[Draft]On Looters in Crises

[Yodle]

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Yodle

Recognizing the overall consensus that looting is a crime and should be punished by local authorities; however,

Acknowledging the universal phenomenon in which the citizenry will loot during natural disasters and other crisis situations due to the breakdown of society and the life and death situations they face; therefore,

Believing that citizens who loot for basic supplies, which are explicitly necessary for survival, during crises should not face government prosecution for their actions.

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines “looting” in the context of this resolution as the act of stealing supplies- including, but not limited to, food, water, and medical supplies- from commercial facilities only, without the result of physical harm to other individuals.

Further Defines “crisis situation,” as used in this resolution, as a situation caused by natural forces and conditions, in which an entire community is encountered with a sudden event, or series of events, that leads to an unstable and chaotic environment which induces widespread panic and fear in the community.

Mandates that citizens of member nations who commit acts of looting during a crisis situation are legally protected from prosecution by the host nation, so long as the only crime committed was looting and the only supplies taken were explicitly necessary for survival.

Further Mandates that the citizens of member nations who commit acts of looting be forced to reimburse the owner of the store or the building which was looted to the full amount that was taken or damaged. All acts of looting and the inventory of what was taken must be reported to the government by the looter(s) themselves to ensure the safe reimbursement back to the original owners of the looted materials. If looters fail to inform the government of their looting or fail to reimburse the individuals they stole from, they will be charged with their crimes unequivocally and the government will reimburse the individuals through fines and increased taxes of the looters at fault.

Recommends that host nations create more foodbanks in largely populated areas with significant commercial districts to try and reduce the acts of looting in crisis situations.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Yodle

Recognizing the overall consensus that looting is a crime and should be punished by local authorities; however,

Acknowledging the universal phenomenon in which the citizenry will loot during natural disasters and other crisis situations due to the breakdown of society and the life and death situations they face; therefore,

Believing that citizens who loot for supplies, which are necessary for survival, during crises should not face punishment for their actions.

The World Assembly hereby:

Defines “looting” in the context of this resolution as the act of stealing supplies- including, but not limited to, food, water, and medical supplies- from stores without the result of physical harm to other individuals.

Further Defines “crisis situation,” as used in this resolution, as any situation with the exception of situations during wartime, in which an entire community is encountered with a sudden event, or series of events, that leads to an unstable and chaotic environment which induces widespread panic and fear in the community.

Mandates that citizens of member nations who commit acts of looting during a crisis situation are legally protected from prosecution by the host nation, so long as the only crime committed was looting and the only supplies taken were necessary for survival.

Recommends that host nations pass laws which grant extra legal protection for non-violent acts committed by their citizens during crisis situations.

This proposal is meant to cover protections for looters which were not addressed in GA #317 Wartime Looting and Pillaging, as that resolution only covers protections for looters during times of war.

EDIT: Added new draft and changed title.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I presume socialists will hate this attempt to impose a system of property rights upon societies and regimes which do not have such property rights, since this really is just that.

[Yodle]

I presume socialists will hate this attempt to impose a system of property rights upon societies and regimes which do not have such property rights, since this really is just that.

Eh, I'm a socialist This just applies to food, water, and medical supplies essentially, and only in situations where there is complete and utter breakdown of society.. We'll see what other people's reactions are I guess. Are there any blatant grammatical or logical errors in it? Aside from the overall concept

[Calladan]

Just to be clear - a massive earthquake rocks Calladan, parts of my house collapse, members of my family might be listed as missing, presumed dead, and I'm supposed to be happy to let people come in to what remains of my house and steal my food, my water, possibly clothes and stuff (since the definition of "supplies" is somewhat vague at best) and - as long as they don't physically attack me or my youngest daughter to do it - I am not allowed to stop them taking everything I will need to survive until help comes, thus possibly condemning me to a long lingering death?

(Just checking).

(After leaving in a slightly over-dramatic fashion, Ambassador McGill returns to her desk. Or possibly station. How is The WA layed out anyway?)

Further Defines “crisis situation,” as used in this resolution, as any situation with the exception of situations during wartime, in which an entire community is encountered with a sudden event, or series of events, that leads to an unstable and chaotic environment which induces widespread panic and fear in the community.

Now I admit this is almost impossible in Calladan, since there are very strict gun laws, but imagine this situation, if you will.

It's Sunday afternoon. My family is relaxing, because tomorrow is a public holiday so we are all having an afternoon out at Misanthrope Park because it's coming towards the end of summer and soon it will piss it down most days.

(The Park is in my neighbourhood, and there are dozens of houses surrounding it).

Suddenly there is a massive amount of gun fire. Four people are shooting from the top of Rosenberg Tower with high-powered automatic rifles. Since Rosenberg Tower is, arguably, the tallest building in my neighbourhood, they can shoot and hit a lot of people.

Now - I would say 1) This is a sudden event. The four people didn't get on megaphones and start yelling they were going to do this - they just opened fire. 2) We are clearly not at war. 3) There are four people shooting at a park full of other people (including young children). Needless to say, the words "chaotic and unstable" are going to be used to describe it. 4) It is not unreasonable to expect fear and panic in the community since there are FOUR PEOPLE SHOOTING AT US.

According to the proposal, this would be a crisis, and therefore people would be justified to break into the surrounding houses and steal whatever the hell they want.

I am not certain that would make the situation better.

[Yodle]

Just to be clear - a massive earthquake rocks Calladan, parts of my house collapse, members of my family might be listed as missing, presumed dead, and I'm supposed to be happy to let people come in to what remains of my house and steal my food, my water, possibly clothes and stuff (since the definition of "supplies" is somewhat vague at best) and - as long as they don't physically attack me or my youngest daughter to do it - I am not allowed to stop them taking everything I will need to survive until help comes, thus possibly condemning me to a long lingering death?

(Just checking).

Hmm, well if you put it like that xD I will only have this apply to stores..

[Imperium Anglorum]

According to the proposal, this would be a crisis, and therefore people would be justified to break into the surrounding houses and steal whatever the hell they want.

PARSONS: We too are concerned about this blank cheque for persons to steal property.

[Yodle]

According to the proposal, this would be a crisis, and therefore people would be justified to break into the surrounding houses and steal whatever the hell they want.

PARSONS: We too are concerned about this blank cheque for persons to steal property.

The houses issue has been resolved.. But I mean, even a small riot will cause looting and there will always be people who go out and steal tv's and other things of high value for the sole purpose of robbing people in a vulnerable position. Now, what I intended for this to solve is to protect the people who are looting out of necessity when they run out of food and are forced to steal from stores and what not from future prosecution after the fact.. I think that's reasonable

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think that's reasonable

I don't.

[Yodle]

I think that's reasonable

I don't.

Hey, I never said looters had protection from a store owner or a house owner, just from the government.. So you could just claim self defense if they refuse to leave your store or home.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't.

Hey, I never said looters had protection from a store owner or a house owner, just from the government.. So you could just claim self defense if they refuse to leave your store or home.

OOC: To be honest, this entire resolution is fantastic repeal bait. All one would need to make is one argument about anything objectionable in the resolution (easy, since you can attack its philosophical ground) and then slam it for subverting the jurisdiction of member nations.

[Calladan]

PARSONS: We too are concerned about this blank cheque for persons to steal property.

The houses issue has been resolved.. But I mean, even a small riot will cause looting and there will always be people who go out and steal tv's and other things of high value for the sole purpose of robbing people in a vulnerable position. Now, what I intended for this to solve is to protect the people who are looting out of necessity when they run out of food and are forced to steal from stores and what not from future prosecution after the fact.. I think that's reasonable

(I realise this has become somewhat moot, at least in relation to houses, however to some degree the problem relating to stores is still going to exist)

But if you grant absolution (at least from the government) wouldn't that lead to two potential problems :-

First - if people think they have a legal right to steal from someone else's house, or place of business, then they might do it even if they don't have a direct and urgent need to do it. While I look for the best in everyone, I realise there are people out there who are not above the occasional bad act, especially if it is (on the grand scale of things, from "taking a bottle of water during an earthquake" all the way up to "throwing puppies in a woodchipper") not all that bad, and so this would pretty much allow them to take things whether they needed them or not.

Second - if it is a time of crisis (earthquake, riot, etc) and someone breaks in to a shop with the intention of taking stuff because they need the food to live, isn't there the chance that the shop owner - who will already be in a high state of tension due to the crisis - will just shoot them or otherwise do them harm? You your self have said the resolution will only protect them from the government, and you make no comment on the shop keeper blowing them away with a .44 magnum.

If it helps, Calladan has a "just cause" clause in some of its legislation. If you do something bad, but the situation was desperate or urgent enough that you really had no choice (such as breaking into the local supermarket to get some food and water so you could live until the government relief trucks could reach you) then we would not punish you as severely as if you had done it for kicks. We might ask you to pay for the stuff you took, and possibly contribute to the cost of fixing any damage you did breaking in, but that would be about it. Most people seem happy with that - it is still a crime, and you are still a criminal, but not one that is excessively punished for trying to save a life.

[Yodle]

Hey, I never said looters had protection from a store owner or a house owner, just from the government.. So you could just claim self defense if they refuse to leave your store or home.

OOC: To be honest, this entire resolution is fantastic repeal bait. All one would need to make is one argument about anything objectionable in the resolution (easy, since you can attack its philosophical ground) and then slam it for subverting the jurisdiction of member nations.

Lol yeah I can't really argue with that, it's somewhat controversial.. Well, since it likely wouldn't stay on the books if people were to ever vote for it, I may as well use it as practice for writing these in general.

Purely from a grammatical perspective, can you point out any errors you see in it? Could be anything from a parenthese to general syntax

[Yodle]

The houses issue has been resolved.. But I mean, even a small riot will cause looting and there will always be people who go out and steal tv's and other things of high value for the sole purpose of robbing people in a vulnerable position. Now, what I intended for this to solve is to protect the people who are looting out of necessity when they run out of food and are forced to steal from stores and what not from future prosecution after the fact.. I think that's reasonable

(I realise this has become somewhat moot, at least in relation to houses, however to some degree the problem relating to stores is still going to exist)

But if you grant absolution (at least from the government) wouldn't that lead to two potential problems :-

First - if people think they have a legal right to steal from someone else's house, or place of business, then they might do it even if they don't have a direct and urgent need to do it. While I look for the best in everyone, I realise there are people out there who are not above the occasional bad act, especially if it is (on the grand scale of things, from "taking a bottle of water during an earthquake" all the way up to "throwing puppies in a woodchipper") not all that bad, and so this would pretty much allow them to take things whether they needed them or not.

Second - if it is a time of crisis (earthquake, riot, etc) and someone breaks in to a shop with the intention of taking stuff because they need the food to live, isn't there the chance that the shop owner - who will already be in a high state of tension due to the crisis - will just shoot them or otherwise do them harm? You your self have said the resolution will only protect them from the government, and you make no comment on the shop keeper blowing them away with a .44 magnum.

If it helps, Calladan has a "just cause" clause in some of its legislation. If you do something bad, but the situation was desperate or urgent enough that you really had no choice (such as breaking into the local supermarket to get some food and water so you could live until the government relief trucks could reach you) then we would not punish you as severely as if you had done it for kicks. We might ask you to pay for the stuff you took, and possibly contribute to the cost of fixing any damage you did breaking in, but that would be about it. Most people seem happy with that - it is still a crime, and you are still a criminal, but not one that is excessively punished for trying to save a life.

I like the sounds of that last point you made, seems to be the common sense thing to do. Now if this, in its current form, were to be applied in practice, it'd essentially be a situation where you can go into stores to steal at your own risk, however the shop owner in theory could just blow your brains out xD I kind of envisioned it acting more as a situation where there's no one around (no danger) and you could steal it, but be arrested later on, or you could steal and get away without having to worry about the government coming and arresting you for trying to survive. Of course, that would not protect you from other people, just like in the case of the first amendment and the freedom of speech in the US, Twitter can ban and suppress you for whatever reason they want and it's totally legal, but the government can only do that if you commit libel, slander, or make a direct threat of violence

[Bears Armed]

But if you grant absolution (at least from the government) wouldn't that lead to two potential problems

Third potential problem, gangs deliberately starting riots so that they then have a legal excuse to go looting...

[Calladan]

I had an idea about this while I was out having my lunch, and - while it is incredibly presumptuous and somewhat pushy - I though I could suggest it? (And also apologise for my somewhat brusque tone earlier. I realise it is very little excuse for speaking in less than polite tones, but my youngest daughter decided to wake her mother and me at four o'clock this morning by the unique and interesting method of throwing up on our bed. Needless to say I did not get as much sleep as I would've liked).

From what I can see, the idea behind this proposal is to allow people to survive during a catastrophe (earthquake, wildfire etc) without the fear and the risk of being prosecuted by the government for doing what they need to do (finding food, water - other essentials etc).

And this would only be during the time between the start of the disaster/catastrophe/crisis and the time when the government (national or local) disaster relief teams can get to the disaster zone, or the international aid teams can reach the zones.

(This is the basis I am proceeding on - if I am wrong, the rest of this will be complete nonsense, so apologies in advance!)

What if, instead of "legalising" (or at the very least decriminalising) looting, you start a program of "aid stations" - stores, supermarkets, corner shops and so on that are NOT government run, but are - during times of need - willing to give away food and drink and other supplies to people who need it and who can't get them any other way. So if there is a massive earthquake, local stores will temporarily supply food, drink and other essentials (baby food, nappies etc - these are just examples) for free, for those who need them, on the understanding that the government (local or national) will reimburse their costs when the crisis is over.

I realise there are problems with this idea as well - it would require the stores acting as "aid stations" to be fair and not exploit the situation (by gouging the government), and if the disaster is big enough it could wipe out the aid stations as well.

But this - to me - would more or less achieve what you are hoping to achieve - allow people to get what they need - without the necessity of having the government endorse looting and pillaging and theft.

[Separatist Peoples]

"How is domestic larceny, even in times of crisis, the purview of the General Assembly?"

[Grays Harbor]

Why do you want the WA to make theft legal? And how is this something even remotely an international issue?

[Tinfect]

Recognizing the overall consensus that looting is a crime and should be punished by local authorities; however,

"Ah, then it is safe to assume that this draft will be soon abandoned?"

Acknowledging the universal phenomenon in which the citizenry will loot during natural disasters and other crisis situations due to the breakdown of society and the life and death situations they face; therefore,

"This phenomenon is best reduced, not encouraged, Ambassador."

Believing that citizens who loot for supplies, which are necessary for survival, during crises should not face punishment for their actions.

"Were these citizens in compliance with Imperial Authorities, such a thing would not be necessary, they will face whatever sentence is deemed appropriate."

Defines “looting” in the context of this resolution as the act of stealing supplies- including, but not limited to, food, water, and medical supplies- from stores without the result of physical harm to other individuals.

"Imperial Resource and Supply Storage Facilities are to be utilized and distributed by Imperial Authorities in the event of a crisis. Allowing Civilians to break into these facilities for whatever reason they so desire poses a significant threat to Imperial Operations, as well as other Imperial Citizens.

Unless, of course, you refer to commercial facilities, in which case, I certainly hope you are aware that such facilities survive on the ability to sell their stock, something that cannot be achieved if the stock has been stolen."

Mandates that citizens of member nations who commit acts of looting during a crisis situation are legally protected from prosecution by the host nation, so long as the only crime committed was looting and the only supplies taken were necessary for survival.

"Of course, Ambassador, you are aware that you have now encouraged Terrorists to make large-scale and repeated attacks against Infrastructure and Populations so as to create an ever-lasting state of World Assembly enforced Anarchy?

The Imperium is opposed. In times of crisis, the State has the obligation to restore order, and functionality, as soon as possible. Forcing a State to allow chaos and disorder simply because the Situation is poor will only damage recovery and reconstruction efforts."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I do not believe it is within the stated goals of the World Assembly to legalize theft, burglary, or robbery, even in desperate situations. Such matters are best left to national governments." Blackbourne states. "Additionally, as this is a domestic issue I do not see why international legislation is needed."

"Imperial Resource and Supply Storage Facilities are to be utilized and distributed by Imperial Authorities in the event of a crisis. Allowing Civilians to break into these facilities for whatever reason they so desire poses a significant threat to Imperial Operations, as well as other Imperial Citizens."

Blackbourne marks something down on his datatab.

[Kryozerkia]

You may want to tighten your definition of "crisis situation". The points raised by the ambassadors here about the potential for abuse should be taken into account.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Absolutely not. We will not allow citizens to break the law just because there's a crisis situation. If anything, this proposal is a crisis!

Neville: Alright, lay it easy. This is just a new author.

Fairburn: I may be able to forgive slight errors from a newbie, but this proposal's very idea is ridiculous! Throw this draft in a dustbin. (exits)

Neville: (sighs) He's consistent, I'll give him that. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how we'll be voting.

[Yodle]

You may want to tighten your definition of "crisis situation". The points raised by the ambassadors here about the potential for abuse should be taken into account.

I concur. I will begin fixing up the draft for its second version taking into account what everyone has said

[Wallenburg]

"I'm afraid that this proposal is totally incompatible with the fundamental nature of justice, law, and order, and therefore my offices cannot support it. As long as this gives people free reign to make crises even worse by looting and pillaging, Wallenburg is opposed."

[Yodle]

New draft is finished, lemme know if I covered any of your concerns and if there are new ones.

[Tinfect]

Acknowledging the universal phenomenon in which the citizenry will loot during natural disasters and other crisis situations due to the breakdown of society and the life and death situations they face; therefore,

"Again, such activity is best abated, rather than encouraged."

Believing that citizens who loot for basic supplies, which are explicitly necessary for survival, during crises should not face government prosecution for their actions.

"Those that refuse to comply with Imperial Authorities and instead choose to acquire supplies illegally, are Criminals, Ambassador. Perpetuating a state of chaos is nothing to be celebrated, or even tolerated; especially not in those situations where Authorities are already working to restore order."

Further Mandates that the citizens of member nations who commit acts of looting be forced to reimburse the owner of the store or the building which was looted to the full amount that was taken or damaged. All acts of looting and the inventory of what was taken must be reported to the government by the looter(s) themselves to ensure the safe reimbursement back to the original owners of the looted materials. If looters fail to inform the government of their looting or fail to reimburse the individuals they stole from, they will be charged with their crimes unequivocally and the government will reimburse the individuals through fines and increased taxes of the looters at fault.

"Ambassador, you are of course aware that in those States utilizing capitalist economic policies, and suffering from limited response capability, that this clause will effectively mandate the Imprisonment of the impoverished in crisis situations? Those with the ability to pay for goods in such systems often have the resources to survive without resorting to such activity. Those most forced to resort to such acts, will likely be unable to pay for such goods, either due to existing financial status, or as a direct result of the crisis."