[MOOT - SEE GA#597] Prohibiting Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: I don't think the category. There's nothing here that reduces government control of people's private lives.

Also, does this happen anywhere IRL?

In no particular order, some variant(I can break that down if anyone would find it heplful) remains the law in:

• Dominican Republic
• Honduras
• Venezuela
• Bolivia
• Paraguay
• Some states in Mexico
• The Gaza Strip(and any other locations under rule by the HAMAS terrorist group)
• Algeria
• Libya
• Somalia (different formulations amongst all the actors, but they all have some variant)
• Angola
• Congo-Brazzaville
• Eritrea
• Kuwait
• Iraq
• Syria
• Bahrain (Supposedly repealing, but they have been 'repealing' it for several years and the cabinet rejected it)
• Lebanon (despite inclusion on Tinhampton's list, last I heard parliament was debating retaining it for underage girls)
• Greece (though it probably violates the ECHR)
• Serbia
• Russia
• Thailand
• The Phillipines
• Tajikistan

And special mention to Turkey, which previously repealed its law, and is now seeking to re-introduce it.

If you want to know where it is the cultural norm and still happens regularly despite no longer being the law, extrapolate from the above list.

[Araraukar]

In no particular order, some variant(I can break that down if anyone would find it heplful) remains the law in

OOC: What exactly remains the law in those nations? Do take into account that forced marriages are banned in WA already. If you take that away from all those RL laws, what are you left with?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

In no particular order, some variant(I can break that down if anyone would find it heplful) remains the law in

OOC: What exactly remains the law in those nations? Do take into account that forced marriages are banned in WA already. If you take that away from all those RL laws, what are you left with?

It depends specifically on jurisdiction, which is not the question Bana asked.

However, not that you even remotely were polite about it and I should tell you to go do your own basic research, here is a representative sampling:

The offence as provided in the first paragraph, if the offender being the man commits against the girl over thirteen years but not yet over fifteen years of age with her consent and the Court grants such man and girl to marry together afterwards, the offender shall not be punished for such offence. If the Court grants them to marry together during the offender be still inflicted with the punishment, the Court shall release such offender.

The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed

persons guilty of seduction, rape or abduction shall, unless marriage takes place, be sentenced to pay civil compensation to the victim

Article 290: Anyone who abducts a woman — with threat, force, or other means — is punished with hard labor for life. Moreover, the perpetrator of this crime is sentenced to death if it is coupled with sexual intercourse with the abducted, without her consent.

Article 291: If the abductor marries the one he abducted, with a legally-recognized marriage, the punishment is not carried out.

Article 508: If a valid contract of marriage is made between the perpetrator of any of the offenses mentioned in this section, and the victim, the prosecution is suspended. If judgment was already passed, the implementation of the punishment is suspended.

Article 424: If the perpetrator makes a contract of marriage with the victim; the crime, punishment, and criminal proceedings are suspended, both for the perpetrator and any accomplice.

Article 427: If a valid contract of marriage is made between the perpetrator of any of the offenses mentioned in this section, and the victim, then the case, investigation, and other procedures are suspended. If judgment was already passed in the case, implementation of the sentence is suspended.

Article 353: Punishment is not prescribed in any of the cases set forth in the preceding articles if a valid contract of marriage is made between him and the victim. If a final sentencing took place before the contract of marriage, the implementation and effects of the criminal proceedings are suspended.

There will be no santion when the inamtes in the respective cases, having no other impediment, contract marriage with the offended before the sentence is enforceable. (My translation, it may be slightly off).
No habrá lugar a sanción, cuando los reos, en los casos respectivos, no teniendo impedimento alguno, contrajeren matrimonio con las ofendidas, antes de que la sentencia cause ejecutoria.

The guilty of any of the crimes provided for in articles 375, 376, 377, 379, 388, 389 and 390 will be exempt from punishment if, before the conviction, he marries the offended person, and the trial will cease at all points in everything that is related to the penalty corresponding to these punishable acts. If the marriage takes place after the conviction, then the execution of the penalties and their criminal consequences will cease. Inmates for seduction, rape or abduction will be sentenced, by way of civil compensation, if the marriage does not take place, to endow the offended if she is single or widowed and, in any case, honestly.

El culpable de alguno de los delitos previstos en los artículos 375, 376, 377, 379, 388, 389 y 390 quedará exento de pena si antes de la condenación contrae matrimonio con la persona ofendida, y el juicio cesará de todo punto en todo lo que se relacione con la penalidad correspondiente a estos hechos punibles. Si el matrimonio se efectúa después de la condenación, cesarán entonces la ejecución de las penas y sus consecuencias penales. Los reos de seducción, violación o rapto serán condenados, por vía de indemnización civil, si no se efectuare el matrimonio, a dotar a la ofendida si fuere soltera o viuda y, en todo caso, honesta.

Whomsoever, without violence, menace or fraud, kidnaps or diverts a minor under 18 years, is punished with imprisoment of 1 to 5 years and a fine of 500 to 2.000 DA. When a minor thus abducted or diverted has married her abductor, he may only be prosecuted on the complaint of persons having the qualification to demand the annuling of the marraige and [he] may not be condemnded until after such annuling has been pronounced.

Quiconque, sans violences, menaces ou fraude, enlevé ou détourne, ou tente d’enlever ou de détourner un mineur de dix huit ans, est puni d’un emprisonnent d’un à cinq ans et d’une amende de 500 à 2.000 DA. Lorsqu’une mineure ainsi enlevée ou détournée a epousé son ravisseur, celui-ci ne peut être poursuivi que sur la plainte des personnes ayant qualité pour demander l’annulation du mariage et ne peut être condamné qu’après que cette annulation a été prononcée.

What is left are textbook definition Marry-your-rapist laws of the kind that Tinhampton wishes to prohibit. No where do those laws REQUIRE such a marriage to take place, which makes sense as forced marriage is a distinct issue from marry-your-rapist laws.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Thanks for that D&B.

[Araraukar]

and, in any case, honestly.

en todo caso, honesta.

OOC: Too tired brain to take much in but just after doing Spanish homework, this caught my eye - "honesta" is the feminine form of the adjective, so it's referring to the "she" mentioned before, so this kind of thing would need to be read as a quality of the aforementioned female, in this case likely referring to her character (or possibly that her accusation of rape/assault was found to be true).

Also, while "los reos" can mean inmates (as in, convicted prisoners), more likely translation is "culprits", the accused, basically. Since you only become a convict after being convicted of a crime...

[Tinhampton]

Will submit at 5pm BST tomorrow - unless this draft is somehow absolutely horrendous

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Regarding the category, how does this increase civil freedoms?

[Tinhampton]

Category switcherooed to Regulation - Legal Reform upon further contemplation... which sounds appropriate but is probably terribly wrong

[Araraukar]

Category switcherooed to Regulation - Legal Reform upon further contemplation... which sounds appropriate but is probably terribly wrong

OOC: Is horribly wrong, does not do what sounds like, I can dig up the post about effects for you later, when not on mobile.

[Tinhampton]

Bump. Is my category still borked in light of the new reasonable-fit rule?

[Araraukar]

Bump. Is my category still borked in light of the new reasonable-fit rule?

OOC: Here's the explanation for the AoE:

Based on the intent of the category that Sep gave us, the general effect for Legal Regulation is, more or less, bad for your economy (more barriers for the legal industry), good for civil rights (less restrictions on individuals being able to sue/take up litigation).

So, you tell me.

[Honeydewistania]

Surely this is civil rights or moral decency?

[Potted Plants United]

Surely this is civil rights or moral decency?

OOC: What I still don't get is how this is not already covered by the forced marriage ban, CoCR and whatever the actual name is of the resolution that makes rape a crime in WA, whether or not you're married to your rapist.

If the argument is "but the charges could be dropped", then what's to stop that from happening in any other crime of similar relationship? Business partners and theft of business assets? Joint parenthood and kidnapping your own child? Wouldn't it just make more sense to simply incorporate all such cases under a single resolution?

[Kelssek]

What is left are textbook definition Marry-your-rapist laws of the kind that Tinhampton wishes to prohibit. No where do those laws REQUIRE such a marriage to take place, which makes sense as forced marriage is a distinct issue from marry-your-rapist laws.

OOC: While I thank you for your research efforts, I think whether such legal provisions exist IRL is not relevant. This is not a case of "if the problem realistically exists IRL, then it exists in this world", because here the existing conditions are entirely created (or not) by existing WA resolutions. Therefore, if CoCR and/or other extant resolutions already have the effect of prohibiting a marital relationship as a defence against sexual assault charges, no problem exists to be solved by this proposal.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Surely this is civil rights or moral decency?

OOC: What I still don't get is how this is not already covered by the forced marriage ban, CoCR and whatever the actual name is of the resolution that makes rape a crime in WA, whether or not you're married to your rapist.

If the argument is "but the charges could be dropped", then what's to stop that from happening in any other crime of similar relationship? Business partners and theft of business assets? Joint parenthood and kidnapping your own child? Wouldn't it just make more sense to simply incorporate all such cases under a single resolution?

What is left are textbook definition Marry-your-rapist laws of the kind that Tinhampton wishes to prohibit. No where do those laws REQUIRE such a marriage to take place, which makes sense as forced marriage is a distinct issue from marry-your-rapist laws.

OOC: While I thank you for your research efforts, I think whether such legal provisions exist IRL is not relevant. This is not a case of "if the problem realistically exists IRL, then it exists in this world", because here the existing conditions are entirely created (or not) by existing WA resolutions. Therefore, if CoCR and/or other extant resolutions already have the effect of prohibiting a marital relationship as a defence against sexual assault charges, no problem exists to be solved by this proposal.

OOC: GAR #240, specifically the "REQUIRES" and "STIPULATES" clauses, seems to bear out Ara's and Kelssek's arguments. @Tinhampton, do you have a counterargument? I prefer to say things are legal if that can be supported; is there a scenario in which a nation faithfully implementing #240 could still permit rapists or other sex offenders to elude punishment by entering a marriage contract? I do think this is probably duplicative if not.

[Barfleur]

OOC: GAR #240, specifically the "REQUIRES" and "STIPULATES" clauses, seems to bear out Ara's and Kelssek's arguments. @Tinhampton, do you have a counterargument? I prefer to say things are legal if that can be supported; is there a scenario in which a nation faithfully implementing #240 could still permit rapists or other sex offenders to elude punishment by entering a marriage contract? I do think this is probably duplicative if not.

OOC: For what it’s worth, here are my 2¢: GAR #240 prohibits nations from treating sexual crimes differently if the perpetrator and victim are married; this proposal goes a step further, prohibiting them from treating such crimes differently if the perpetrator and victim are not married at the time of the crime, but marry or intend to marry after the fact. So in my view it’s legal, but my word is not law.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: GAR #240, specifically the "REQUIRES" and "STIPULATES" clauses, seems to bear out Ara's and Kelssek's arguments. @Tinhampton, do you have a counterargument? I prefer to say things are legal if that can be supported; is there a scenario in which a nation faithfully implementing #240 could still permit rapists or other sex offenders to elude punishment by entering a marriage contract? I do think this is probably duplicative if not.

Yes, @Skeptical Naïf, please refer to the bottom of my OP... it might not be perfect, but it does exist ;P

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I'm sorry, but how does this not contradict GA#240?" The author's authorly opinion:
There are two major clauses we must focus on - for which we must introduce sexual crime suspect A and their victim, B:

1. PROHIBITS member-states from creating a legal distinction between sexual crimes which take place within a marriage, or similar relationship, and sexual crimes which do not. Member state X decides to prosecute A for committing a sexual crime outside of marriage to B. A marries B. X drops its prosecution against A for their extramarital sexual crime, because A has married B. X is not "creating a legal distinction between sexual crimes" based on marital status, because the only sexual crime that occurred here took place outside the marriage.
2. REQUIRES..., which may be split into two parts for our purposes:
   
   1. REQUIRES that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities that is timely and appropriate to the circumstances of their execution... A commits a sexual crime against B. B reports it to the police, who then deliver a "timely and appropriate" response in the round. GA#240 doesn't stop them from retracting the consequences of that response later because A and B get married; it only dictates the circumstances in which such a response must be made, and the "attention" that the Old Bill must give to it as it happens (but then who pays this attention?).
   2. ...including efforts to protect the victim from a repeated attack by the perpetrator, regardless of whether the victim and perpetrator are in a marriage, or similar relationship, or not. Simply because X drops its prosecution against A (as enumerated in point 1 above) does not send a message to A that they can continue to commit sexual crimes against B and get away scot-free; indeed, if A commits another sexual crime against B, they can report it to the police again, who will then deliver a T&A response in the round again etc.

I'll happily abandon this if it turns out that what I've written above is Not Even Wrong.

OOC: I think that's a bit tenuous, but technically a supportable interpretation. I do think the "STIPULATES" clause of #240 sinks it, though:

STIPULATES that, with specific regard to protecting victims from repeat attacks, special care and attention must be given where a shared work, education or living space, or other factors, such as a familial or professional relationship, give the perpetrator a level of access to the victim that a random attacker would not have

I don't see how the above can be interpreted in a way that permits courts to vacate sexual assault charges against someone who announces his intention to enter a close relationship with full-time private access to the victim.

[Barfleur]

STIPULATES that, with specific regard to protecting victims from repeat attacks, special care and attention must be given where a shared work, education or living space, or other factors, such as a familial or professional relationship, give the perpetrator a level of access to the victim that a random attacker would not have

I don't see how the above can be interpreted in a way that permits courts to vacate sexual assault charges against someone who announces his intention to enter a close relationship with full-time private access to the victim.

GA#240, to the best of my knowledge, does not affect what happens before the perpetrator is convicted, whereas this proposal would prohibit member nations from vacating charges against a suspect (who has not yet been convicted) by reason of his/her promising to marry the victim.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't see how the above can be interpreted in a way that permits courts to vacate sexual assault charges against someone who announces his intention to enter a close relationship with full-time private access to the victim.

GA#240, to the best of my knowledge, does not affect what happens before the perpetrator is convicted, whereas this proposal would prohibit member nations from vacating charges against a suspect (who has not yet been convicted) by reason of his/her promising to marry the victim.

...REQUIRES that all sexual crimes, and accusations of such crimes, receive the same level of attention as any other crime of similar magnitude and a response from legal authorities...

Regardless, I additionally don't see how a "marry your rapist" clause is in line with the MANDATES clause of that same resolution:

MANDATES that no marriage contract, or equivalent legal document, or the existence of any similar relationship, shall ever be construed as providing prima facie consent for sexual activity, nor shall any state or manner of dress, nor any behaviour perceived as "sexual provocative",

...since there is no interpretation of such a provision other than that marriage (or a promise to marry) is "construed as providing [retroactive] consent for sexual activity".

[Auze]

OOC: for a moment I read the title as "prohibiting marry-your-rapist clones" and was a little confused on the extremely specific topic. Support.