[DEFEATED] Crime Victims' Rights Act

[Chipoli]

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.

Fixed.

[Chipoli]

Is there any more feedback? If not, I’ll revise the draft and then submit.

[Attempted Socialism]

Is there any more feedback? If not, I’ll revise the draft and then submit.

As general advice, 11 days is a short drafting period. An oft-used phrase is that drafting is a marathon, not a sprint. Revising the draft is good, but a hasty submission will increase the risk of errors in your proposal and be to its general detriment.

[Chipoli]

Is there any more feedback? If not, I’ll revise the draft and then submit.

As general advice, 11 days is a short drafting period. An oft-used phrase is that drafting is a marathon, not a sprint. Revising the draft is good, but a hasty submission will increase the risk of errors in your proposal and be to its general detriment.

Yes, I see your point. I'm not trying to submit in a hurry, but I don't want to dwell too long either.

[The Orwell Society]

This seems like a really good proposal, if it comes to vote, I'm for it. However, I would peg this as more of a medium strength proposal. Why did you put it as significant?

[Chipoli]

This seems like a really good proposal, if it comes to vote, I'm for it. However, I would peg this as more of a medium strength proposal. Why did you put it as significant?

I'm still trying to determine the strength. I put it at significant for now.

[Comfed]

This seems like a really good proposal, if it comes to vote, I'm for it. However, I would peg this as more of a medium strength proposal. Why did you put it as significant?

The three strength categories are Mild, Significant and Strong. Significant seems correct to me.

[The Orwell Society]

This seems like a really good proposal, if it comes to vote, I'm for it. However, I would peg this as more of a medium strength proposal. Why did you put it as significant?

The three strength categories are Mild, Significant and Strong. Significant seems correct to me.

I thought there was a moderate? In that case, significant would be the right category.

[Fachumonn]

The three strength categories are Mild, Significant and Strong. Significant seems correct to me.

I thought there was a moderate?

No. Look at it and you might have noticed that.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Clause 4 seems to disregard the existance of a civil system for property claims entirely, and will undercut the procedural rights under tort law by requiring restitution, an equity remedy in contract law. The author does not appear to understand the premise of civil claims or their remedies. This should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 5 seems to assume that criminal proceedings are done for the benefit of and at the behest of the victim. This is not the case. The state is the entity that prosecute the claim and is, therefore, the only party other than the accused with an actionable interest in the speediness of proceedings. This clause should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 7 offers a complaint mechanism with no obligation for the state to review the complaint, let alone address it. There is no indication that a victim's criticism of the system is useful or valid, as victims are biased towards a particular outcome and, generally, laypeople to boot. This clause should be removed and not replaced."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Clause 4 seems to disregard the existance of a civil system for property claims entirely, and will undercut the procedural rights under tort law by requiring restitution, an equity remedy in contract law. The author does not appear to understand the premise of civil claims or their remedies. This should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 5 seems to assume that criminal proceedings are done for the benefit of and at the behest of the victim. This is not the case. The state is the entity that prosecute the claim and is, therefore, the only party other than the accused with an actionable interest in the speediness of proceedings. This clause should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 7 offers a complaint mechanism with no obligation for the state to review the complaint, let alone address it. There is no indication that a victim's criticism of the system is useful or valid, as victims are biased towards a particular outcome and, generally, laypeople to boot. This clause should be removed and not replaced."

I agree with some of what is said here but I would encourage the author to not completely disregard the interests of the victim.

Without going too deeply into the history and theory of criminal law, it comes from two basic fonts: the promotion of government interests and the "keeping of the peace." The first font is served by criminal laws on subjects like treason, breach of public duty, pollution, etc. The second font is where the vast majority of criminal laws come from. The state's interest in keeping the peace is only truly accomplished when the people harmed by crime believe that the system designed to address it has delivered justice. When they don't, we risk the return to the old-old model of private retribution, which has not been in vogue since approximately the early feudal period or late dark ages. While some victims may be unreasonable in their beliefs about what the system should and should not do - such is human nature and the emotional toll of being a victim - I find most to be reasonable. But a system that refuses to even hear victims out or that is inflexible to their legitimate points will struggle; probably fail.

Moreover, the impact on the victim must be weighed if we are to approximate the "fair" sentence. To use an easy example: stealing $1,000,000 from the investments of Donald Trump and stealing $1,000 from a struggling family are both thefts, and the former may seem like the worse crime on first blush. But we may believe fairness demands that they be punished equally, or even that the later is more culpable, when we hear from the family about how the loss of the $1,000 caused their children to go hungry and prevented them from affording school books.

Just some food for thought.

[Chipoli]

"Clause 4 seems to disregard the existance of a civil system for property claims entirely, and will undercut the procedural rights under tort law by requiring restitution, an equity remedy in contract law. The author does not appear to understand the premise of civil claims or their remedies. This should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 5 seems to assume that criminal proceedings are done for the benefit of and at the behest of the victim. This is not the case. The state is the entity that prosecute the claim and is, therefore, the only party other than the accused with an actionable interest in the speediness of proceedings. This clause should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 7 offers a complaint mechanism with no obligation for the state to review the complaint, let alone address it. There is no indication that a victim's criticism of the system is useful or valid, as victims are biased towards a particular outcome and, generally, laypeople to boot. This clause should be removed and not replaced."

Clause 5 and 7 can be removed. However, restitution is a basic right for a crime victim. I believe that clause can be worked upon.

[Makko Oko]

"Clause 4 seems to disregard the existance of a civil system for property claims entirely, and will undercut the procedural rights under tort law by requiring restitution, an equity remedy in contract law. The author does not appear to understand the premise of civil claims or their remedies. This should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 5 seems to assume that criminal proceedings are done for the benefit of and at the behest of the victim. This is not the case. The state is the entity that prosecute the claim and is, therefore, the only party other than the accused with an actionable interest in the speediness of proceedings. This clause should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 7 offers a complaint mechanism with no obligation for the state to review the complaint, let alone address it. There is no indication that a victim's criticism of the system is useful or valid, as victims are biased towards a particular outcome and, generally, laypeople to boot. This clause should be removed and not replaced."

Clause 5 and 7 can be removed. However, restitution is a basic right for a crime victim. I believe that clause can be worked upon.

"Is restitution a basic right? We're aware each nation is different, however, restitution suggests 'the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner' or 'compensation for injury or loss', which both really only fall under civil matters, moreso than criminal. We agree it can be worked upon, but to be more specific to that statement, we think the right of restitution should be declared only so for civil matters, unless something like wrongful death occurred." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

[Chipoli]

Clause 5 and 7 can be removed. However, restitution is a basic right for a crime victim. I believe that clause can be worked upon.

"Is restitution a basic right? We're aware each nation is different, however, restitution suggests 'the restoration of something lost or stolen to its proper owner' or 'compensation for injury or loss', which both really only fall under civil matters, moreso than criminal. We agree it can be worked upon, but to be more specific to that statement, we think the right of restitution should be declared only so for civil matters, unless something like wrongful death occurred." - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

Fair point.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Clause 4 seems to disregard the existance of a civil system for property claims entirely, and will undercut the procedural rights under tort law by requiring restitution, an equity remedy in contract law. The author does not appear to understand the premise of civil claims or their remedies. This should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 5 seems to assume that criminal proceedings are done for the benefit of and at the behest of the victim. This is not the case. The state is the entity that prosecute the claim and is, therefore, the only party other than the accused with an actionable interest in the speediness of proceedings. This clause should be removed and not replaced.

Clause 7 offers a complaint mechanism with no obligation for the state to review the complaint, let alone address it. There is no indication that a victim's criticism of the system is useful or valid, as victims are biased towards a particular outcome and, generally, laypeople to boot. This clause should be removed and not replaced."

Clause 5 and 7 can be removed. However, restitution is a basic right for a crime victim. I believe that clause can be worked upon.

"Restitution is a primarily civil right, not a criminal right. The operation of duties is from one individual to another rather than directly to the state. I disagree that this is appropriate in a criminal capacity when a fee shifting provision would eliminate the only barrier to recovery and improve the chances of said recovery."

[Chipoli]

Does anyone else have issues with this proposal?

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Does anyone else have issues with this proposal?

There's nothing that demands you let months and months go by before submission, but I generally recommend a "three bump" rule to ensure that folks (some of whom don't play every day) will have a chance to look the proposal over. If you have to bump the proposal back onto the first page of the WA forum three times without any comment from others, it's generally a safe time to consider submitting the proposal to see how much attention it gets once it's in the limelight.

I'll look again for additional improvements or areas that need correcting when I have time, but for now nothing in the current draft jumps out at me.

[Chipoli]

Does anyone else have issues with this proposal?

There's nothing that demands you let months and months go by before submission, but I generally recommend a "three bump" rule to ensure that folks (some of whom don't play every day) will have a chance to look the proposal over. If you have to bump the proposal back onto the first page of the WA forum three times without any comment from others, it's generally a safe time to consider submitting the proposal to see how much attention it gets once it's in the limelight.

I'll look again for additional improvements or areas that need correcting when I have time, but for now nothing in the current draft jumps out at me.

Okay, that seems fair.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Section 4 makes no allowance for statutes of limitation or latches.

"Section 1 makes no allowances for testimony under seal, as is the case for matters of national security or involving vulnerable minors. While 1d considers protective orders, there is no way to fit this into the scheme of the proposal coherently.

"Section 1c disregards situations where a victim consents to contact."

[Chipoli]

"Section 4 makes no allowance for statutes of limitation or latches.

"Section 1 makes no allowances for testimony under seal, as is the case for matters of national security or involving vulnerable minors. While 1d considers protective orders, there is no way to fit this into the scheme of the proposal coherently.

"Section 1c disregards situations where a victim consents to contact."

Thanks for your insight.

[Chipoli]

OOC: I have decided to submit this because:

1. This proposal has been on the front page for a while now and has received many reads. No criticism/feedback has been received in a few days.
2. Nothing in this proposal jumps out at me after re-reading it multiple times.

[Chipoli]

If you want to find this proposal, here is the link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1653140270

[Hexalaing]

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”.

Surely something along the lines of "If the victim requests it" would be better, given that if the victim of a crime had been mentally or emotionally traumatised then they may not be in a position to consciously refuse information, and it should therefore only be given if they ask for it. On the other hand, you could add a clause passing responsibility to a legal or familial representative to make the decision on there behalf, recognising their responsibility for the victim in the case of lack of mental capabilities. Something like "if the victim requests it, or another individual with legal rights to request it in their stead"

Just a suggestion, I am new to the game so let me know if there are errors in this.

[Separatist Peoples]

"The submitted version has done effectively nothing to remedy my concerns. Opposed."

[Fachumonn]

Support. As such, approved.