[PASSED] Sexual Predator Registry Act

[American Rockies]

I don’t care about technicalities the necessity of cracking down on pedophiles is too large to ignore. Frankly I think we should have repeat offenders castrated, but one step at a time I guess.

[Nova Universo]

Claire Angele Marais, Representative of the Entity of Nova Universo to the World Assembly: 'The Entity of Nova Universo, in behalf of the Union and of its member nations, votes FOR the ratification of the 'Sexual Predator Registry Act' resolution. This is a regulation of immense benefit which will help the Assembly and its nations to prosecute sexual abuse of minors. Although it does have issues which has been pointed out by my fellow representatives, we expect that the concerned bodies will enact regulations to address these.'

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Disappointingly, this looks set to pass. If any delegations out there are interested in drafting an instarepeal, you may contact us for assistance and we will gladly help in any drafting or campaigning.

[Sanctaria]

((OOC: IC Wall-of-text coming. TLDR: Opposed. Would have supported under a different rewrite.))

Ambassador Greer stood to the podium. "Good afternoon. It is with great regret that the delegation from Sanctaria must rise to oppose this resolution. As we have discussed with the authoring delegation elsewhere, our main objections lay with such a registry being publically accessible, and that it can be shared across borders.

Publically accessible registers like this do not deter people from committing sexual violence. They do not protect victims. They can, indeed, go so far as to violate the anonymity of victims. They do not respect the rehabilitative nature that prisons and the corrections system should provide. And those are the best case scenarios, my fellow Ambassadors. In the worst case scenarios they put lives at risk. They encourage vigilantism. Mob rule.

Sanctaria has no issue with the curation of a list of those found guilty of crimes of a sexual nature. It is a prudent and necessary measure to ensure that vetting applications may be accurately processed, and that, in the normal course of their actions, police officers can ensure their communities kept safe. This resolution, unfortunately, goes further than that.

Further, I am not convinced that there are adequate protections for the victims of sexual violence in this. The resolution allows member states to censure "information regarding sexual predators' offences that may detrimentally impact their victims' privacy" - but that is not good enough. Consider intra-familial cases of extreme sexual violence where, for obvious reasons, both the victim and the perpetrator may be anonymised. Yes, this resolution may allow nations to censure out the specific act, but is it not true the victim will still be continued to be traumatised? People in the community will know a member of their family is a sexual predator, to use the language of the resolution, but will not know anything else. That victim, and the rest of their family, may be shunned by the community. They may be attacked. They may be constantly questioned on why their relative was found guilty of a sex crime. It further traumatises that victim.

Ambassadors, when we write and pass legislation, we need to think about what harms in society are we addressing with this legislation. The legislation needs to be a remedy. Keeping communities safe by tracking those found guilty of sexual offences is a remedy to the harm of sexual violence. We in the Sanctarian delegate accept that. I must repeat: we have no issue with a register, so long as it is for law enforcement personnel, or other authorised individuals - but it should not be publicly accessible.

It is also fundamentally a question of justice. When someone is pardoned, or when someone completes the sentence they were handed down for committing a sexual offence, that person has the fundamental right - and obligation, we should also stress - to re-enter society. They may have restrictions - they may not be able to live near a school, or they may not be able to reside within a certain distance of their victims. They may be asked to regularly check-in with local police. And yes, they may be put on a list for law enforcement to monitor. These are all reasonable restrictions that do not otherwise infringe on their rights and responsibilities in re-integrating into society. A publically accessible list detailing that person's name, general location, their image, and their crimes is an unreasonable burden to ask member nations to apply.

It impacts their ability to live peacefully, free from trouble. It impacts their ability to get gainful employment, even in places where they may have no exposure to the public, or to children, or to vulnerable adults depending on their prior conviction. It impacts their ability to get re-involved in the community. Shunned ex-offenders, or ex-offenders who are put under such immense stress in such a manner, are more likely to re-offend. The authoring delegation informed my own that public safety and recidivism rates were motivations for this resolution - I don't doubt the good intentions of the delegation, but this approach may only worsen the problem, and not alleviate it. And then, should that ex-offender, otherwise free to live their life, wish to leave the jurisdiction for some peace, not only is this information passed to border control, and they may be denied entry to another nation, but if allowed into that nation, they are put on yet another publicly accessible list if that nation is a WA member. They cannot escape this vicious circle - and it is unreasonable and disproportionate to continue to punish someone in such a manner after they have successfully completed their sentence.

And obviously, we have the issue of vigilantism. Ambassadors, it is a fact of life that the ordinary population do not consider nuance when it comes to emotive issues. Being able to check if neighbours have previous criminal convictions, or if they are - again, using the language of the resolution - a sexual predator will lead to breakdowns in those communities. It will lead to high levels of distrust. And it will lead to violence. And then, there are more victims. The ex-offender, now victimised by a braying mob. Those who commit the violence are also now victims of whipped up levels of hysteria, in part because of this resolution. And then the families of those involved, of the perpetrators of violence, and of the ex-offender. There is more trauma and victims then there would be if a registry of those convicted of sexual offences was kept solely by law enforcement.

Finally, Ambassadors, I want to address the idea that only those at "high risk of re-offending" will be included on a publicly accessible registry. Leaving aside that we find the idea that those at high risk of re-offending be allowed back into the community at all to be a serious failing of a nation's justice system - either the system is not sufficiently rehabilitative, or the period of time that offenders are sentenced is not sufficiently long enough to ensure successful rehabilitation - the system is prone to abuse. Nothing prevents over-zealous assessment officers from determining everyone is high-risk, regardless of their original offence and if they have successfully been rehabilitated. Individuals with an axe to grind, or even people who believe they are on a crusade, are attracted to such positions, and can and may wield this assessment power unfairly.

I fully stand by the need to punish those who have been found guilty of committing sexual offences. It is a most grievous act. They should, and must, face consequences for their action. I do not believe this is the correct method. Public shaming, and the continued threat of real violence against ex-offenders is medieval, and not something the World Assembly should be endorsing. Registries should exist, Ambassadors, but making them publicly accessible, for any reason, is not good policy. It will make matters worse, it will further traumative victims, and it will lead to more violence."

She took a step back and made her way back to her seat. The resolution was deeply unpopular with the Sanctarian Government and representing their views was her job, no matter how distasteful and odious she found those guilty of sexual offences. But their policy was the right one. Ex-convicts should be given the opportunity as far as possible to reintegrate into society, and she too felt that such a public registry was not the appropriate way to help.

[Heidgaudr]

OOC: Since this is a very US-centric proposal, I'll be using data from the US.

IC: Asgeir Trelstad, WA Ambassador for Heidgaudr, stands up. "This proposal states that 'those who have committed serious sexual offences with a predatory component may be at higher risks of recidivism'. This cannot be further from the truth. Those convicted of rape and sexual assault have a lower recidivism rate than those convicted of non-sexual offenses. Violent offenders also have a lower general recidivism rate than non-violent offenders. Furthermore, the vast majority of The very basis of this bill is fundamentally flawed.

"Sex Offender registries do little to reduce recidivism among those convicted. In fact, offenders are more likely to recidivate in jurisdictions with registries. Many of these jurisdictions place harsh restrictions on registered offenders, such as where they can live, work, and visit. These restrictions actually make crime more attractive as registered offenders have fewer non-criminal opportunities available to them."

He pulls a small notepad out of his suit jacket and begins flipping through it. "We have voted AGAINST this proposal and urge other delegations to do the same. In the words of my nephew - er, one second ... Ah here it is. *ahem* As I was saying - In the words of my nephew, this proposal is 'mega cringe and voting against would be based and redpilled.'"

OOC: ninja'd by Sanctaria

[West Barack and East Obama]

He pulls a small notepad out of his suit jacket and begins flipping through it. "We have voted AGAINST this proposal and urge other delegations to do the same. In the words of my nephew - er, one second ... Ah here it is. *ahem* As I was saying - In the words of my nephew, this proposal is 'mega cringe and voting against would be based and redpilled.'"

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: All nephews are the same these days...

In any case, I believe that Ambassadors Greer and Trelstad have been real 'gigachads' and have produced some 'no cap on god fr' stats and logic to back up their claims.

[Elwher]

Elwher votes a resounding NO on this resolution.

First, the data shows that sexual offenders as defined in this bill have a lower rate of recidivism than many other categories of offenders. As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

Second, and as a follow-up to the above, the only way this is at all just is if there are equivalent registries for all crimes. Why should robbers and murderers be treated differently than rapists?

Finally, this flies in the face of our policies that once a person has served their sentence they are considered to have paid their debt to society. All criminal records should be sealed to all except the police after a reasonable period of time. We have instituted such a policy after 5 years of no criminal convictions, and urge all other member states to do the same.

[Heavens Reach]

As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

You would?

[Reinkalistan]

As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

The Reinkalistani ambassador promptly vacates the room at this statement.

[Sauros]

As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

Top Ten Worst Quotes of All Time, Number 7:

[Daarwyrth]

As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

Madelyne Zylkoven's eyebrows reached unprecedented heights. "That is problematic."

[Istastioner]

As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

I mean it is your own opinion and an opinion that I just don't agree with it

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Our delegation has began drafting a repeal to this proposal, should it pass.

To the ambassador from Elwher, if your choices of neighbour are a drug dealer or a nonce, I'd suggest breaking out of that prison cell.

[Elwher]

As a parent, I would certainly prefer having someone who took naked pictures of his children living next door to me than a drug dealer, for example.

You would?

I would. Even if he started taking pictures of my children, he would do them much less harm than the drug dealer selling them meth.

Furthermore, photographers are much less subject to drive-by shootings than are drug dealers, and the shooters often miss.

[Thermodolia]

You would?

I would. Even if he started taking pictures of my children, he would do them much less harm than the drug dealer selling them meth.

Furthermore, photographers are much less subject to drive-by shootings than are drug dealers, and the shooters often miss.

Wut

[Heavens Reach]

You would?

I would. Even if he started taking pictures of my children, he would do them much less harm than the drug dealer selling them meth.

Furthermore, photographers are much less subject to drive-by shootings than are drug dealers, and the shooters often miss.

Ambassador, there are so many things wrong with these statements that we hardly know where to begin.

[Wallenburg]

You would?

I would. Even if he started taking pictures of my children, he would do them much less harm than the drug dealer selling them meth.

Furthermore, photographers are much less subject to drive-by shootings than are drug dealers, and the shooters often miss.

I recommend you stop talking for your own sake.

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

The Fetial Representant of Federal-Democratic Republic of Alinghi announces that the Confederation will vote NO.

"I understand and I share the reason of this resolution, but according to the Confederation the resolution have various problem. The first problem, the resolution permit all people include private citizens the access of private data of another individual, and there are a risk of vigilantism and mob act against a person who have payed for their crime with a prison sentence. The second thing is about recidivism, inssuing a de-facto a proscription list will not avoid recidivism, the duty to avoid to the subject to not recommit the crimes is of the penitentiary system that must act in the period that the subject in question is detained to apply programs to avoid that then the subject will be released will not commit again that crime, or do a worse crime. If the subject continue to commit the same crime it means that the penitentiary system have failed it primary scope. I think that we must focus to implement specific program in the detention centers what will rehabilitate the subject, and in case that is needed a expert help also when the subject are released it can be possible ask that the subject will be required to be assisted by a professional to help to contain his instincts.
So the Confederation oppose the possibility a too extensive access to these registers, and the limitless permanency of a subject in that lists. We ask to avoid to vote with at the first instinct and thing about the implication at large and the long term and indirect consequences "

[Penguin Dictators]

You would?

I would. Even if he started taking pictures of my children, he would do them much less harm than the drug dealer selling them meth.

Furthermore, photographers are much less subject to drive-by shootings than are drug dealers, and the shooters often miss.

Please continue digging this hole that you're digging yourself into, because that's quite possibly the most baffling as well as startling thing I or anyone can read. Unless you decide to continue surprising us with more.

[Firever]

The people of Firever feel like keeping a registry of deceased vermin is a waste of time and funds on the part of the world's governments. As such we urge our fellow nations to reject this unnecessary and potentially costly proposal. I mean really, do you keep a list of the mosquitos you swat, or other pests you put down?

[Heavens Reach]

The people of Firever feel like keeping a registry of deceased vermin is a waste of time and funds on the part of the world's governments. As such we urge our fellow nations to reject this unnecessary and potentially costly proposal. I mean really, do you keep a list of the mosquitos you swat, or other pests you put down?

Well, now that you're part of the WA, your nation is bound by the laws of the general assembly, and those include a Death Penalty Ban, so your analogy doesn't really apply.

[The Manning Isles]

The principles of the proposal are commendable but the execution is less than ideal.

Any form of sexual assault is among the most heinous and horrific of crimes but that is why we must be so vigilant and careful when crafting legislation around it. I understand that this act has attempted to do so but we believe it has fundamentally failed.

This act seems to suggest we take non incarcerated members of our population, People who have been sentenced and served their time by the laws of the country in which they live, and we must now evaluate them under a series of criteria which any member state must agree has no truly objective interpretation. There is no true way to determine who will re-offend.

Regardless, if they fail our mandatory test despite them having commited no new crime and having served time (or whatever punishment their nation saw fit to dole out) for their original crime, we throw them to the mercy of the public?

Because we have decided their first punishment was not enough ?

Because we would rather use the anger of the public as our weapon than to actually sit down and work out some legislation that may genuinely tackle the situations in our society that leave people vulnerable, rather than decide to tackle inequalities, attitudes and power imbalances that lead to the prevalence of this crime - We are going to use the public to punish those who we decide are to blame.

Sexual assault, like any crime may be perpetuated by individuals but it is not caused by them. For every individual we add to our list more will come unless we tackle the underlying issues - even then we may never stop this crime happening but we may start to lessen the load. Am I saying we fail to punish this crime, no but they should be punished in a regulated way in accordance with the laws of their country.

At this juncture I would remind you that we are talking about one of the worst crimes imaginable and thus one which elicits (very understandably) a high degree of emotion from people. We are therefore leaving these people who have been determined high risk to the mercy of the general populace -At best they will be social exiles, at worst they may be beaten or killed in some example of vigilante justice.

If we are simply making a proposal that anyone who we deem high risk sexual predator should be beaten/ostristrazied/killed/locked up forever then let's come out and make that proposal and have that debate.

If the proposal is that the punishment for sexual assault should be to place people on a public register let's have that debate.

If the proposal is to create an international register of possibly high risk re-offenders to be shared discretely and quietly with trusted members of border patrol, law enforcement and employers who work with vulnerable groups - then the Manning isles may even support that - but let's write that down and have that debate.

But as the proposal stands, if we are simply throwing people who may commit a crime to the mercy of the public, and washing our hands, then the The Manning Isles cannot agree.

It may be a horrific crime they have committed but if they have served whatever punishment their nations courts handed out to them, then we cannot simply throw them to a mob because we feel like it.

There is no statistical evidence public registers help.

It accomplishes nothing that wouldn't also be accomplished locking them away indefinitely or bringing in the death penalty - both of which anyone would agree are inhumane especially when they have already served their time !

I write this not as a defense of those who have committed a serious sexual assault but because if we can even hypothetically find a way to reduce the number of sexual assaults the it is our moral imperative to do so and this will not do it. But seeing it pass may lead to more harm and possibly more worryingly further inaction.

[Erinaen]

Lady Provost Skye, WA Ambassador of the duchy of Erinaen:
For the reasons covered at length here already, our official vote on this matter is no, and we fully intend to support any instant repeal proposal should one be drafted.

And on a more personal note, it is simply mind-boggling to me that this terminally flawed proposal has as much support as it does. The severe down side of these registries are well known, and the fact that objective statistics prove that they simply do not do what they are proposed to do is plenty of reason by itself for them to be rejected outright.

I would ask my colleagues in the Gen. assembly to vote according to reality, not what feels good in the moment. Nobody likes nonces; this is not an excuse to abandon absolutely basic rationality.