{"id":8620,"date":"2019-02-24T14:00:43","date_gmt":"2019-02-24T21:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/?p=8620"},"modified":"2024-09-23T22:56:52","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T04:56:52","slug":"marsys-law-guilty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/marsys-law-guilty\/","title":{"rendered":"Marsy&#8217;s Law Tramples &#8220;Innocent Until Proven Guilty&#8221; Underfoot"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The &#8220;Marsy&#8217;s Law for Idaho&#8221; proposal will create a brand new constitutional right to &#8220;reasonable protection&#8221; against &#8220;the accused&#8221; (not just those who are convicted) for &#8220;crime victims&#8221; including those who are allegedly being threatened with &#8220;emotional harm.&#8221; The proposal also strikes the language allowing the legislature to define these rights.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/legislature.idaho.gov\/statutesrules\/idconst\/ArtI\/Sect11\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Article 1, Section 11<\/a> of the Idaho state constitution says, &#8220;Nor shall any <strong>LAW<\/strong> permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.&#8221; [Emphasis added.]<\/p>\n<p>No &#8220;law&#8221;&#8230; A court ruling about the definition of a constitutional right is not a &#8220;law,&#8221; so this is not sufficient protection against activist judges deciding that &#8220;reasonable protection&#8221; includes confiscating the firearms of &#8220;the accused.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the problems with this proposal go beyond <a href=\"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/marsys-law-gun-control\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">the threat to our gun rights<\/a>. Fundamentally, there can be no &#8220;crime&#8221; or &#8220;crime victim&#8221; prior to the conviction of &#8220;the accused&#8221; without trampling the principle of &#8220;innocent until proven guilty&#8221; underfoot. At most, there can be an <em>alleged<\/em> victim of an <em>alleged<\/em> crime committed by an <em>alleged<\/em> offender before a conviction is rendered.<\/p>\n<p>Was Christine Blasey Ford a &#8220;crime victim&#8221; when she made unproven accusations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh? Was Jussie Smollett a &#8220;crime victim&#8221; when he made false accusations of assault against some unidentified alleged Trump supporters? Was Crystal Gail Mangum a &#8220;crime victim&#8221; when she falsely accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape?<\/p>\n<p>Under &#8220;Marsy&#8217;s Law,&#8221; each of these individuals would likely have been considered a &#8220;crime victim&#8221; with a constitutional right to &#8220;reasonable protection&#8221; against those they falsely accused. The fact is that unscrupulous individuals levy false accusations against innocent people every single day, yet &#8220;Marsy&#8217;s Law&#8221; will declare that these charlatans are &#8220;crime victims&#8221; based on their allegations alone. Is this how we want to define justice in Idaho?<\/p>\n<p>Even if you disagree (or don&#8217;t really care) about the danger to our gun rights inherent in <a href=\"https:\/\/legislature.idaho.gov\/sessioninfo\/2019\/legislation\/SJR101\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">SJR101<\/a>, there are still many <a href=\"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/problems-marsys-law\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">compelling reasons<\/a> to oppose &#8220;Marsy&#8217;s Law.&#8221; Perhaps one of the most important is making sure that we provide some additional &#8220;reasonable protection&#8221; to the foundational principle of &#8220;innocent until proven guilty&#8221; here in Idaho.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The &#8220;Marsy&#8217;s Law for Idaho&#8221; proposal will create a brand new constitutional right to &#8220;reasonable protection&#8221; against &#8220;the accused&#8221; (not just those who are convicted) for &#8220;crime victims&#8221; including those who are allegedly being threatened with &#8220;emotional harm.&#8221; The proposal also strikes the language allowing the legislature to define these rights. Article 1, Section 11 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39,"featured_media":8622,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[428,857,846],"class_list":["post-8620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-gun-rights","tag-innocent-until-proven-guilty","tag-marsys-law","cat-1-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8620","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/39"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8620"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8620\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16998,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8620\/revisions\/16998"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/8622"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gemstatepatriot.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}