Difference between revisions of "Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment, Proposition 114 (2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Supporters)
(Opposition)
Line 64: Line 64:
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
 
* According to [[Arizona House of Representatives|House Majority Leader]] [[Chad Campbell]], speaking on behalf of legislators who oppose the measure, "A lot of us have concerns. Obviously, I don't think anybody committing a crime should be able to sue their victim." However, Campbell said that the broad wording of the measure could lead to situations where civil immunity would be granted to a person who shoots an alleged criminal in the back.<ref> [http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/making-the-ballot-prop-would-limit-civil-suits-over-criminal/article_3124da1e-5d1d-5608-857f-fc95ef670938.html ''Arizona Daily Sun'', "Making the ballot, Prop 114 would limit civil suits over criminal actions", September 13, 2012]</ref>
 
* According to [[Arizona House of Representatives|House Majority Leader]] [[Chad Campbell]], speaking on behalf of legislators who oppose the measure, "A lot of us have concerns. Obviously, I don't think anybody committing a crime should be able to sue their victim." However, Campbell said that the broad wording of the measure could lead to situations where civil immunity would be granted to a person who shoots an alleged criminal in the back.<ref> [http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/making-the-ballot-prop-would-limit-civil-suits-over-criminal/article_3124da1e-5d1d-5608-857f-fc95ef670938.html ''Arizona Daily Sun'', "Making the ballot, Prop 114 would limit civil suits over criminal actions", September 13, 2012]</ref>
 +
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|State Rep. Ruben Gallego]] stated that the measure is unnecessary, saying, "There’s a reason we have our form of judicial system. You have to give some respect to the jury system and to our judges. They’re going to be able to determine most of the time whether someone deserves money or not."<ref> [http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/10/08/arizona-proposition-114-would-bar-felons-lawsuits-against-victims/ ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "Proposition 114 would bar felons’ lawsuits against victims", October 8, 2012]</ref.
  
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
==Path to the ballot==

Revision as of 14:55, 17 October 2012

Proposition 114
Flag of Arizona.png
Click here to read the latest news on ballot measures around the country
Quick stats
Type:Constitutional amendment
Constitution:Article II, Section 31
Referred by:Arizona State Legislature
Topic:Law enforcement
Status:On the ballot
The Arizona Crime Victims Protection Act Amendment, also known as Proposition 114, is on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot in the state of Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. The measure would prohibit crime victims from being subject to a claim for damages for causing harm to a person if that person is killed or injured when engaging in, or fleeing after, a felony crime. It was introduced during 2011 state legislative session, where its formal title was SCR 1020.[1][2]

State Senator Russell Pearce was one of multiple state senators sponsoring the bill.[1]

Text of measure

Ballot language

The ballot language of the measure reads as follows:

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.[3]

Legislative summary

The legislative summary of the measure in session read:[1]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amendment Article II, Section 31 and Article XVII, Section 6, Constitution of Arizona; relating to crime victim protection from liability for damages.

Constitutional changes

Article II, section 31 and Article XVIII, section 6 of of the Arizona Constitution would be amended to read as follows:[1]

Article II, 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.

Article XVIII, 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.

The current sections reads as follows:

Text of Article II, Section 31:

Damages for Death or Personal Injuries

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.

Text of Article XVIII, Section 6:

Recovery of Damages for Injuries

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.[4]

Support

Supporters

The following are supporters of the measure:

  • State Senator Russell Pearce is the first measure sponsor listed on the official overview of the bill.[2]
  • State Senator Steve Smith stated, "Quite simply put, this is a great way to ensure that a criminal is never able to sue the very person they victimized (yes, you would be surprised that this can and does happen)."[5]
  • According to a letter written by Dave Kopp and John Wentling, President and Vice President of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, "The Arizona Constitution protects an unrestricted right to sue for damages, and, for the most part, that’s a good thing. Unfortunately, that protection also allows a criminal to sue you if he gets hurt while committing a crime."[6]

Opposition

  • According to House Majority Leader Chad Campbell, speaking on behalf of legislators who oppose the measure, "A lot of us have concerns. Obviously, I don't think anybody committing a crime should be able to sue their victim." However, Campbell said that the broad wording of the measure could lead to situations where civil immunity would be granted to a person who shoots an alleged criminal in the back.[7]
  • State Rep. Ruben Gallego stated that the measure is unnecessary, saying, "There’s a reason we have our form of judicial system. You have to give some respect to the jury system and to our judges. They’re going to be able to determine most of the time whether someone deserves money or not."Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found