Arizona Proposition 114: Protecting Crime Victims From Liability For Damages Deserves No Vote

Preface

I know, I am coming late, only two days left to the November 6, 2012 election. Unfortunately, I did not have time to read the Arizona’s General Election Guide any earlier.

Official Content Of Proposition

Here is the link to the official webpage for Proposition 114.

“1. Article II, section 31, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

 31. Damages for death or personal injuries

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.

 2. Article XVIII, section 6, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

 6. Recovery of damages for injuries

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.

 3. Short title

This measure may be cited as the "Crime Victims Protection Act of 2012".”

No Arguments Against Proposition 114

According to the above mentioned General Election Guide “[t]here were no arguments “against” Proposition 114” only two separate arguments for it.

This caught my eye. Do we have to assume everything is OK with this proposition? Is it so self-evident? I doubt it.

My Arguments Against This Proposition

Such common sense, detailed legalistic instructions should never be written into a constitution! Period. A constitution should be written in a concise language that almost anyone can understand. It should be strictly limited to essential principles.

If a criminal successfully sues an innocent victim of the crime for injuries inflicted by the victim while committing the crime, then something is wrong with the judge or jury or the victim’s attorney was incompetent. Instead of a constitutional amendment, a law would be in my estimation sufficient to achieve this purpose.

Just the long winded definition of these two constitutional amendments are big red flags indicating there will be lots of trouble ahead to interpret these legalese.