A coordinated national campaign promotes enactment of Marsy’s Law, a set of victim’s rights enactments that have been added to state constitutions in many states. (Marsy’s Law amendments were on six state ballots this fall, and did well.) My colleague Roger Pilon testified in 1997 against a proposed federal constitutional amendment.
Now a South Dakota version of such a law is being used by police officers to conceal their identities from the public after a shooting by a police officer of a civilian who was subsequently charged with assaulting the trooper. Similar claims of confidentiality have been made under other states’ Marsy’s Laws to prevent disclosure of names of officers who have carried out shootings. [Scott Shackford, Reason]
More on the problems with victims’ rights laws from Scott Greenfield (“a right has been created for the ‘victim,’ which is curious since there is no victim until there’s a crime, and there is no crime until a jury says there is….many of these ‘rights’ are in direct conflict with some other guy’s rights in the well. Can you guess who that might be?”), Steve Chapman, Jill Lepore, and Sophie Quinton at StateLine, and my opinions against victim impact statements.
While we’re at it: Rules barring the interviewing of police soon after an officer-involved shooting (“cooling-off period”) impair, not advance, accurate investigation [Tom Jackman, Washington Post via Radley Balko] And via Justin Fenton of the Baltimore Sun, although the general rule in Maryland is that police officers on probationary status can be fired without internal due process, that rule applies except in instances of brutality allegations. Thanks a million, Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR)!
One Comment
“Rules barring the interviewing of police soon after an officer-involved shooting (“cooling-off period”) impair, not advance, accurate investigation …”
This is an assertion not supported by the link to the Washington Post article. It may be true, but this it references one relatively small study stacked up against the studies of the Force Sciences Institute.
What I find curious is that defense attorneys do not seem to avail themselves of the Force Science Institute’s findings, and the resulting policies by various police departments. If a police officer who calms down and consults with counsel and doctor gives more accurate, less confused testimony about violent event they were involved in, that should apply to civilians as well, and whatever the civilian babbled about in the immediate wake of a shooting should be heavily discounted. I would think that defense counsel could point to the police’s own studies, reasoning, and policies to defend anything his client inconveniently blurted out when first arrested, especially at a crime scene.