The New Hampshire House of Representatives could not have sent a more unambiguous message Thursday when it not only rejected a proposed bill of rights for crime victims on a 284-51 vote but then voted again to ensure that the proposed constitutional amendment didn’t reappear during this session of the Legislature.

The extra step may have seemed necessary since the measure, known as Marsy’s Law, had the support of Gov. Chris Sununu, Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, a variety of former prosecutors, several former Supreme Court justices and law enforcement organizations and, in amended form, passed the Senate last month in a lopsided 20-3 vote.

It also had the logistical and financial backing of a California-based organization known as Marsy’s Law for All, which was founded in 2009 by Henry T. Nicholas III, the billionaire founder and former CEO of the computer chipmaker Broadcom, to pass similar constitutional amendments in the states that do not already address victim rights in their constitutions. (The measure gets its name from Nicholas’ sister, Marsalee “Marsy” Nicholas, who was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend in 1983.)

And it had principled and impassioned support from victim rights organizations, including the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

But in the end, the House followed the lead of a panel of lawmakers from the Criminal Justice and Judiciary committees and — correctly, in our view — rejected the proposed amendment on fiscal, legal and policy grounds.

As we have argued before in this space, crime victims deserve all the support we can give them, but the Marsy’s Law amendment wasn’t the way to do it. And as the states that have already adopted some form of Marsy’s Law have learned, there can be unintended consequences — higher costs and increased workloads for law enforcement agencies, for example, along with delays in proceedings.

Supporters of the amendment, we believe, were motivated in large part by the understandable desire to see the rights of victims “enshrined” in the state’s constitution. Why, they ask, are the rights of the accused enumerated in such detail while those of the victim are not? The answer, of course, is that constitutional protections, such as the right to due process, are there to protect individuals from the power of the state to deprive them of their liberty. Crime victims, for all their pain and anguish, are under no such threat.

Further, New Hampshire already has a bill of rights for crime victims. It’s called “Rights of Crime Victims” and it’s enshrined in state statute.

New Hampshire can help crime victims by making a commitment to support — with actual money, not just photo opportunities — the law enforcement agencies, courts, advocacy groups and others that are already providing such assistance.

Time will tell if Sununu, MacDonald and the others are truly interested in improving the state’s support of crime victims, or if they are more concerned with appearing to do so.