While I was on the way to the Airport on Friday, I was incredulous when I heard Greg Belfrage on the radio declaring that “there was only one member of the State Bar in the entire state who supported it, and it was the person promoting it.”
Because it was a statement that I knew to be utterly false. In fact, one of the other attorney supporters, a candidate for Attorney General, was speaking about his support just recently:
The South Dakota amendment established constitutional rights for crime victims including privacy, protection from harassment or abuse, and timely notice of trial.
However, lawmakers say the voter approved constitutional amendement has unintended financial consequences and has hindered investigations.
Senator Lance Russell says he believes Marsy’s law is a benefit.
District 30 Senator Lance Russell says, “I was a state’s attorney and I had my secretaries and myself meet with victims and notify victims of the status of their case and that’s essentially what Marsy’s law requires is that if the victim would like to meet with the state’s attorney that they have an opportunity to do so. If they want to be notified of every hearing and what are proposed plea agreements that they’re entitled to have that notification.”
I also believe the Beadle County State’s Attorney weighed in as well:
There may be areas of the law that could use tweaking. But the legislature should think twice before trying to strip crime victims of their rights because some parts are inconvenient.
Where does Marty stand on this issue?
Most law enforcement is against Marcy’s law, but Glodt his campaign manager was the promoter of it.
I don’t care where campaign staff stand on issues-they are not the candidate. Where does Kristi stand on the issue? Will she stand with victims or support taking away our constitutional rights?
Much like Obamacare, Marsy`s law has a couple good things, but overall is a loser.
Law enforcement errs to the extreme if they aren`t sure if the law applies, so key elements of news that people are interested never get released. When that happens, social media takes over, false information runs rampant, and the victims often end up getting blamed and publicly humiliated. Had the truth been made public, as it was before Marsy`s Law, much of that could have been avoided.
We`ve all heard the term unintended consequences… Marsy`s Law is full of them.
I am sorry but Russell, Glodt and Moore are wrong on Marcy’s Law.
Bringing in a CA solution to a problem that did not exist in South Dakota.
This should be a warning about putting amendments into our Constitution also….
(sadly I see the legislature is also trying to change our Constitution in some meaningless ways—like letting women in a militia we do not have, hunting rights, where is the need for these things outside of pet projects for a few legislators)
If it has a purpose there is a good reason for it, by all means but don’t change it for the sake of changing it.
Now Moore I get it, he is a liberal and likes this type stuff. But as far as I have heard he is the ONLY States Attorney supporting this measure.
The other 2 have made a poor decision and are doubling down on it.
I am shocked legislators are seriously looking at taking constitutional rights away from victims. Rapists have constitutional rights and their victims deserve equal rights. Almost every state has victim rights in their constitution… SD should not go backwards.
Clearly very little support.
Get past the talking points what rights were added and what do they hope to take back away??
Everybody I’ve talked to very little actual rights were added all that was added cost we already protected rape victims and other serious violent crimes by notifying them…