[DEFEATED] Crime Victims' Rights Act

[Goobergunchia]

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

Assured that crime victims play a valuable part in the criminal justice system;

Acknowledging that a resolution regarding the rights of crime victims was passed by the World Assembly in the past that is no longer in effect;

Determined to give crime victims the justice they deserve, along with the respect, civility, and fair treatment that they merit;

Urging that the correct proceedings should be conducted during trial to certify that the rights of crime victims and the rights of the accused maintain a fair balance;

Defines the following terms necessary for this proposal:

“crime victim” as a person in a criminal prosecution who has presumably or allegedly been harmed in an emotional, physical, sexual, or financial manner or has been threatened to be harmed as a result of the criminal misconduct of another who is not simultaneously accused of another crime that occurred as a result from the same occurrence or incident.

“the accused” as a person who has been formally charged with a crime based on evidence that they have recently committed a criminal offense against the crime victim in a related case.

“critical stage of the prosecution” as any date or event in which a vital or jurisdictional component of the case is resolved or decided, including release hearings, hearings related to the trial’s scheduling, preliminary hearings, plea hearings, parole and probation hearings, trials, sentencing's, and other events deemed critical in the national justice system in question.

Commissions that member nations will provide their crime victims with the following rights:

1. Rights to be reasonably protected from the accused, including but not limited to:

a. The right to be tested for serious illnesses the crime victim may have been exposed to during the act of the crime.

b. The accused or any associates may not harass, stalk, harm, or threaten the victim.

c. The accused may not directly contact the victim without the presence of law enforcement unless the victim consents to the contact.

d. In certain cases, the court may grant protective orders to limit the disclosure of the crime victim's personal information, including through the process of filing under seal.

Additionally,

2. Crime Victims shall be allowed to hear any important events during the critical stage of the prosecution unless the crime victim requests otherwise.

3. Crime victims can exercise their rights personally, through an attorney, or a personal representative. In the case of a crime victim who is under the age of majority, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim, family members, or any other persons appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the crime victim's rights.

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.

5. Crime victims have the right to be referred to services that support victims and have them tailored to their needs.

Establishing that member nations will allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated above in the name of civility and justice.

OOC: This resolution is a replacement for GA Resolution #247, which was repealed in December 2021. This is my first attempt at a GA resolution, so any constructive feedback would be appreciated.

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I will have some more thoughts on this in due course but, for the moment, I want to explore whether this adequately addresses on of the problems identified in the repeal of GA #247. The issue that I think is not adequately addressed is this:

Ambiguities in clause one that lead to a not-unreasonable interpretation that crime victims must be updated on critical stages of prosecution, regardless of their actual desire to know of the ongoings, which may lead to further trauma or harm to their psyche,

The concern is that the Resolution could have required victims to be told about the progress of proceedings even if they did not want to be. The answer to this in the proposal is below:

Crime Victims shall be allowed to hear any important events during the critical stage of the prosecution, unless the court, after clear evidence, determines that the information may cause trauma and stress in the victim.

However, this goes too far in the other direction. It removes the agency of the victim in making the decision and places it in the hands of the Court on the basis of a standard that is quite low and which could lead to this right being ineffective. To my mind, the solution to the problem identified in the repeal would, essentially, be to just add “unless the crime victim requests otherwise”.

[The New Nordic Union]

'Any other problems aside, we stand opposed to any proposal that takes the delivery of justice out of the hands of educated professionals and instead places it in those of laypeople.'

[Makko Oko]

We think this proposal would be better read if it were using BBCode (boxes and whatnot), right now we don't really like the way it looks in the formatting. Regardless, we're completely opposed to this resolution due to its blatantly obvious basis of trying to take the rights of justice away from the individual WA members.

[Chipoli]

I will have some more thoughts on this in due course but, for the moment, I want to explore whether this adequately addresses on of the problems identified in the repeal of GA #247. The issue that I think is not adequately addressed is this:

Ambiguities in clause one that lead to a not-unreasonable interpretation that crime victims must be updated on critical stages of prosecution, regardless of their actual desire to know of the ongoings, which may lead to further trauma or harm to their psyche,

The concern is that the Resolution could have required victims to be told about the progress of proceedings even if they did not want to be. The answer to this in the proposal is below:

Crime Victims shall be allowed to hear any important events during the critical stage of the prosecution, unless the court, after clear evidence, determines that the information may cause trauma and stress in the victim.

However, this goes too far in the other direction. It removes the agency of the victim in making the decision and places it in the hands of the Court on the basis of a standard that is quite low and which could lead to this right being ineffective. To my mind, the solution to the problem identified in the repeal would, essentially, be to just add “unless the crime victim requests otherwise”.

I was considering that already, so I took your advice and fixed it.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Crime victims have the right to full and timely restitution from the accused at any time that it is reasonably possible.

This says that crime victims have a right to restitution from a person who is merely "accused." To avoid some of the criticism that led to the repeal of the former crime victims rights resolution, you'll probably want to add "if the accused is convicted."

Crime victims have the right to a fair trial, including a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

Presumably, the crime victim is not on trial.

Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.

The accused may not hear or have access to any personal identifying information, such as home address, credit card information, and employee record information.

No, this is unreasonable and won't work. How is a criminal defendant supposed to have a fair trial or even prepare a defense if they cannot "hear" the name of the person they allegedly victimized? How can you defend yourself against charges of burglary if they won't disclose the address you allegedly burgled. I could go on.

IRL, courts sometimes grant qualified protective orders limiting disclosure of personal information to legitimate purposes connected to the trial. You could maybe consider replacing this with something along those lines. Anyway, you already have a "no harassment" right in there, so maybe just get rid of this.

Urges member nations to allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated above in the name of civility and justice.

Are you establishing actual rights, or just "urging" nations to adopt measures that they can also freely ignore if they choose? This provision can probably be deleted.

[Makko Oko]

Crime victims have the right to full and timely restitution from the accused at any time that it is reasonably possible.

This says that crime victims have a right to restitution from a person who is merely "accused." To avoid some of the criticism that led to the repeal of the former crime victims rights resolution, you'll probably want to add "if the accused is convicted."

Crime victims have the right to a fair trial, including a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

Presumably, the crime victim is not on trial.

Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.

The accused may not hear or have access to any personal identifying information, such as home address, credit card information, and employee record information.

No, this is unreasonable and won't work. How is a criminal defendant supposed to have a fair trial or even prepare a defense if they cannot "hear" the name of the person they allegedly victimized? How can you defend yourself against charges of burglary if they won't disclose the address you allegedly burgled. I could go on.

IRL, courts sometimes grant qualified protective orders limiting disclosure of personal information to legitimate purposes connected to the trial. You could maybe consider replacing this with something along those lines. Anyway, you already have a "no harassment" right in there, so maybe just get rid of this.

Urges member nations to allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated above in the name of civility and justice.

Are you establishing actual rights, or just "urging" nations to adopt measures that they can also freely ignore if they choose? This provision can probably be deleted.

"On the part of public trials, are you stating that governments must make all trials public? Even ones of the most questionable order? Some trials are made private for a reason"

[Chipoli]

Crime victims have the right to full and timely restitution from the accused at any time that it is reasonably possible.

This says that crime victims have a right to restitution from a person who is merely "accused." To avoid some of the criticism that led to the repeal of the former crime victims rights resolution, you'll probably want to add "if the accused is convicted."

Crime victims have the right to a fair trial, including a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

Presumably, the crime victim is not on trial.

Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.

The accused may not hear or have access to any personal identifying information, such as home address, credit card information, and employee record information.

No, this is unreasonable and won't work. How is a criminal defendant supposed to have a fair trial or even prepare a defense if they cannot "hear" the name of the person they allegedly victimized? How can you defend yourself against charges of burglary if they won't disclose the address you allegedly burgled. I could go on.

IRL, courts sometimes grant qualified protective orders limiting disclosure of personal information to legitimate purposes connected to the trial. You could maybe consider replacing this with something along those lines. Anyway, you already have a "no harassment" right in there, so maybe just get rid of this.

Urges member nations to allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated above in the name of civility and justice.

Are you establishing actual rights, or just "urging" nations to adopt measures that they can also freely ignore if they choose? This provision can probably be deleted.

1. I have added that.
2. I clarified that bit.
3. I will wait to hear more feedback on this.
4. Reworded.
5. Reworded.

[Chipoli]

This says that crime victims have a right to restitution from a person who is merely "accused." To avoid some of the criticism that led to the repeal of the former crime victims rights resolution, you'll probably want to add "if the accused is convicted."


Presumably, the crime victim is not on trial.


Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.


No, this is unreasonable and won't work. How is a criminal defendant supposed to have a fair trial or even prepare a defense if they cannot "hear" the name of the person they allegedly victimized? How can you defend yourself against charges of burglary if they won't disclose the address you allegedly burgled. I could go on.

IRL, courts sometimes grant qualified protective orders limiting disclosure of personal information to legitimate purposes connected to the trial. You could maybe consider replacing this with something along those lines. Anyway, you already have a "no harassment" right in there, so maybe just get rid of this.


Are you establishing actual rights, or just "urging" nations to adopt measures that they can also freely ignore if they choose? This provision can probably be deleted.

"On the part of public trials, are you stating that governments must make all trials public? Even ones of the most questionable order? Some trials are made private for a reason"

No, I did not intent that, so I clarified that.

[Chipoli]

Update: I've made a few changes to this proposal, more feedback would be appreciated.

[Makko Oko]

"The Makko Okoan Government has no new feedback to provide at this time. It looks good in our opinion."

[Chipoli]

Does anyone else have something to say? I don't want to dwell too long on submitting this but don't want to rush it either.

[Goobergunchia]

3. Crime victims have the right to be present or have themselves heard at any criminal proceeding in the court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

While we have no objection to crime victims exercising the same rights as any other citizen to attend a public proceeding, we cannot support any requirement for victim impact statements or any other mechanism which lends itself to making the sympathetic nature of the victim a determining factor in sentencing.

Goobergunchia follows South Carolina v. Gathers.

6. Crime victims have the right to a fair trial (if they present), including one without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

7. Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

We do not try crime victims in the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic. Nor do we permit private prosecutions.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

[Chipoli]

3. Crime victims have the right to be present or have themselves heard at any criminal proceeding in the court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

While we have no objection to crime victims exercising the same rights as any other citizen to attend a public proceeding, we cannot support any requirement for victim impact statements or any other mechanism which lends itself to making the sympathetic nature of the victim a determining factor in sentencing.

Goobergunchia follows South Carolina v. Gathers.

6. Crime victims have the right to a fair trial (if they present), including one without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

7. Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

We do not try crime victims in the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic. Nor do we permit private prosecutions.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian WA Ambassador

1. It is not a requirement. It is a right that the victim can choose to or to not exercise.
2. I'm intrested to see how you approach the justice system then.

[The New Nordic Union]

2. I'm intrested to see how you approach the justice system then.

'We suppose in the same mode as most anywhere, and most definitely here in the Nordic Union: Trying the accused, not the victims.

We are furthermore still opposed for the requirement to allow laypeople to be part of delivering justice.'

[Chipoli]

2. I'm intrested to see how you approach the justice system then.

'We suppose in the same mode as most anywhere, and most definitely here in the Nordic Union: Trying the accused, not the victims.

We are furthermore still opposed for the requirement to allow laypeople to be part of delivering justice.'

Ah, I understand what you mean, I'll update the resolution

[Attempted Socialism]

3. Crime victims have the right to be present or have themselves heard at any criminal proceeding in the court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

This is an unacceptable indulgence in emotional pornography. A crime victim is not the prosecutor, and allowing them to tear up at e.g. a parole proceeding is wanton cruelty and patently unjust. I cannot see something like this passing.

5. Crime victims have the right to full and timely restitution from the accused (if convicted) at any time that is reasonably possible.

So all crimes must now include fines or damages? Why?

6. Crime victims have the right to a fair trial (if they present), including one without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

The crime... victim... has a right to a fair trial? I don't know why anyone would prosecute the crime victim, but now they have that right, I suppose. At least the jury part is only for victims, so my IC justice system isn't debased by having juries protect lynch-mobs or hang people for being black.

7. Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

This is not unreasonable, but weird that it's a right afforded the victim alone.

8. Crime victims have the right to not be discriminated against due to their ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, age, or anything else.

Since discrimination is already banned generally (And I don't see a compelling purpose in discriminating against crime victims), this is redundant but the weird focus on giving rights to the victim that would only apply if the victim is on trial is... disconcerting, to put it mildly.

Establishing that member nations will allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated above in the name of civility and justice.

Yes, let's codify abject injustice in the name of civility and justice.

To sum up, I suggest deleting clauses 3 and 5. In clause 6, I would replace "crime victim" with "accused", and delete any mention of a jury. I would add "accused" in clause 7, and replace "crime victim" with "accused" in clause 8.

[Chipoli]

3. Crime victims have the right to be present or have themselves heard at any criminal proceeding in the court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.

This is an unacceptable indulgence in emotional pornography. A crime victim is not the prosecutor, and allowing them to tear up at e.g. a parole proceeding is wanton cruelty and patently unjust. I cannot see something like this passing.

5. Crime victims have the right to full and timely restitution from the accused (if convicted) at any time that is reasonably possible.

So all crimes must now include fines or damages? Why?

6. Crime victims have the right to a fair trial (if they present), including one without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, and the right to an impartial jury.

The crime... victim... has a right to a fair trial? I don't know why anyone would prosecute the crime victim, but now they have that right, I suppose. At least the jury part is only for victims, so my IC justice system isn't debased by having juries protect lynch-mobs or hang people for being black.

7. Crime victims have the right to proceedings free from an unreasonable delay.

This is not unreasonable, but weird that it's a right afforded the victim alone.

8. Crime victims have the right to not be discriminated against due to their ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, age, or anything else.

Since discrimination is already banned generally (And I don't see a compelling purpose in discriminating against crime victims), this is redundant but the weird focus on giving rights to the victim that would only apply if the victim is on trial is... disconcerting, to put it mildly.

Establishing that member nations will allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated above in the name of civility and justice.

Yes, let's codify abject injustice in the name of civility and justice.

To sum up, I suggest deleting clauses 3 and 5. In clause 6, I would replace "crime victim" with "accused", and delete any mention of a jury. I would add "accused" in clause 7, and replace "crime victim" with "accused" in clause 8.

Clause 3-- Deleted.
Clause 5-- Reworded.
Clause 6-- Reworded.
Clause 8-- Reworded.

[Tinhampton]

Clause 8-- Reworded.

That doesn't solve AS's complaints. You've taken a perfectly good (if redundant) clause about discrimination and turned it around to say that those accused of crimes cannot be discriminated against for any reason, including by being accused of crimes - which would prohibit the prosecution of crimes for which victims are not simultaneously investigated (yes, I know, again...)

[Chipoli]

Clause 8-- Reworded.

That doesn't solve AS's complaints. You've taken a perfectly good (if redundant) clause about discrimination and turned it around to say that those accused of crimes cannot be discriminated against for any reason, including by being accused of crimes - which would prohibit the prosecution of crimes for which victims are not simultaneously investigated (yes, I know, again...)

I tried fixing that clause again, but how would you suggest I word it?

[Comfed]

6. The accused have the right to a fair trial, including one without unnecessary delay, and the right to a lawyer.

Out of this proposal's scope and is also covered by other resolutions.

[Deropia]

Clause 7 can be removed as discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, etc. is already covered by GAR#35, making the clause redundant.

Clause 3 should have "18 years of age" replaced with "age of majority" - remember, the WA multiverse is home to various species, so a "one size fits all" approach is better than attaching arbitrary numbers to a resolution.

As others have said, clause 6 falls outside of the scope of this resolution and should be removed.

[Chipoli]

Clause 7 can be removed as discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, etc. is already covered by GAR#35, making the clause redundant.

Clause 3 should have "18 years of age" replaced with "age of majority" - remember, the WA multiverse is home to various species, so a "one size fits all" approach is better than attaching arbitrary numbers to a resolution.

As others have said, clause 6 falls outside of the scope of this resolution and should be removed.

Clause 7-- Removed
OOC: Fair enough, I just wanted to make it explicitly clear

Clause 3--- reworded
OOC: Good point

Clause 6--- Removed

[Fachumonn]

Support in what it's trying to achieve, but probably could be improved.

[Fachumonn]

Sorry for double post but:

“crime victim” as a person in a criminal prosecution who has been directly and proximately ?, reword this sentence. emotionally, physically, or financially harmed (presumably or allegedly), or has been threatened to be harmed as a result of the criminal misconduct of another who is not simultaneously accused of another crime that occurred as a result from the same incident or occurrence.

“the accused” as a person who has been formally charged with a crime based on the evidence that they have currently or recently committed a criminal offense against the crime victim in a related case.

“critical stage of the prosecution” as any date or event in which a vital or jurisdictional component of the case is resolved or decided, including release hearings, hearings relating to the trial’s scheduling, preliminary hearings, plea hearings, parole and probation hearings, trials, sentencing's,(add apostrophe) and other events deemed critical in the national justice system in question.