There are so many inaccuracies and misleading statements in Roger Kaseman’s recent assessment of Marsy’s Law for North Dakota I have to wonder whether he even read the language of the measure, because it’s clear he doesn’t understand it.
The most important point I can make in response to his assertions is that there is absolutely no way Marsy’s Law for North Dakota removes the discretion of law enforcement, or judicial officers. That could be the most absurd argument I’ve ever heard. Marsy’s Law for North Dakota in no way changes the authority or the discretion of the courts who control the legal proceedings. In particular, judges have and always will have ample latitude to make decisions based on the facts, just as they do with all constitutional provisions.
[mks_pullquote align=”right” width=”300″ size=”24″ bg_color=”#ffffff” txt_color=”#000000″]Quite frankly, I am relieved that Mr. Kaseman is no longer investigating criminal activity because he clearly has a horrible bias.[/mks_pullquote]
The second point I need to clarify is regarding the definition of victim. If Mr. Kaseman has an issue with it in Marsy’s Law for North Dakota, then he has even bigger fish to fry since it’s the exact same definition of victim North Dakota currently has in statute. The exact same. So any notion that this definition will somehow open the door to involve every person who’s ever met a victim is not only completely false, but utterly ridiculous.
Mr. Kaseman also apparently has little faith in the abilities of our North Dakota law enforcement and legal personnel, which is sad and unwarranted. He claims that if a victim has the ability to be heard then that will define the outcome of the case. He claims there’s no way our North Dakota public servants can sort through emotion to get to the truth. Apparently he could do that as an investigator in California, but no one in North Dakota will be able to do the same.
Finally, I am truly saddened that Mr. Kaseman demeans victims to the point of saying we “cannot expect reasoned judgement” from them.
Quite frankly, I am relieved that Mr. Kaseman is no longer investigating criminal activity because he clearly has a horrible bias. Mary’s Law for North Dakota is well-reasoned with sound legal precedent for everything in it, and was written in consultation with local law enforcement, North Dakota state’s attorneys, victim advocates and others. It affords victims the rights to be heard, to be notified and to be free from harassment. It also elevates these rights so that they are respected and protected no less vigorously than are the rights of the accused. I think Mr. Kaseman’s attitude toward victims exemplifies just how necessary protecting these rights are.