Jedinsto wrote:OOC: It still says "should" in clause 5, and another thing I noticed, you have this listed as significant strength, I would advise you change to mild.
Will do so when I submit, fixed that error. Anything else?
Advertisement
by Crowheim » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:37 pm
Jedinsto wrote:OOC: It still says "should" in clause 5, and another thing I noticed, you have this listed as significant strength, I would advise you change to mild.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:39 pm
The World Assembly,
Commending previous efforts passed in these hallowed halls which advanced the civil rights of those who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgender,
Recognizing that there is still much work to be done in the securing of equality and justice for members of the LGBTQ+ community, as the previously passed resolutions could only cover so much ground,
Noting one of the most egregious offenses against these rights which is still in existence: the Gay Panic Defense, often used by aggressors of assault and murder to justify their actions under the logic that they thought the transgender or gay victim was attempting to commit sexual assault, and
Realizing that this justification rarely if ever is actually accurate to the circumstances of an assault or murder, and that when it is, the argument is rooted in bigotry, homophobia and transphobia which should not be acceptable or present in any court of law, hereby enacts as follows:
- In this resolution,
- 'gay panic defense' means an defence in which a defendant claims they acted in a state of temporary insanity, diminished capacity, or self-defense, committing assault or murder against the victim because of what they perceived as unwanted same-sex sexual advances,
- 'trans panic defence' means a legal strategy in which a defendant claims they acted in a state of temporary insanity, diminished capacity, or self-defense, committing assault or murder against the victim, because of what they perceived as unwanted sexual advances from a transgender person, and
- 'sexual assault' means any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the consent of the recipient.
- Gay panic and trans panic defences shall be disallowed in courts of law within all member nations unless in cases of sexual assault.
- Member nations are encouraged to provide compensation to the victims of Gay Panic Defense, or their families in cases where the victim is not able to receive compensation.
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Feb 18, 2021 6:39 pm
by Crowheim » Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:05 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Okay, having thought about this topic a bit more, I'd replace the whole draft with two clauses:The perception, whether true or not, of a person's sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity may not be used as a defence to a criminal offence, excuse or justification of criminal conduct, or evidence for mitigating a criminal offence's severity in sentencing.
The use of force against another individual is not justified by the mere discovery, knowledge, or disclosure of that individual's sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
(If you want to use these clauses, please credit me as a co-author.) The topic of victim compensation seems gravely unclear to me. What is being compensated for which the victim (or heirs thereof) would have otherwise been entitled to?
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:37 am
by Crowheim » Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:58 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:For 'the whole draft' substitute 'the operative section', sure.
by Crowheim » Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:00 am
by Crowheim » Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:14 am
by Crowheim » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:15 am
by Elwher » Mon Mar 01, 2021 11:53 am
by San Finn » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:09 pm
Elwher wrote:The validity of any defense should be a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and a matter of circumstance for a judge to consider at sentencing. An attorney should have the right to present any defense of his client's actions to the deciding bodies without let or hindrance, therefore Elwher is strongly opposed to this restriction.
by Refuge Isle » Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:36 pm
Elwher wrote:The validity of any defense should be a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and a matter of circumstance for a judge to consider at sentencing. An attorney should have the right to present any defense of his client's actions to the deciding bodies without let or hindrance, therefore Elwher is strongly opposed to this restriction.
by Niveusium » Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:27 pm
Elwher wrote:The validity of any defense should be a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and a matter of circumstance for a judge to consider at sentencing. An attorney should have the right to present any defense of his client's actions to the deciding bodies without let or hindrance, therefore Elwher is strongly opposed to this restriction.
by San Finn » Mon Mar 01, 2021 5:53 pm
Niveusium wrote:Elwher wrote:The validity of any defense should be a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and a matter of circumstance for a judge to consider at sentencing. An attorney should have the right to present any defense of his client's actions to the deciding bodies without let or hindrance, therefore Elwher is strongly opposed to this restriction.
You're suggesting that there will be other factors involved that may change the perspective of the court. This resolution only defeats one thing and one thing only; that the gay panic defense cannot be used in order to justify the killings of LGBTQ+ people. Whether or not there is an actual justification for the killing, that is truly up for the courts to decide and varies circumstantially.
by People of Phoenix » Mon Mar 01, 2021 7:38 pm
Elwher wrote:The validity of any defense should be a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and a matter of circumstance for a judge to consider at sentencing. An attorney should have the right to present any defense of his client's actions to the deciding bodies without let or hindrance, therefore Elwher is strongly opposed to this restriction.
by Texkentuck » Mon Mar 01, 2021 9:15 pm
by DragonZord » Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:42 am
by Sylh Alanor » Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:44 am
DragonZord wrote:The title of the resolution sounds wrong, why I voted against.
by Marxist Germany » Tue Mar 02, 2021 1:51 am
by Ardiveds » Tue Mar 02, 2021 8:13 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement