held in joint tenancy, has been interpreted to allow a joint tenant to disclaim an interest only in that tenant’s accretive interest, not in his or her proportional interest. Id. The rationale for this interpretation is that a disclaimer can only apply "to property which passes upon death to the disclaimant, not to property owned by the disclaimant prior to the death.” Id. 2 . We express no opinion on whether the legislature's hypothetical divestiture of a joint tenant's proportional interest would be an unconstitutional forfeiture. Compare In re Estate of Shields, 1 Kan.App.2d 688, 574 P.2d 229, 233 (1977) (indicating murderer's loss of undivided interest would constitute an unconstitutional forfeiture), with In re Estate of Fiore, 16 Ohio App.3d 473, 476 N.E.2d 1093, 1097 (1984)
holding statute requiring that murderer be deemed to have predeceased victim thereby entitling victim to all joint tenancy property was not an unconstitutional forfeiture holding that the government may be an identifiable victim holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized holding that victim impact evidence properly reminds the sentencer that just as the murderer should be considered as an individual so too the victim is an individual whose death represents a unique loss to society and in particular to his family