Vox

Musings, rants, rambling, general nonsense

AZ Proposition 114 (2012)

Posted on | October 2, 2012 | 3 Comments

Prop 114:  Crime Victim Protection From Liability For Damages

 

The Arizona Constitution currently reads and would be amended with

Section 31: No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person, except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.

and

Section 6. The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation , except that a crime victim is not subject to a claim for damages by a person who is harmed while the person is attempting to engage in, engaging in or fleeing after having engaged in or attempted to engage in conduct that is classified as a felony offense.


I appreciate the idea of this proposition, though I worry the sentence (yes, it is just one sentence) is a bit broad. I certainly want law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves and their property. I am sure if the need arises, a crime victim isn’t weighing the potential to be sued if their attacker is injured. I also doubt in that instance they are worried about what criminal charges they may face for defending themselves. This proposition addresses only the civil actions, so the victim is still potentially on the hook for criminal counts.

Some may think this is an unnecessary step to take, but I regularly come across stories of criminals awarded some ridiculous judgement against their victims. I don’t know if it has happened regarding a felony in Arizona, though there was a misdemeanor case.  I know that just giving the criminal the right to sue puts preposterous burdens on the victim; mentally, emotionally, and financially. I wish Russell Pearce hadn’t misstated the case he cites in his “Arguments in support”.

Still, crime shouldn’t pay. Victims shouldn’t be further victimized.

  • A “yes” vote shall have the effect of protecting crime victims from having to pay damages to a person who was injured while that person committed or attempted to commit a felony against the victim.
  • A “no” vote shall have the effect of keeping current constitutional law related to liability for damages.

I am on the YES side of this one, but it isn’t a strong yes. I am definitely open to and interested in your arguments pro and con.

(Oh, and the fact that the Trial Lawyers Association opposes Prop. 114 does make it more attractive.)

UPDATE: A recent case in California Meth addict accused in burglary sues 90-year-old homeowner he shot in jaw

Enhanced by Zemanta


Comments

3 Responses to “AZ Proposition 114 (2012)”

  1. CapitalistPig
    October 2nd, 2012 @ 11:05 pm

    Our anti-gun Democrat senators were opposed to referring this change to voters. Former Senator Sinema claimed that this was already law, but avoided explaining which A.R.S. protects victims and how that law could override the Arizona Constitution.

    There was a law, but it was thrown out by the courts because it clashed with the current constitutional language. Arizona Citizens Defense League proposed this proposition to fix the constitutional problem the court had with the statute. Previously, I believe we’ve always relied on Western common sense to prevail if a victim was sued by the criminal.

    You can see how our elected voted on the issue here: http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SCR1020&Session_Id=102&image.x=0&image.y=0

    I think the opposition was primarily driven by an ideology that requires citizens to be dependent upon government for protection.

  2. Vox AZ
    October 3rd, 2012 @ 12:45 am

    I am just opposed in general to passing laws that aren’t needed, more so when we are talking about altering the state constitution. It is more clear now why they are going to that extreme.

    Also more clear: trial lawyers AND Kristen Sinema oppose it -> getting to a stronger YES 🙂

  3. CapitalistPig
    October 3rd, 2012 @ 1:39 am

    I don’t like frivolous laws (except having the Peacemaker as the state gun) and amending the state constitution is a big deal. In this case, it is the only way to be certain people won’t be victimized twice by an assailant.

    I’m certain Vernon Parker won’t fight to make sure that criminals can get rich if they’re injured in their line of work.

Leave a Reply





Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.