Page 3 of 3
Posted:
Mon May 23, 2022 8:35 amby Tinhampton
The definitions section is suspiciously similar to that of
GA#247. As such, approval withdrawn.
(Further elaboration available on request or demand.)
Posted:
Mon May 23, 2022 9:27 pmby The Forest of Aeneas
OOC: Sorry for the 11th hour against points; I haven't paid much attention to this proposal as I should have.
Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'While we agree with the principle of this, we have several concerns regarding this particular implementation. Firstly, 1.a mandates 'the right to be tested for serious illnesses the crime victim may have been exposed to during the act of the crime'. However, the exposure during that crime may have had nothing to do with the crime. For example, if someone tries to shoot someone at a mall but fails, and a bypasser happens to have a serious transmittible illness, the crime victim is likely to have been exposed to that serious illness during that crime, even to a bypasser having a serious transmittible illness had nothing to do with that murder attempt. Moreover, we are concerned by the use of the word 'may'. I may have been exposed to Transmittible Serious Illness 69420 From Tinhampton because there is the off chance that the Tinhamptonian Ambassador had it. That is unlikely, but I still 'may' have, and it is certainly within the realm of probability. This is impractical and cries for the moon.'
'1.c is also a meaningless requirement. While the accused cannot 'directly' contact the crime victim, they may do so 'indirectly'. For example, they may hire someone to pass a message to the accused, while this resolution stands in blissful ignorance.'
'Moreover, we are confused as to why the definition excludes those who are charged with 'another crime that occurred as a result from the same occurrence or incident'. In nations where self-defence is illegal, for example, a member state can exclude crime victims from their mandates if they make even the smallest effort at self-defence.'
'We are also concerned by, as stated well by the Ambassador from Tinhampton, how 'the definitions section is suspiciously similar to that of GA#247'. All of this leads our Delegation to cast a vote against this resolution.'
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:46 amby Cathamye
Tinhampton wrote:The definitions section is suspiciously similar to that of
GA#247. As such, approval withdrawn.
(Further elaboration available on request or demand.)
As I understand it, the explicitly stated purpose of this proposed resolution was to correct problems in that resolution 247 while still addressing the same topic area so I don't think it's necessarily "suspicious" that there are some similarities between this one and 247.
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:48 amby Cathamye
One quick question:
4. If any property is lost, crime victims have the right to full and timely restitution from the accused (if convicted) through the process of civil matters until the end of the prescriptive period.
What is meant by "prescriptive period" here? Is this related to a statute of limitations isuse or something separately created by the resolution?
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:55 amby Separatist Peoples
Cathamye wrote:Tinhampton wrote:The definitions section is suspiciously similar to that of
GA#247. As such, approval withdrawn.
(Further elaboration available on request or demand.)
As I understand it, the explicitly stated purpose of this proposed resolution was to correct problems in that resolution 247 while still addressing the same topic area so I don't think it's necessarily "suspicious" that there are some similarities between this one and 247.
Ooc: this is not how the Plagiarism rule is enforced. Authors cannot use a resolutions wording without authorial permission.
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 6:57 amby Cathamye
Separatist Peoples wrote:Cathamye wrote:As I understand it, the explicitly stated purpose of this proposed resolution was to correct problems in that resolution 247 while still addressing the same topic area so I don't think it's necessarily "suspicious" that there are some similarities between this one and 247.
Ooc: this is not how the Plagiarism rule is enforced. Authors cannot use a resolutions wording without authorial permission.
Okay thanks for the clarification! I didn't realize that they had actually plagiarized the resolution wording. It's a shame that this wasn't caught before it was submitted, but hopefully it can be fixed the next time this topic makes its way through the process.
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 7:59 amby Fremenilia
Cathamye wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: this is not how the Plagiarism rule is enforced. Authors cannot use a resolutions wording without authorial permission.
Okay thanks for the clarification! I didn't realize that they had actually plagiarized the resolution wording. It's a shame that this wasn't caught before it was submitted, but hopefully it can be fixed the next time this topic makes its way through the process.
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=519297
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 9:23 amby Princess Rainbow Sparkles
I personally thought the author made sufficient tweaks and changes so the language was merely "inspired by" the prior resolution, not plagiarizing. But I do understand the moderator's decision that there was too much borrowing and it went beyond what is acceptable without express permission.
I think the voting as it stands now shows a large amount of public support for this effort, although clearly there remain some kinks that need to be worked out. There are also people who support the law but are voting against due to the finding of plagiarism. Anyway, it's certainly not shaping up to be a result that indicates a firm rejection of the whole premise. I would encourage the author to make changes and try again.
When the author is ready to do so, Princess Rainbow Sparkles will be available to help with redrawing the definitions.
Against
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 11:53 amby Berenice Soviet
The Berenice Soviet is against this proposal. The victim does not need to be present for every single court hearing for the accused nor does a whole proposal need to be made about what the victims rights are. Most of this is already things that would take place during a normal trial anyway.
The victim would be kept safe from the accused because bail is a thing (or no bail just kept in jail if needed).
Most of what this proposed bill contains is just common sense. However, what bothers me most is the plagiarism that what brought to light and the lack of citing the previous bill. You say there was a previous but no longer active bill that accomplished a similar goal, yet you fail to cite what bill that was or why it was discontinued.
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 12:35 pmby Tinhampton
Berenice Soviet wrote:...You say there was a previous but no longer active bill that accomplished a similar goal, yet you fail to cite what bill that was or why it was discontinued.
GA#247 "Rights of Crime Victims"
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 2:34 pmby Cambrionia
"The people of Cambrionia have decided to vote against this resolution due to section 1d's vagueness in the term "Specific cases" and the fact that most of the sections of this resolution go against, have nothing to do with, or are already applied in Cambrionia's legal system."
- Cambrionian People's International Representation Committee
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 4:40 pmby Berenice Soviet
Tinhampton wrote:Berenice Soviet wrote:...You say there was a previous but no longer active bill that accomplished a similar goal, yet you fail to cite what bill that was or why it was discontinued.
GA#247 "Rights of Crime Victims"
Thank you ambassador of Tinhampton.
Rework
Posted:
Tue May 24, 2022 10:20 pmby Kulelen
In our opinion the resolution further polish before we would consider voting in favor. Further clarification is needed.
Posted:
Wed May 25, 2022 6:08 pmby Bears Armed
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: this is not how the Plagiarism rule is enforced. Authors cannot use a resolutions wording without authorial permission.
OOC: Unless the author is writing a Repeal, in which case they are allowed to quote the bits of their target with which they disagree so that they can point out what they think is wrong there.
Berenice Soviet wrote:Thank you ambassador of Tinhampton.
OOC: and its Repeal was
GA #587.
Posted:
Thu May 26, 2022 3:40 amby Kanzala B
it is important to give rights to crinimals as they are human and worthy of rights
Posted:
Thu May 26, 2022 10:57 amby Tupavvia
The Kingdom of Tupavvia is for this Act as includes the minimum rights for all crime victims. No country that gives importance to human rights should feel like its judicial system is being overthrown by this Act. If you feel like this, you should reconsider human rights within your legislation.