NationStates

I had an idea from the news and I've decided to write a resolution on it. This is my 2nd resolution I'm working on, so please give any feedback you may have on this, including potential legality problems. I think this resolution could turn out quite well if we all work together on it.

THE DRUNK DRIVING COMPENSATION ACT

Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Realizing that the negative effects of alcohol does not stop the people from drinking, accompanying the fact that no matter the strength of police forces, drunk driving incidents are inevitable, this enacts the following provisions:

1. The following is defined and stipulated under this resolution.
   
   
   1. "drunk driving" is the event of driving while considered to be at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to be safe to drive.
      
   2. "drunker" is defined as any individual at or above the BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) determined by a WA member nation to not be considered drunk.
      
   3. "victim" is defined as any parent or legal guardian that dies at the hands of a drunk driving incident that they did not cause.
2. Member nations shall:
   
   
   1. Enact laws requiring any person who causes the death of a victim while drunk driving to pay child support dues.
      
      
      1. If a lawsuit is filed by the victim's surviving family, and the lawsuit is to succeed, the child support settlement must be reduced proportionate to how much the lawsuit got.
         
      2. A child support settlement may only be extinguished if the amount of the lawsuit exceeds the settlement of child support, upon the discretion of the WA member nation's judicial system.
   2. Enact a law establishing an official BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) if the WA member nation in question has or is preparing the use of, automobiles and automobile infrastructure (Ex. roads).
      
   3. Not impose an undue burden on drunkers via any case to be imposed upon by a WA member nation via any stipulation under this resolution.
3. Child support dues under this resolution shall follow these provisions:
   
   
   1. Payment will be made to the surviving child's family until they are of the age of majority in their home WA member nation.
      
   2. Child support dues, if made during a drunkers sentence, shall be taken out of prison pay, or any pay they shall receive while incarcerated.
      
   3. Child support dues shall be set at or above an amount to fulfill the monthly responsibilities of the surviving child, such as food, housing, etc.
      
   4. If the parent of a surviving child is the drunker in question, then a trust shall be established to be managed by the WA member nation that will be paid for by the parent, for a monthly amount to be set by the child support provisions under this resolution, and will be given to the child upon reaching the age of majority.
      
      
      1. If a WA member nation chooses, they may exercise their sovereign right to take custody over said minor(s) and put them into support services. This does not exempt the trust clause stipulated above.
4. To prevent lack of payment of child support under this resolution, it therefore mandates WA member nations establish:
   
   
   1. Support programs including but not limited to, payment plans, extensions, dynamically changable payment periods, etc.
      
   2. Punishment thereof to be decided by the WA member nation's government, and via drafted local legislation.

Makko Oko wrote:to be at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to be safe to drive.

Legal limit of what? If alcohol (because that's what I assume from context xD) you should say that.

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:to be at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to be safe to drive.

Legal limit of what? If alcohol (because that's what I assume from context xD) you should say that.

"Of course alcohol Ambassador haha. BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) is what our proposal is referring to. If that need be mentioned, we shall update it as such in our next draft. Thank you." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs

The title is unclear. I thought this was a resolution about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Article 2 covers all "drunkers," whether or not they are or have ever been in control of a vehicle while drunken.

Article 2a(i) is unclear and contains a phantom linebreak.

Article 3 is unnecessary. World Assembly resolutions can cover any subject not already covered by past resolutions (when you assume that they can only cover subjects that past resolutions allow them to cover).

Article 4 requires the payment of child support even to families where the surviving parent can afford to take care of the child(ren) themselves.

Assume a family with two parents, one of whom is a drunker, driving in the same car. The drunker crashes the car and kills the non-drunker/passenger. Article 4a requires the drunker to pay... their own family... for some reason...

This is, in general, somehow even more micromanagey than your aircraft terrorism thing. A resolution about child support in general would likely be palatable (I should know, my parents divorced when I was two years old); a resolution specifically about child support for direct relatives of those killed by "drunkers" is overly specific, especially when you don't even propose a ban on DUI. No support.

Tinhampton wrote:The title is unclear. I thought this was a resolution about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Article 2 covers all "drunkers," whether or not they are or have ever been in control of a vehicle while drunken.

Article 2a(i) is unclear and contains a phantom linebreak.

Article 3 is unnecessary. World Assembly resolutions can cover any subject not already covered by past resolutions (when you assume that they can only cover subjects that past resolutions allow them to cover).

Article 4 requires the payment of child support even to families where the surviving parent can afford to take care of the child(ren) themselves.

Assume a family with two parents, one of whom is a drunker, driving in the same car. The drunker crashes the car and kills the non-drunker/passenger. Article 4a requires the drunker to pay... their own family... for some reason...

This is, in general, somehow even more micromanagey than your aircraft terrorism thing. A resolution about child support in general would likely be palatable (I should know, my parents divorced when I was two years old); a resolution specifically about child support for direct relatives of those killed by "drunkers" is overly specific, especially when you don't even propose a ban on DUI. No support.

"We appreciate your feedback Ambassador, in regards to the 'ban on DUI', we did feel that would be a bit more controlling than the resolution intended to be. For Article 3, that will be removed in the next draft, and article 4 will be modified as such to require the accounting of finances, and for your concern on drunken parents paying their own family, exceptions will be added in this regard.

As for 2ai, this exists for the express purpose of wrongful death suits. If somebody chooses to file for wrongful death and they win, it should be taken out of the settlement provided for child support, hence reduced, or no settlement should be given. As for article 2, we will reword it to explicitly state that drunkers are those who are or have been in control of the wheel of a vehicle.

We would like to hear what may make you consider supporting said resolution. We will consider changing the title of the resolution."

I really don't see this as being an international issue.

Pass.

"Not that either I myself or the government of Bears Armed would regard this as a matter for international legislation on the first forepaw, but... Why only drivers impaired by alcohol, and not also those impaired by other drugs instead as well?"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A.
(and anthropomorphic [male] Giant Panda)

Bears Armed wrote:"Not that either I myself or the government of Bears Armed would regard this as a matter for international legislation on the first forepaw, but... Why only drivers impaired by alcohol, and not also those impaired by other drugs instead as well?"

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A.
(and anthropomorphic [male] Giant Panda)

"You have asked a genuine question there Hwa Sue, allow us to answer it for you. We did not consider other drugs in the mix when the idea for the resolution was originally crafted, but new ideas, such as allowing for the ban of alcohol for pregnant women, have been tossed around via this discussion. In future drafts, we hope to incorporate some of these ideas and hopefully make it a proposal worth heading to the voting floor."

"This issue has no transboundary utility nor affects an essential and fundemental right. This is a domestic concern better suited for domestic regulation. Opposed."

“I concur with the previous complaints, and I feel that this is more of an issue to be dealt with by individual national governments.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"Creating a class of—Gerald, what is this? Drunkers? Burn my ass, what is that supposed to be?—a class of 'drunkers' who are fined for alcohol-related traffic collisions regardless of whether they had any involvement in them is an absolutely disgusting concept. When I visit the Strangers' Bar, I am not responsible for the idiocy of some drunk motorist back in the capital."

Comments below in red and bold.

Makko Oko wrote:

THE SECURITY OF ALCOHOL-INDUCED PARENTAL DEATHS
As raised by the Ambassador for Tinhampton, the title could use some work. Perhaps something along the lines of “Drink Driving Compensation Act” would get closer to a description of what this proposal is aimed at.
Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Realizing that the negative effects of alcohol does not stop the people from drinking, accompanying the fact that no matter the strength of police forces, drunk driving incidents are inevitable, this enacts the following provisions:

1. The following is defined and stipulated under this resolution.
   
   
   1. "drunk driving" is the event of driving while considered to be at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to be safe to drive.
      
   2. "drunker" is defined as any individual at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to not be considered drunk.
      
   3. "victim" is defined as any parent or legal guardian that dies at the hands of a drunk driving incident that they did not cause.
2. Member nations shall:
   
   
   1. Enact laws requiring drunkers, if alive, to pay child support dues for any victim, to be decided by the WA member nation's judicial system after a drunk driving incident. As noted by others already, this reaches far too widely and would currently render anyone above the “legal limit […] not to be considered drunk” liable, whether or not hey were involved in a collision. In terms of revising this, something along the lines of “Enact laws requiring any person who causes the death of a victim while drunk driving to pay child support dues” would seem to me to be closer to what the proposal is actually aiming for.
      
      
      1. If a lawsuit is filed by the victim's surviving family, the child support settlement must be reduced and/or not provided depending on the WA member nations' judicial system's decision.
      This is exceedingly vague. Some standard by which the reduction is to be determined (even if it is something such as being “proportionate”) should be set out otherwise this will not achieve its purpose, there is nothing at present that would stop a token 1[currency unit] reduction to meet the requirement of this clause while maintaining double recovery or to stop a nation from extinguishing the child support liability in full even if the suit would not exceed the value of that liability.
      
      This clause as written also does not actually require the suit to succeed to reduce or extinguish liability for child support payments, allowing the “drunker’s” net liability to be reduced rather than just avoiding double recovery. Moreover, in the circumstance of the “drunker” being a family member of the victim, this would appear to allow them to reduce their own liability merely by filing suit, even if it is then properly struck out as an abuse of process by the court.
      
   2. Not impose an undue burden on drunkers via child support cases or otherwise imposed by the WA member nation.
   This would seem to reach beyond the scope of this proposal into other areas. It is not obvious that the limit on imposing an “undue burden” through child support cases is limited to cases arising under this proposal, this could specially privilege “drunkers” in relation to member states’ child support systems generally. The words “or otherwise imposed by the WA member nation” in this sub-clause is particularly concerning on this point, as it seems to give “drunkers” free range to challenge all domestic law that could impose an “undue burden” on them, whether related to this proposal or not.
   
3. Authorizes future WA resolutions to build upon this resolution.
   
4. Child support dues under this resolution shall follow these provisions:
   
   
   1. Payment will be made to the surviving child's family until they are of the age of majority in their home WA member nation.
      
   2. Child support dues, if made during a drunkers sentence, shall be taken out of prison pay, or any pay they shall receive while incarcerated.
   This does not include any provision about the level of child support required under this proposal. Presumably they could not be too high, given the undue burden provision, but there does not seem to be anything that would stop them being set at such a low amount as to defeat the purpose of this proposal. While, obviously, setting a precise amount would be inappropriate, it should be possible to set out some standard by reference to things that would be necessary for a child’s upbringing.
   
5. To prevent lack of payment of child support under this resolution, it therefore mandates WA member nations establish:
   
   
   1. Support programs including but not limited to, payment plans, extensions, dynamically changable payment periods, etc.
      
   2. Punishment thereof to be decided by the WA member nation's government, and via drafted local legislation.

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Why financial compensation for children? Why not financial compensation for any accidental death?

"On further review, we have additional objection to the substance of this proposal beyond the lack of transnational utility:

"Initially, this proposal blurs the intent of child support as a concept. Child support is not punitive, but a necessary assessment of what a noncustodial parent should contribute for the upkeep of a child to prevent destitution or need for welfare. It is a policy assessment that the duty to provide falls on both parents, and that the noncustodial parent, not providing actual care, should provide in another way. This proposal assigns costs on the drunk driver who committed a crime, essentially taking a question of resource allocation and turning it into a punishment. Child support should not be punitive, as this detracts from it's fundemental purpose of child welfare. Such a policy pits the state interests in preventing crime directly against the state interests of child welfare when only the latter should be considered at all.

"Further, attempts to assess child support have interfered with the civil remedies available to children. The intent is clear: child support payments should offset settlement awards to not overburden a defendant. Nonetheless, as a surviving child's claim for loss of consortium with a parent would necessarily include the value of care and upkeep, it seems that the proposal is essentially taking money out of the plaintiff's left pocket and placing it in the right.

"This policy is simultaneously overbroad and ineffective: what it accomplishes, it does so poorly. We recommend the author reconsider their proposal's core assumptions."

Zyvetskistaahn wrote:Comments below in red and bold.

Makko Oko wrote:

THE SECURITY OF ALCOHOL-INDUCED PARENTAL DEATHS
As raised by the Ambassador for Tinhampton, the title could use some work. Perhaps something along the lines of “Drink Driving Compensation Act” would get closer to a description of what this proposal is aimed at.
Category: Moral Decency

Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Realizing that the negative effects of alcohol does not stop the people from drinking, accompanying the fact that no matter the strength of police forces, drunk driving incidents are inevitable, this enacts the following provisions:

1. The following is defined and stipulated under this resolution.
   
   
   1. "drunk driving" is the event of driving while considered to be at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to be safe to drive.
      
   2. "drunker" is defined as any individual at or above the legal limit determined by a WA member nation to not be considered drunk.
      
   3. "victim" is defined as any parent or legal guardian that dies at the hands of a drunk driving incident that they did not cause.
2. Member nations shall:
   
   
   1. Enact laws requiring drunkers, if alive, to pay child support dues for any victim, to be decided by the WA member nation's judicial system after a drunk driving incident. As noted by others already, this reaches far too widely and would currently render anyone above the “legal limit […] not to be considered drunk” liable, whether or not hey were involved in a collision. In terms of revising this, something along the lines of “Enact laws requiring any person who causes the death of a victim while drunk driving to pay child support dues” would seem to me to be closer to what the proposal is actually aiming for.
      
      
      1. If a lawsuit is filed by the victim's surviving family, the child support settlement must be reduced and/or not provided depending on the WA member nations' judicial system's decision.
      This is exceedingly vague. Some standard by which the reduction is to be determined (even if it is something such as being “proportionate”) should be set out otherwise this will not achieve its purpose, there is nothing at present that would stop a token 1[currency unit] reduction to meet the requirement of this clause while maintaining double recovery or to stop a nation from extinguishing the child support liability in full even if the suit would not exceed the value of that liability.
      
      This clause as written also does not actually require the suit to succeed to reduce or extinguish liability for child support payments, allowing the “drunker’s” net liability to be reduced rather than just avoiding double recovery. Moreover, in the circumstance of the “drunker” being a family member of the victim, this would appear to allow them to reduce their own liability merely by filing suit, even if it is then properly struck out as an abuse of process by the court.
      
   2. Not impose an undue burden on drunkers via child support cases or otherwise imposed by the WA member nation.
   This would seem to reach beyond the scope of this proposal into other areas. It is not obvious that the limit on imposing an “undue burden” through child support cases is limited to cases arising under this proposal, this could specially privilege “drunkers” in relation to member states’ child support systems generally. The words “or otherwise imposed by the WA member nation” in this sub-clause is particularly concerning on this point, as it seems to give “drunkers” free range to challenge all domestic law that could impose an “undue burden” on them, whether related to this proposal or not.
   
3. Authorizes future WA resolutions to build upon this resolution.
   
4. Child support dues under this resolution shall follow these provisions:
   
   
   1. Payment will be made to the surviving child's family until they are of the age of majority in their home WA member nation.
      
   2. Child support dues, if made during a drunkers sentence, shall be taken out of prison pay, or any pay they shall receive while incarcerated.
   This does not include any provision about the level of child support required under this proposal. Presumably they could not be too high, given the undue burden provision, but there does not seem to be anything that would stop them being set at such a low amount as to defeat the purpose of this proposal. While, obviously, setting a precise amount would be inappropriate, it should be possible to set out some standard by reference to things that would be necessary for a child’s upbringing.
   
5. To prevent lack of payment of child support under this resolution, it therefore mandates WA member nations establish:
   
   
   1. Support programs including but not limited to, payment plans, extensions, dynamically changable payment periods, etc.
      
   2. Punishment thereof to be decided by the WA member nation's government, and via drafted local legislation.

OOC: Thank you all very much for all of your feedback, especially this one in particular. As for Separatist Peoples feedback, do you have any suggestions or feedback as to what we can replace child support with in abstinence? Also Dr. Obama, please explain your idea for payment for accidental death regarding alcohol. Wallenburg, I will work on that portion so in that way it is fixed.

A new draft will be written and published in the coming days. I will update you all when it is so. My apologies for my inactivity in this forum recently, I was focusing on other parts of NationStates, along with having an outside life, you know how it goes. Glad I have so much feedback though. Thank you all again for your input.

Bump. New draft posted, and changed the name of the resolution as suggested.

Article 5 has nothing to do with drunk driving. In particular, I have no idea how 5b is supposed to be enforced at all times of the day; from personal experience, the security teams only patrol pubs on particularly busy nights.

My concerns about your old Article 4 remain in effect.

I continue to oppose this proposal on principle (not the WA's business).

Tinhampton wrote:I continue to oppose this proposal on principle (not the WA's business).

This coming from the Queen of minutiae?

Makko Oko wrote:Bump. New draft posted, and changed the name of the resolution as suggested.

Suggest to use "driving under the influence of alcohol" or "driving while intoxicated" and avoid the word "drunk" and you can copy existing DUI/DWI laws for more precise wording.

Simone Republic wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:Bump. New draft posted, and changed the name of the resolution as suggested.

Suggest to use "driving under the influence of alcohol" or "driving while intoxicated" and avoid the word "drunk" and you can copy existing DUI/DWI laws for more precise wording.

Advocating for plagiarism is bad advice.

"The edits made address essentially none of my criticisms. As such, they all stand, much like my opposition."

Statistically, sober drivers cause over 90% of road traffic accidents.
Discriminating against ''drunk drivers'' is just another symptom of systematic oppression to the gamer community.

Bistritza wrote:Statistically, sober drivers cause over 90% of road traffic accidents.
Discriminating against ''drunk drivers'' is just another symptom of systematic oppression to the gamer community.

“Ambassador, I see this complaint as being irrelevant. I see drunk driving and gaming as being barely connected. Furthermore, a majority of the multiverse’s population is comprised of professional adults who do not have time for gaming.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I see this complaint as being irrelevant. I see drunk driving and gaming as being barely connected. Furthermore, a majority of the multiverse’s population is comprised of professional adults who do not have time for gaming.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

If this 'ambassador' has never boozed'n'cruised before, he cannot be considered neither a professional nor an adult.
Boozers and Gamers have both been faced with ultimate discrimination for years.
Having to ''compensate'' for boozin'n'cruisin' now as well would lead to massive repercussions, after which I cannot guarantee pacification of these two oppressed groups.

If you wish to follow this absolute prohibitionist lunacy, go ahead. The blood will be on your hands.

I am still trying to wrap my head around how this would fall under "Moral Decency" let alone "Significant".