news report covering the details of the legislation for Nevada.
  • In the second proposed section, the paragraph about Kelsey Grammar is just a shade too promotional in nature ("here's a well-liked celebrity who endorses this law") and doesn't really add much to the facts about the Illinois law. Zap it.
  • I'd like to see some well-cited information about any opposition to the Illinois law. Three newspapers opposed it, but on what grounds? Was there any notable organized opposition? Are there currently efforts to amend or repeal it?
If these concerns are addressed satisfactorily then I will feel comfortable implementing the changes. alanyst 05:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi alanyst! You bring up some good points that I will try to incorporate. Since I posted my proposed edits here, I have received feedback from other editors at the Teahouse who believe information on Marsy's Law for Illinois would work best in a separate article because the existing entry is about the California law. I have begun work creating that new article. From the feedback I've had, it sounds like there's agreement the two articles should cross reference each other, so it is important that information on the Illinois law is included here, too. If I were to update my draft with your suggestions, would you still be interested in adding the Illinois law to this article? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, conditioned on my concerns being addressed, I'd be happy to add a bit of text cross-referencing the Illinois article when it is ready. alanyst 19:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Submitted article draft for Illinois law

edit

Hello, I'm pinging alanyst, Robert McClenon, onel5969 and teb728 to you know I have submitted a draft of a new article for Marsy's Law for Illinois. You can see the draft via the link on my user page. Thank you for your interest. JulieMSG (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nicely done, JulieMSG. Well written and well-sourced. My only concern is balance. It would be nice to have information in there from folks who oppose the law. Regardless, moved it to the mainspace. Onel5969 TT me 15:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
I see information about the opposition in there already, and I think it's well balanced. When I read the article I can't detect any underlying POV. alanyst 15:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Much thanks to Onel5969 and alanyst for your help creating the new article. I did post small requests on the Marsy's Law (Illinois) Talk page about moving the connected contributor template and potentially adding back the Marsy's Law For All official website external link. Lastly, there is a typo in the Similar laws in other states on this article. It should say "amendment", not "ammendment". Thank you again for your help with these articles. JulieMSG (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi JulieMSG - If you are simply correcting a typo, no one can accuse you of COI. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hello! I have marked this request complete. Thanks to everyone, especially alanyst and Onel5969, for helping me along in this process and for the constructive discussions. JulieMSG (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Requested additions: New laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, I have two requests to update this article with new amendments to state constitutions creating Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota last year. My stated financial conflict of interest (see above: I work at Mac Strategies Group and am posting here as part of my work there on behalf of Marsy's Law For All) means that I should not edit this article, which is why I'm asking here rather than adding these details myself.

First, I request we replace the last sentence of the introduction with the following:

Addition to Introduction
Passage of this law in California has led to the passage of similar laws in Illinois, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, and efforts to pass others in Hawaii and Nevada.

Second, I request we replace the paragraph in the Similar laws in other states subsection under Impact of Marsy's Law with the following, which updates the status of the new laws and adds that the Illinois amendment was approved by voters in 2014:

Edit to Similar laws in other states
The passage of this law in California has led to efforts in other states to pass similar laws. In Illinois in 2014, voters passed an amendment to the state constitution, called Marsy's Law for Illinois.[1] On November 8, 2016, voters in three states approved amendments to their state constitutions to include so-called Marsy's Laws: Montana approved Marsy's Law with 66 percent of the vote;[2] North Dakota, 62 percent;[3] and South Dakota, 60 percent.[4] There are efforts to introduce similar Marsy's Laws in Hawaii[5] and Nevada.[6]
  1. ^ Tareen, Sophia (20 October 2015). "Illinois voters to face a rare 5 ballot questions". The Associated Press. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  2. ^ Michels, Holly (5 January 2017). "Marsy's Law to take effect July 1, not immediately". Missoulian. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
  3. ^ Grueskin, Caroline (14 November 2016). "Years of litigation will determine meaning of Marsy's Law, lawyers say". Bismarck Tribune. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
  4. ^ Hult, John (9 November 2016). "Marsy's law passed. What happens next?". Argus Leader. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
  5. ^ "Hawaii lawmakers consider crime victims' right-to-know bill". KHON-TV. 3 March 2015. Retrieved 2 November 2015.
  6. ^ Corona, Marcella (12 June 2015). "Bills to help child above, revenge porn victims". Reno Gazette-Journal. Retrieved 7 December 2015.

Feedback is welcome. Can you add these new details to the article if it all looks good? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm pinging Onel5969 and alanyst to let you know I have suggested a couple small edits to update this page with recent Marsy's Laws in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. You helped me with this article and the Marsy's Law (Illinois) article in 2015. Can you add these new details to the article if it all looks good? Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Highly biased

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article reads like a puff piece and is very one-sided. The is no criticism section and overall it is quite unbalanced. There is no discussion on the constitutional implications of these laws on the rights of the accused, and there are serious concerns that are not discussed. WP:NPOV is important on wikipedia and there needs to be a presentation of both sides. I do not have the time nor adequate interest to personally be working on this article, but I urge those that do to be aware of how one-sided it is. props to the COI editor for doing it right and openly disclosing their interest and requesting edits, but be aware that this puts a stronger onus on all of us to be sure that the end article is balanced, lest the organization have a “two editors for the price of one” situation. Montanabw(talk) 19:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Montanabw: I've been meaning for a while to work on this and other articles in Category:Victims' rights. I'm not sure exactly when I'll get around to it though. However, I thank you for pointing out some issues with this article so that if/when I get around to it I can address them.
  • You seem to not like that there is no criticism section, however putting all the cricicism in a specific section is generally a bad idea and is specifically discouraged. If/when I get around to working on this I'll make sure to include criticism, but you likely will not see it in a walled-off section.
  • Are you aware of any important articles that bring up some of the constitutional implications of these laws on the rights of the accused? I believe you live in a state that has recently adopted its own version of this law, so you may have read something in your local paper that could be useful. If you could point me and other editors in the right direction it would be appreciated. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The public defenders were vehemently opposed and even some victim’s rights groups were concerned about its implications. The state bar associations generally came out against it. This was a “feel-good” law that is badly written, too broad-based, is duplicative of victim’s rights laws that already exist in many states, and is probably going to eventually be found unconstitutional. Here are some sources that outline the problems; some are news articles discussing both sides, others are opposition pieces, but taken in total, they outline the problems. Montanabw(talk) 09:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Montanabw and ONUnicorn. As the COI editor Montanabw mentions above, I want to note here that my involvement on this article began in 2015 and has been limited to two basic edit requests: The first to add Marsy's Law in Illinois, and the second to update with new Marsy's Laws in Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota. I have not been involved in the broader article, which was created in 2009. I certainly support efforts to clean up areas of potential bias. Thank you. JulieMSG (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Marsy's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marsy's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lariczan (article contribs).

Language in article is biased

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Wikipedians,

The language found in the article is not neutral. The leading section of the Marsy's Law is representative of a particular position and attitude towards Marsy's Law. It is suggested that the language used in the leading section be revisited to create a description of Marsy's Law that mirrors the language used in the full text of Marsy's Law. The full text can be found |url=https://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/1266/.

Although a brief summary was expressed in the leading section, it suggested that a new section be made pertaining to the language of Marsy's Law that outlines the rights of victims as specified in the full text. Therefore, this new section would remove the entry of biased language to be utilized in order for a reader, such as a victim of crime, to find a source that is explicit of the rights pertained to them as specified in Marsy's Law.

Additionally, since neutral language would be in use in the leading section it is representative of a major section found within the Article which would be an outline of victims' rights. If this major section is to be included, the rights of victims as specified in Marsy's Law become more accessible to the victims who have been affected by crime.Lariczan (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Missing and adding Citations: Impact of Marsy's Law

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Wikipedians,

The article contains information that does not include proper citation to sources for information stated in the section on Impact on Marsy's Law. It is suggested paragraph 3 be revisited to support the information that is being made about the impact of Marsy's Law on the role of victim rights during the court proceedings. I suggest referencing the full text of Marsy's Law as necessary when describing the rights of victims that were granted with the proposition. If the full text contains information that is representative of the role of victims during the court proceedings then this information should be added as concisely as possible while avoiding plagiarism.

The sections make claims about granted rights that have occurred due to the introduction of Marsy's law and I suggest a source be found and cited to support the information in paragraph 3.

Furthermore, paragraphs 5-8 contain information about the impact of Marsy's Law on the Board of Parole hearings in California. Since the sections begin with the granted rights of victims then source |url=https://sanquentinnews.com/experts-question-role-of-victims-survivors-in-parole-hearings/ contains information on the dynamics that exist when victims are present during parole granting hearings. The information found in the source mentioned previously is indicative of the relationship between victim rights and incarcerated individuals during parole granting hearings.

With the addition of citations and new sources in this section, then the information presented is better academically legitimate which would allow future readers to reference the material found in Marsy's Law article.Lariczan (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested addition: changes affecting the granting and revocation of parole

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello Wikipedians,

I am suggesting that information from the sources listed be utilized to illustrate the effects of Marsy's Law and the Board of Parole hearings in California.

Lariczan (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC) These sources reflect and provide information closer to the current year rather than information from as found in the article from 2009. I suggest the information previously mentioned remain in place and the arrival of new source information be added. With this information, there will be a creation of a linear timeline on the founded effects of Marsy's law on the parole granting process currently in place in California.Reply

Both sources reflect percentages on the denial of parole that as noted from source information continues to increase in California. Therefore, if this material is to be added to the section on the changes affecting the granting and revocation of parole there is new material to be referenced by outside readers who may find interest in the relationship between Marsy's Law and parole.

Additionally, the information found in the suggested sources could potentially be added as new cited information to material found throughout the article.

I make these suggestions because it is important to find data that illustrates the claims be illustrated so the numbers and percentages mentioned are clearly reflected by academic reference.Lariczan (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested addition: Criticisms

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I am suggesting that the information below be utilized and included in Marsy's Law criticism section.

The source reveals research conducted that provides an overview of the findings between victim presence and parole suitability. The information presented illustrates the impacts of low recidivism and parole denial occurrences with the findings of a growing lifer population. I suggest this information and sources be included because they reveal new sources on the nature of crime victims and parole suitability outcomes as criticized by the authors of the sources suggested above. Lariczan (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Outdated references

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is way, way too long for the importance of the topic, in my opinion. Admittedly, it is a complex and multifaceted subject, which does require unfortunately a fairly long analysis. But be that as it may, there are outdated references throughout. For example, a long paragraph on ex post facto challenges the California Supreme Court agreed to hear in 2011. Obviously, they have long since been decided. I fixed a reference to an "upcoming" November 2019 "referendum" (the wrong term) in Pennsylvania with accurate and updated information, but there are many more that need attention. I am surprised that there are not a few knowledgeable editors devoted to maintaining this article to WP standards.PDGPA (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marsy%27s_Law&oldid=1208831694"