[QUERY] Does my GA proposal draft plagiarise GA#247?
Posted: Tue May 24, 2022 12:29 pmGiven the recent discarding of Chipoli's "Crime Victims' Rights Act" for plagiarism and out of fear that I may be similarly penalised without advance warning, I request a ruling on whether two aspects of my GA proposal "Fairness for Victims of Crime" plagiarise the corresponding ideas in GA#247 "Rights of Crime Victims." (There exists prior precedent for moderators answering such queries.)
All passages which I believe correspond to one another have been coloured in orange for readability.
My proposal defines:
while GA#247, in relevant part, defines a:
Are these passages distinct enough not to constitute plagiarism? (I do not specify what forms the harm must take, and require that the harm must have happened instead of being "alleged".)
Meanwhile, my proposal:
while GA#247 declares that
Likewise, does my approach to preventing the disclosure of personal information of crime victims plagiarise that of GA#247? (I focus on how information is disclosed, rather than how it is obtained. I also prohibit all forms of PI disclosure that could result in a suspect violating a victim's privacy, not just the disclosure of a victim's PI to a suspect "without a court order.")
I would like to thank the Moderators for their answer in advance and wish to apologise if it turns out that my request is frivolous.
All passages which I believe correspond to one another have been coloured in orange for readability.
My proposal defines:
a "victim" as any person (V) in a member state, as well as V's parents or carers (if V is legally incompetent by virtue of age) and V's next of kin (if V is deceased or legally incompetent for reasons other than age), where V has been harmed by any person (H) during H's commission of a crime that H has been charged with committing,
while GA#247, in relevant part, defines a:
"crime victim" as "a person who as part of a criminal prosecution is alleged to have suffered physical, emotional, or financial harm (actual or threatened) as a result of the criminal conduct of another, who is not simultaneously accused of criminal conduct of their own arising out of the same incident or occurrence."
Are these passages distinct enough not to constitute plagiarism? (I do not specify what forms the harm must take, and require that the harm must have happened instead of being "alleged".)
Meanwhile, my proposal:
mandates that members act to ensure that the privacy of any victim of a crime is not violated by anyone charged with commiting that crime against them (including by not disclosing that victim's personal information in a manner that could facilitate such privacy violations or result in that person talking or attempting to talk to that victim by any means without that victim's free and informed consent),
while GA#247 declares that
crime victims shall have the right to reasonable protection from the accused throughout the criminal justice process, including but not limited to: the right to prevent the accused from accessing the crime victim's address and personal identifying information without a court order, [...];
Likewise, does my approach to preventing the disclosure of personal information of crime victims plagiarise that of GA#247? (I focus on how information is disclosed, rather than how it is obtained. I also prohibit all forms of PI disclosure that could result in a suspect violating a victim's privacy, not just the disclosure of a victim's PI to a suspect "without a court order.")
I would like to thank the Moderators for their answer in advance and wish to apologise if it turns out that my request is frivolous.