Post

Aelyria wrote:

In this case, the proposed legislation is vague, but expansive, and gives unclear definitions. E.g., in the definition of "crime victim," there is an unclear and dangerous exception: "“crime victim” as a person in a criminal prosecution who has presumably or allegedly been harmed in an emotional, physical, sexual, or financial manner or has been threatened to be harmed as a result of the criminal misconduct of another who is not simultaneously accused of another crime that occurred as a result from the same occurrence or incident." The italicized text is the problem. First, it is unclear whether the "who" refers to the victim, or the "another" (grammatically "who" should refer to "another," but contextually it should refer to the victim). This could allow any criminal defendant the ability to avoid respecting the rights of their victims any time they have been charged with at least two crimes, which is obviously bad. Second, even if the ambiguity were fixed, this exception means that if a victim can be charged with any crime whatsoever, they have forfeited all of their rights as a victim, because this legislation would consider them not victims anymore. E.g. if someone committed a minor crime like jaywalking, and then got stabbed in the process of that jaywalking, this law would deny that the jaywalker deserves any rights as the victim of an assault. That's pretty clearly unacceptable even temporarily.

So...no. I do not support this measure and I am glad to see others feel the same. Protecting the rights of crime victims is vital. This law would seriously injure those rights in the process of trying to protect them.