Possibly nefarious changes to Victims Rights Amendment

[DaveJ]

Although in not a political expert, I was reading the changes to the Victims Rights Amendment and I'm worried that it might be presented under false pretenses. That is to say, the proposed changes protect the ability of big business to sue individuals without scrutiny. I'm concerned that people will vote yes to this thinking victims are always regular people and not actually corporate aggressors. Does anyone know who initiated these changes?

Basically I believe it's saying that the person bringing legal action can dispute records being disclosed in legal proceedings, which your typical individual victim probably would not have a problem with -- it seems more designed to protect big business and enable them to legally go after individuals while hiding the facts.

http://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_Crime_Victims'_Bill_of_Rights_Amendment_(2014)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. Sorry, but your analysis is all wrong.

First, and foremost, THIS IS A CRIME VICTIMS' BILL. It is not some general statute that applies in any litigation. It only applies where there is a pending criminal case, against an accused, and there is a well defined victim of the purported crime. If the case meets those standards, then the victim is entitled to notice of all proceedings, including parole hearings after a verdict and judgment. Also, the victim maintains control over personal, private data that might accidentally otherwise be exposed in the criminal case. This has been a real problem in the past, and more than several legal scholars felt that even the possibility of exposure prevented victims from testifying or assisting the prosecution or police.

Lastly, if a prosecutor fucks it up, and fails to provide notice, or accidentally (or deliberately) releases private data, this amendment does NOT permit an independent action by the victim against the prosecutor.

It has absolutely nothing to do with big business, unless some incorporated entity is being prosecuted for a felony - something I haven't seen in 28 years of practice.