NationStates

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?

Crowheim wrote:

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?

"Looks great!"

Reformatted with minimal textual changes.

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:

1. In this resolution,
   
   
   1. '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,
      
      
   2. '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
      
      
   3. 'sexual assault' means any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the consent of the recipient.
2. Gay panic and trans panic defences shall be disallowed in courts of law within all member nations unless in cases of sexual assault.
   
   
3. 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.

Okay, having thought about this topic a bit more, I'd replace the whole draft with two clauses:


(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?

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?

I’m not sure I want to toss the whole thing out, but I do really like the wording that you used. Do you think it could work if I switched fully to statue form and kept the preamble-of-sorts while using this as the mandates? (Still would credit you as a co-author if this was what I did.)

For 'the whole draft' substitute 'the operative section', sure.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:For 'the whole draft' substitute 'the operative section', sure.

Alright, thank you!

Edited it all into the OP.

Fully updated to fit critiques from offsite, true last call here as I plan to submit this tomorrow.

Currently waiting on API Key, once I obtain that and the ability to send my campaign telegram I'll submit this.

Submitted. Hoping to see lots of approvals!

“Full support.”

"Full support, ambassador."

OOC: Change the topic title to [SUBMITTED]

We are officially in queue, now just to wait a week for it to go to a vote

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.

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.

If the circumstances render the crime not a crime, then it would clearly have nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation. In other words, for the circumstances to be sufficient grounds for one to abuse, murder, or commit theft, other powers then homophobia would be at play. The proposal only states that a crime can not be committed Just because of sexual orientation.

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.

That is certainly a take.

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.

The Peoples Republic Of Isigonia fully supports this.

We're also disappointed with those who have voted against this proposal.

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.

I agree and this is almost exactly the point I was trying to make

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.

I also am strongly opposed but this society now days is what it is. I'm just glad I'm not long for this world anyway.

In the nation of Texkentuck Federation it's taboo and surprisingly no one is asking to be of the opposite sex. Sure sometimes some may dress up or act out diffirent than their sexual orientation but we do not see the need to promote or propagate sexual orientation. We are a nation in which boys compete against boys and girls compete against girls. Anyways if a girl wants to compete against a guy it's possible and same vice versa but that's a diffirent program. In Texkentuck we have the toughest women in military service. We don't see the need for such a proposal or law because it's not a big issue. Most men in Texkentuck are men and most women in Texkentuck are women. Most citizens in Texkentuck match with their identity. In our public schools at high school level such topics are discussed but most students and facalty see it as taboo. In Texkentuck it's illegal to do a crime of violence against any individual regardless of sexual orientation or race. We are a society that teaches coexistence but our government does propagate morality and human decency. Proudly a society of open discussion. Our government insures every citizens rights are protected...... We think this proposal propagates that most WA nations have issues of such. Thankfully Texkentuck is advanced beyond worrying of the girl playing football and boy taking interest in Barbie over GI Joe.

The title of the resolution sounds wrong, why I voted against.

DragonZord wrote:The title of the resolution sounds wrong, why I voted against.

In what way? It pretty clearly states its purpose.

"The idea that murder is acceptable for any reason other than self-defence is absurd; this gets my full support."

"We maintain that gay/trans panic defense is inherently in violation of CoCR and any court in a member nation accepting such defense is also in violation, but we shall support this proposal nonetheless."