[SUBMITTED] Repeal "Rights of Crime Victims"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeal "Rights of Crime Victims"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Believing that crime victims have a right to pursue justice, but convinced that the target resolution creates structural inequities which prevent defendants, who ought to be presumed to be innocent, from obtaining due process,

Concerned that the resolution's mandate of notification ‘in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution [and] any important developments in the case’ forces governments to disclose to possibly untrustworthy people the contents and existence of court proceedings whose publication could be damaging to national security,

Worried that the resolution’s requirement to permit victims ‘to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered’ at any stage of the prosecution would violate criminal evidentiary procedures designed to prevent juries from relying on emotional content rather than the facts of the case,

Appalled that there are no restrictions on the contents of this statement, which means it could be used to introduce information which:

1. is irrelevant and personally damaging to the reputation of the defence into the public record,
   
   
2. was collected without warrant, especially probable given that the victim is likely to have have cooperated with the police services beforehand, or
   
   
3. blatantly violates a defendant's right to privacy,

Troubled that repeated use of these statements can draw out trials to an unreasonable length that stretches a defendant's ability to pay for counsel while also necessarily violating their right to a speedy trial, and

Convinced that:

1. member nations can protect the rights of both victims and the accused without the World Assembly directly micromanaging, setting requirements, or imposing restrictions on a nation's customary administration of justice,
   
   
2. the current resolution imposes costs against justice which cannot simply be ignored on the dogma that every repealed resolution must be replaced, and
   
   
3. replacement would necessarily create similar structural inequities against criminal defendants; hereby:

Repeals GA 247 “Rights of Crime Victims”.

This august World Assembly,

Believing that crime victims have a right to pursue justice, but convinced that the target resolution creates structural inequities which prevent defendants, who ought to be presumed to be innocent, from obtaining due process,

Concerned that the resolution's mandate of notification 'in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution [and] any important developments in the case' forces governments to disclose to possibly untrustworthy people the contents and existence of court proceedings whose publicisation could be damaging to national security,

Worried that the resolution's requirement to permit victims 'to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered' at any stage of the prosecution would violate criminal evidentiary procedures designed to prevent juries from relying on emotional content rather than the facts of the case,

Appalled that there are no restrictions on the contents of this statement, which means it could be used to introduce information which:

1. is irrelevant and personally damaging to the reputation of the defence into the public record,
2. was collected without warrant, especially probable given that the victim is likely to have have cooperated with the police services beforehand, or
3. blatantly violates a defendant's right to privacy,

Troubled that repeated use of these statements can draw out trials to an unreasonable length that stretches a defendant's ability to pay for counsel while also necessarily violating their right to a speedy trial,

Convinced that:

1. member nations can protect the rights of both victims and the accused without the World Assembly directly micromanaging, setting requirements, or imposing restrictions on a nation's customary administration of justice,
2. replacement will be pursued by up-and-coming delegations in the World Assembly,
3. that it would be absurd for the Assembly to vote in such a way that it minimises the number of participating authors,
4. the current resolution imposes costs against justice which cannot simply be ignored on the dogma that every repealed resolution must be replaced, and
5. replacement would necessarily create similar structural inequities against criminal defendants;

Hereby repeals GA 247 'Rights of Crime Victims'.

[Calladan]

(Image)
Repeal "Rights of Crime Victims"
Category: Repeal

---

The World Assembly,

Believing that crime victims have a right to pursue justice and the rectification of crime committed, but concerned that this resolution goes too far, creating structural inequities which prevent people from obtaining due process,

Concerned that the resolutions' mandate to permit 'make a statement on the record' at any point during the prosecution violates the accused's right to a speedy trial by creating unnecessary delays and interruptions,

Worried these statements would violate criminal evidence discovery procedures by entering new information into criminal proceedings without any ability for the defendant to meaningfully refute or question the veracity of that new evidence, thereby biasing jurors or judges against the defence, and

Troubled by a categorical ban on contact with the plaintiff outside the presence of law enforcement officers, as this makes it harder to come to an out-of-court settlement, thereby trading off with court availability for other cases and increasing attorney fees, making the justice system more expensive to access,

Hereby repeals 247 GA 'Rights of Crime Victims'.

Concerned that the resolutions' mandate to permit 'make a statement on the record' at any point during the prosecution violates the accused's right to a speedy trial by creating unnecessary delays and interruptions,

Does this necessarily mean that statement has to be part of the court record? I could just ask my lawyer to make the fact I want it recorded that the accused was mean to me as a child (for example) part of the record without interrupting a trial or criminal procedure.

Worried these statements would violate criminal evidence discovery procedures by entering new information into criminal proceedings without any ability for the defendant to meaningfully refute or question the veracity of that new evidence, thereby biasing jurors or judges against the defence

I am not convinced this is the case - at least, not in Calladan. If I make a statement during an investigation (that is on the record) it would be handed over to the prosecution and they would do due diligence to try to refute it. If I make a statement during a trial, when I am under oath, then either I would be cross-examined (and if I am lying it would be shown or I would be charged with perjury) or the statement would be required to be ignored (which I realise is not perfect but even without this permission I can still make statements that fall under the same problem).

The only time statements are made that can't be refuted are after the conviction - the so called "impact" statements, and at that point the jury has been dismissed and has no further power, and we have enough faith in judges that they can act with reason free from emotion.

Whether this is the same in other nations I can't speak to.

Troubled by a categorical ban on contact with the plaintiff outside the presence of law enforcement officers, as this makes it harder to come to an out-of-court settlement, thereby trading off with court availability for other cases and increasing attorney fees, making the justice system more expensive to access,

Not to be picky, but the actual resolution says

the right to prevent the accused from directly contacting the crime victim outside the presence of law enforcement officers

which is a slightly different thing -- it prevents the man accused to beating my daughter from coming round to my house and intimidating her without the police present to restrain him. It does not prevent her lawyers from speaking to her outside the presence of the police.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Clarifications have been made with regard to the first and second responses. Re-reading the resolution, I agree with your interpretation of the resolution vis-à-vis the now removed section.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Ambassador of the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
We applaud the Ambassador's desire to achieve good legislation for the WA and agree with their concerns regarding the resolution. We support the effort to repeal this legislation, and hope to provide a clear replacement that insures crime victims adequate protection and respects the rights of member states.

[Kaboomlandia]

Miller: "As usual, will support if there's a replacement ready to go."

[Tinfect]

"The Imperium is entirely supportive of this repeal. There is no need for the World Assembly to interfere in the legal system of the Imperium, and its doing so has only resulted in needless complications."

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: As Parsons is still at the capital helping to manage some major affairs of state, especially given the fact that we have a new monarch and all, I guess I'm in charge of the delegation until he returns. On that topic, I've been instructed to ask for comment on this proposal here.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Troubled that repeated use of these statements can draw out trials to an unreasonable length which stretches a defendant's ability to continue paying for counsel while necessarily violating the defendant's right to a speedy trial,

"Requested grammatical edits in red. We will examine the actual content later, but this stood out a bit."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Troubled that repeated use of these statements can draw out trials to an unreasonable length which stretches a defendant's ability to continue paying for counsel while necessarily violating the defendant's right to a speedy trial,

"Requested grammatical edits in red. We will examine the actual content later, but this stood out a bit."

Applied.

---

On replacement:

Do repeals need to be replaced?
HELL NO!

Of course, if you ask some GA regulars, they'll insist that almost every repealed resolution needs a replacement. (After all, God forbid we actual govern our own nations without the oversight of the WA, right?) And you are certainly more than welcome to write a replacement for the repealed resolution yourself, should that be something you're interested in. However, you are by no means required to author a replacement, if you don't wish to do so.

[Southern Astrania]

(Image)
Repeal "Rights of Crime Victims"
Category: Repeal

---

This august World Assembly,

Believing that crime victims have a right to pursue justice, but convinced that this resolution creates structural inequities which prevent defendants, whom are presumed to be innocent, from obtaining due process,

Concerned that the resolution's mandate of notification 'in advance of any upcoming critical stage of the prosecution [and] any important developments in the case' forces governments to disclose to possibly untrustworthy people the contents and existence of court proceedings whose publicisation could be damaging to national security,

Worried that the resolution's requirement to permit victims 'to make a statement on the record, and to have that statement duly heard and considered' at any stage of the prosecution would violate criminal evidentiary procedures designed to prevent juries from relying on emotional content rather than the facts of the case,

Appalled that there are no restrictions on the contents of this statement, which means it could be used to introduce information which:

1. is irrelevant and personally damaging to the reputation of the defence into the public record,
2. was collected without warrant, especially probable given that the victim is likely to have have cooperated with the police services beforehand, or
3. blatantly violates a defendant's right to privacy,

Troubled that repeated use of these statements can draw out trials to an unreasonable length that stretches a defendant's ability to pay for counsel while also necessarily violating their right to a speedy trial,

Convinced that:

1. member nations can protect the rights of both victims and the accused without the World Assembly directly micromanaging, setting requirements, or imposing restrictions on a nation's customary administration of justice,
2. replacement will be pursued by up-and-coming authors in the World Assembly,
3. that it would be absurd for the Assembly to vote in such a way that it minimises the number of participating authors,
4. the current resolution imposes costs against justice which cannot simply be ignored on the dogma that every repealed resolution must be replaced, and
5. replacement would necessarily create similar structural inequities against criminal defendants;

Hereby repeals 247 GA 'Rights of Crime Victims'.

"We are finally pleased with an actual legislation that doesn't seem to be in a sense, unorganized, and just wrong. We completely agree with your nation, and we hope that this draft gets sent into the legislative body of the World Assembly, i will vote in favor of it, as we agree, it doesn't get a necessarily valid ability to produce a defense in court, which violates one of our amendments to due process. We follow the method that all suspects are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY. Thus, we will gladly vote in favor of this legislation, and please know that Imperium Anglorum has full support of the W.A Delegates Office, the 100% Backed support of the Government Of [nation]Southern Astrania[/nation], and His Majesty, King William Bassett IV,

We definitely hope to see this legislation in voting for the World Assembly as soon as possible.



-Signed, Jeffrey Colvin, Appointed Senator To The World Assembly On Behalf of Southern Astrania, and his Majesty, King William Bassett IV."

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is the correct thread for this repeal. The other thread was made in error.

[Wallenburg]

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=446865
Challenge issued. I trust that IA, being the transparent type he is, will share in my openness about critical elements to this proposal's development.