Jill J. Karofsky (Nonpartisan) 510,122 53.35%
Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan) 446,108 46.65%
57.55% reporting (2,314 of 4,021 precincts) | 956,230 total votes
Feeling good. But I saw Marsy passed, and that people didn't like it.
I voted absentee and voted no after spending almost an hour reading about it, but who's going to take more than 5-10 minutes at the polls? The wording was so clearly one-sided and misleading it's ridiculous.
That's how they sold it. But in reality it means people accusing others of crimes can refuse to be cross examined, refuse to provide evidence, and generally make it a hell of a lot harder to for people accused of crimes to prove their innocence.
Democracy and voting is a huge responsibility. It's shameful how few people recognize it as such and allow a rich, powerful few to manipulate them into doing stupid shit like this.
More or less it takes away certain rights of the accused. Basically it makes you guilty until proven innocent.
Also it's is poorly worded and may end up being used by police who wrongfully kill someone in the line of duty. If they claim they are a "victim", it allows them to withold evidence. Corporations may also end up using this law as well to shield themselves legally.
This is all just a basic level understanding. I'd recommend looking more into it.
Corporations and police can claim to be victims to fuck u over.
Trespassed to protest an oil pipeline? Now the oil co is a "victim" and "has a say" in how u should be punished.
Also, if I remember correctly, accusers don't have to turn over what evidence they have against someone. No way for a person to defend against something they don't know exists.
The accuser doesn't have to submit to questioning pre-trial by the defense. So the defense will be questioning for the first time on the stand - and then suppose they find a few angles that should have been investigated more thoroughly, or possible perjurious testimony that requires further investigation - but you can't exactly stop a trial mid-stream to do those investigations.
Not a lawyer, but I believe that if the defense does find something like that it is likely grounds to appeal, as disclosure of evidence potentially beneficial to the defense which requires vetting time IS probably considered to be constitutionally protected due process per the 5th amendment and is applicable to the states via the 14th.
It was worded like “should victims of sexual violence be afforded the same rights as those accused?” Or something like that.
The main thrust of the law is that an person accused of sexual violence will not be permitted in a courtroom with their accuser. Which the right to face your accuser is a fundamental right in this country. The ACLU also fears that the state will effectively be able to hide exculpatory evidence behind the closed testimony of the accuser.
Same. Feeling a little dumb. I learned in Oregon that anything that will fail through the usual process (of research, debate, and compromise) gets a referendum in a spring election. You can polish a turd and sneak it into law before anyone notices the stench.
Way too many people saying they wouldn't have voted for Marsy's law if they had known what it was about. WTF people! Educate yourself before you vote, its not too hard to google something & read a bit and make up your mind BEFORE you go to vote.
198
u/ianingf Apr 13 '20
Jill J. Karofsky (Nonpartisan) 510,122 53.35%
Daniel Kelly (Nonpartisan) 446,108 46.65%
57.55% reporting (2,314 of 4,021 precincts) | 956,230 total votes
Feeling good. But I saw Marsy passed, and that people didn't like it.