[DEFEATED] Rights for Crime Victims Act

[The Ice States]

Still Ooc.

4. I clarified that it was the victim's choice to seek restitution. Also, the amount of restitution depends on how much was destroyed, stolen, etc.

First, it doesn't say how much is to be provided -- if at all. Second, seek is not the same as receive. It is obvious that someone can decide whether they want something or not. What you want is it to be provided, not just victims to be allowed to seek it and fail to receive anything.

Other notes with the new changes _

• "unless if the victim..." is a grammatical error, just say "unless the victim..."
• I still stand by my suggestion that the last sentence is redundant, because the rest is already binding. It's not harmful, but it's not necessary at all either, and does nothing new.
• You don't need to define the age of majority since you no longer mention it anywhere outside of the definition.

[Chipoli]

Still Ooc.

4. I clarified that it was the victim's choice to seek restitution. Also, the amount of restitution depends on how much was destroyed, stolen, etc.

First, it doesn't say how much is to be provided -- if at all. Second, seek is not the same as receive. It is obvious that someone can decide whether they want something or not. What you want is it to be provided, not just victims to be allowed to seek it and fail to receive anything.

Other notes with the new changes _

• "unless if the victim..." is a grammatical error, just say "unless the victim..."
• I still stand by my suggestion that the last sentence is redundant, because the rest is already binding. It's not harmful, but it's not necessary at all either, and does nothing new.
• You don't need to define the age of majority since you no longer mention it anywhere outside of the definition.

1. How much restitution should be provided then, in your opinion?
2. I've replaced "seek" with "receive".
3. Age of majority definition removed.

[Heavens Reach]

Does subclause b of clause 1 assume that it's not already a crime to "harass, stalk, harm, or threaten" anyone, regardless of circumstance?

Assuming guilt is established through due process, as described in clause 4, why predicate the restitution the victim is allowed to receive on the basis of the guilty party's financial stability instead of the damages done to the victim?

The final "hereby" clause does not add anything to the proposal, and doesn't follow the flow of the document.

1. It does not.
2. Can you clarify what you said?
3. Fair enough, I'll remove it.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to create a special category of victims for those crimes?

The clause, as written, seems to limit what restitution can be sought by victims, with those limits tied to what would or would not be financially damaging to the convicted.

I'd remove anything after clause 5, honestly, unless it's a new actionable clause. The proposal doesn't need a summary, and its call to action is at the beginning.

[Chipoli]

1. It does not.
2. Can you clarify what you said?
3. Fair enough, I'll remove it.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to create a special category of victims for those crimes?

The clause, as written, seems to limit what restitution can be sought by victims, with those limits tied to what would or would not be financially damaging to the convicted.

I'd remove anything after clause 5, honestly, unless it's a new actionable clause. The proposal doesn't need a summary, and its call to action is at the beginning.

1. Seems fine to me.
2. How do you suggest ensuring that the crime victim gets enough compensation without bankrupting the accused?

[Heavens Reach]

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to create a special category of victims for those crimes?

The clause, as written, seems to limit what restitution can be sought by victims, with those limits tied to what would or would not be financially damaging to the convicted.

I'd remove anything after clause 5, honestly, unless it's a new actionable clause. The proposal doesn't need a summary, and its call to action is at the beginning.

1. Seems fine to me.
2. How do you suggest ensuring that the crime victim gets enough compensation without bankrupting the accused?

It doesn't seem fine to me.

I don't. First, I don't think the "accused" should be liable for anything. But if they're found guilty, they should be liable for all damages, regardless of how it will impact their finances.

[Chipoli]

1. Seems fine to me.
2. How do you suggest ensuring that the crime victim gets enough compensation without bankrupting the accused?

It doesn't seem fine to me.

I don't. First, I don't think the "accused" should be liable for anything. But if they're found guilty, they should be liable for all damages, regardless of how it will impact their finances.

1. How do you know that clause 1b is a crime in all member states? If it isn't, then it's worth being in the resolution.
2. I'll update clause 4 restitution, but I will require the accused to pay the full restitution one way or antoher.

[Heavens Reach]

It doesn't seem fine to me.

I don't. First, I don't think the "accused" should be liable for anything. But if they're found guilty, they should be liable for all damages, regardless of how it will impact their finances.

1. How do you know that clause 1b is a crime in all member states? If it isn't, then it's worth being in the resolution.
2. I'll update clause 4 restitution, but I will require the accused to pay the full restitution one way or antoher.

It's likely not a crime in all member states, and it's not that we don't think it's "worth it," but this is international law, and if we're going to assign criminality to a specific act because it is prima facie wrong, it should apply to everyone, even, in our view, if it's a slight expansion of the scope of the proposal. I'd be interested to hear what other ambassadors have to say about this

[The New Nordic Union]

A “court proceeding” is the process in which both parties present evidence in support of their claims, after which a trier of fact determines the factual issues in the trial.

[...]

b. Crime victims have the right to be notified of any court proceeding involving the crime or any release or escape of the accused unless if the victim decides otherwise.

'So crime victims need not to be informed of criminal proceedings where those are not adversarial, but inquisitorial?'

[Lile Ulie Islands]

OOC: For your OP, you might want to do something like this:

etc...

Just a suggestion that has helped me keep myself organized in my drafts!

[Chipoli]

OOC: For your OP, you might want to do something like this:

etc...

Just a suggestion that has helped me keep myself organized in my drafts!

OOC: Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try to use it in my future drafts.

[Chipoli]

Notice: I intend to submit soon

[Attempted Socialism]

Two things: Delete the last line ("Obligates..."), as it is unnecessary and reads as "do this that we just passed, but for realsies!" The "instructs" line is sufficient.
With regards to clause 4, can you clarify what happens if 1) a stolen or destroyed item is unique and emotionally important but monetarily essentially worthless (Heirloom, child's first drawing, whatever else); 2) the convicted declares bankruptcy; 3) an item is insured and the insurance pays for a new item; 4) a criminal passed on their ill-gotten gains to a benefactor acting in good faith, and then the convicted earns no money by sitting in jail; the convicted makes barely enough to support themselves, and any wage garnishing will result in starvation?

[Chipoli]

Two things: Delete the last line ("Obligates..."), as it is unnecessary and reads as "do this that we just passed, but for realsies!" The "instructs" line is sufficient.
With regards to clause 4, can you clarify what happens if 1) a stolen or destroyed item is unique and emotionally important but monetarily essentially worthless (Heirloom, child's first drawing, whatever else); 2) the convicted declares bankruptcy; 3) an item is insured and the insurance pays for a new item; 4) a criminal passed on their ill-gotten gains to a benefactor acting in good faith, and then the convicted earns no money by sitting in jail; the convicted makes barely enough to support themselves, and any wage garnishing will result in starvation?

1) If stolen-- the convicted has to return the item. If the item is damaged in any way, they have to pay a fee to the victim.
If destroyed-- there is no way for the victim to get that item back, so they can request a certain amount of compensation from the convicted.
2) Bankruptcy courts regard restitution as part of the defendant’s punishment. Therefore, the convicted still has an obligation to pay restitution that is imposed in a criminal proceeding. (At least that's how it works in the US)
3) Then the victim's insurance (if they have it) can simply pay for a new item.
4) I'd say that the convicted has to get their money back from the benefactor if they want to support themselves or make enough money to support themselves. The victim could badly need the money as well.

[The New Nordic Union]

A “court proceeding” is the process in which both parties present evidence in support of their claims, after which a trier of fact determines the factual issues in the trial.

[...]

b. Crime victims have the right to be notified of any court proceeding involving the crime or any release or escape of the accused unless if the victim decides otherwise.

'So crime victims need not to be informed of criminal proceedings where those are not adversarial, but inquisitorial?'

'We repeat our question.'

[Attempted Socialism]

Two things: Delete the last line ("Obligates..."), as it is unnecessary and reads as "do this that we just passed, but for realsies!" The "instructs" line is sufficient.
With regards to clause 4, can you clarify what happens if 1) a stolen or destroyed item is unique and emotionally important but monetarily essentially worthless (Heirloom, child's first drawing, whatever else); 2) the convicted declares bankruptcy; 3) an item is insured and the insurance pays for a new item; 4) a criminal passed on their ill-gotten gains to a benefactor acting in good faith, and then the convicted earns no money by sitting in jail; the convicted makes barely enough to support themselves, and any wage garnishing will result in starvation?

1) If stolen-- the convicted has to return the item. If the item is damaged in any way, they have to pay a fee to the victim.

Can you show me where in clause 4 there is a basis for this? You have written "pay restitution" "for the cost of their expense", but not "hand back stolen items". Furthermore, we are discussing a fee for something that is monetarily worthless; how is that fee then assessed? This restitution is a right, so we better not leave it up to a random police officer. Do we have to schedule a full trial to ascertain the emotional damages every time a thing has been stolen?

If destroyed-- there is no way for the victim to get that item back, so they can request a certain amount of compensation from the convicted.

Same as above: How is that compensation determined? Who determines it?

2) Bankruptcy courts regard restitution as part of the defendant’s punishment. Therefore, the convicted still has an obligation to pay restitution that is imposed in a criminal proceeding. (At least that's how it works in the US)

Are you satisfied in taking cues from the US "justice" "system"? This sounds like you want to impose debt on a criminal regardless of their time served and ability to pay, which seems to only encourage recidivism and debtor's prisons.

3) Then the victim's insurance (if they have it) can simply pay for a new item.

Am I to understand that an insured crime victim loses their right to restitution from the criminal by virtue of having good insurance?

4) I'd say that the convicted has to get their money back from the benefactor if they want to support themselves or make enough money to support themselves. The victim could badly need the money as well.

This answer is very revealing.

[Chipoli]

1) If stolen-- the convicted has to return the item. If the item is damaged in any way, they have to pay a fee to the victim.

Can you show me where in clause 4 there is a basis for this? You have written "pay restitution" "for the cost of their expense", but not "hand back stolen items". Furthermore, we are discussing a fee for something that is monetarily worthless; how is that fee then assessed? This restitution is a right, so we better not leave it up to a random police officer. Do we have to schedule a full trial to ascertain the emotional damages every time a thing has been stolen?

If destroyed-- there is no way for the victim to get that item back, so they can request a certain amount of compensation from the convicted.

Same as above: How is that compensation determined? Who determines it?

2) Bankruptcy courts regard restitution as part of the defendant’s punishment. Therefore, the convicted still has an obligation to pay restitution that is imposed in a criminal proceeding. (At least that's how it works in the US)

Are you satisfied in taking cues from the US "justice" "system"? This sounds like you want to impose debt on a criminal regardless of their time served and ability to pay, which seems to only encourage recidivism and debtor's prisons.

3) Then the victim's insurance (if they have it) can simply pay for a new item.

Am I to understand that an insured crime victim loses their right to restitution from the criminal by virtue of having good insurance?

4) I'd say that the convicted has to get their money back from the benefactor if they want to support themselves or make enough money to support themselves. The victim could badly need the money as well.

This answer is very revealing.

1) The compensation can either be chosen by the victim or if they'd like the court can.
2) The restitution depends on how much damage was done. If someone destroys or takes something worth 500 dollars, they will have to pay that same amount back. That can be paid. If they destroy something worth millions, then that's simply a very serious crime. I very much don't want the accused to be in financial peril, but if they refuse to pay the restitution to the victim they end up losing the money stolen. Should someone else pay the victim if the accused cannot? Might criminals think they are exempt from paying the restitution if they are bankrupt?
3) Again, victims can make the choice. They can have insurance cover it or receive payment from the convicted.

[Chipoli]

'So crime victims need not to be informed of criminal proceedings where those are not adversarial, but inquisitorial?'

'We repeat our question.'

OOC: I have modified the definition for a court proceeding. To clarify, Crime victims are informed of any developments in the trial and the status of the imprisonment of the accused.

[Heavens Reach]

'We repeat our question.'

OOC: I have modified the definition for a court proceeding. To clarify, Crime victims are informed of any developments in the trial and the status of the imprisonment of the accused.

OOC: just a suggestion -- take this off of last call and marinate on it more / await more feedback. This has only been on the forum for a week and a half and the last time you submitted it it was shot down by Gensec

[Tinhampton]

OOC: I have modified the definition for a court proceeding. To clarify, Crime victims are informed of any developments in the trial and the status of the imprisonment of the accused.

OOC: just a suggestion -- take this off of last call and marinate on it more / await more feedback. This has only been on the forum for a week and a half and the last time you submitted it it was shot down by Gensec

1. Chipoli started drafting this in mid-June.
2. The original CVRA was only "shot down by Gensec" because it was plagiarised. I'd encourage the author to check for similarities with GA#247 again, however. (The policies definitely have a ring to them!)

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: just a suggestion -- take this off of last call and marinate on it more / await more feedback. This has only been on the forum for a week and a half and the last time you submitted it it was shot down by Gensec

1. Chipoli started drafting this in mid-June.
2. The original CVRA was only "shot down by Gensec" because it was plagiarised. I'd encourage the author to check for similarities with GA#247 again, however. (The policies definitely have a ring to them!)

OOC: oh, sorry, didn't realize. I guess I'm still not completely comfortable with the draft, but if they feel it's ready, then, yeah, totally, that's enough time

[Attempted Socialism]

Can you show me where in clause 4 there is a basis for this? You have written "pay restitution" "for the cost of their expense", but not "hand back stolen items". Furthermore, we are discussing a fee for something that is monetarily worthless; how is that fee then assessed? This restitution is a right, so we better not leave it up to a random police officer. Do we have to schedule a full trial to ascertain the emotional damages every time a thing has been stolen?
Same as above: How is that compensation determined? Who determines it?
Are you satisfied in taking cues from the US "justice" "system"? This sounds like you want to impose debt on a criminal regardless of their time served and ability to pay, which seems to only encourage recidivism and debtor's prisons.
Am I to understand that an insured crime victim loses their right to restitution from the criminal by virtue of having good insurance?
This answer is very revealing.

1) The compensation can either be chosen by the victim or if they'd like the court can.
2) The restitution depends on how much damage was done. If someone destroys or takes something worth 500 dollars, they will have to pay that same amount back. That can be paid. If they destroy something worth millions, then that's simply a very serious crime. I very much don't want the accused to be in financial peril, but if they refuse to pay the restitution to the victim they end up losing the money stolen. Should someone else pay the victim if the accused cannot? Might criminals think they are exempt from paying the restitution if they are bankrupt?
3) Again, victims can make the choice. They can have insurance cover it or receive payment from the convicted.

I will note that there is no textual basis for your clarifications apparent to me, and you didn't show me the textual basis for this yourself, despite me asking for it. Nothing in this allows the victim to choose the value of an item that is monetarily worthless, for instance. Now, you could delegate this to the court hearing the case, but apparently you want the victim to have the power to crush the criminal under a ton of debt outside of what is justified by their crime. Further enhancing this is your worrisome elaboration to 3), because now it's obvious that restitution is no longer your aim. The victim can, for any motive -- revenge being a likely one --, forfeit insurance to heap debt upon the convicted. I would repeat my point that there is no textual basis for this, but in this case I think it is worse, as I am pretty sure the victim would have the right to both; contractually the insurance pays out, and then the victim uses the money to hound the convicted for base revenge.

I said in your previous thread that the draft back then contained some disconcerting notions. It could have been due to your IC or OOC opinions, but it could also have been due to the quality of the draft. To be blunt, I don't think I would want anything to do with what you call justice.

[Chipoli]

1. Chipoli started drafting this in mid-June.
2. The original CVRA was only "shot down by Gensec" because it was plagiarised. I'd encourage the author to check for similarities with GA#247 again, however. (The policies definitely have a ring to them!)

OOC: oh, sorry, didn't realize. I guess I'm still not completely comfortable with the draft, but if they feel it's ready, then, yeah, totally, that's enough time

If you'd like to suggest any changes I'd be happy to listen.

[Chipoli]

OOC: just a suggestion -- take this off of last call and marinate on it more / await more feedback. This has only been on the forum for a week and a half and the last time you submitted it it was shot down by Gensec

1. Chipoli started drafting this in mid-June.
2. The original CVRA was only "shot down by Gensec" because it was plagiarised. I'd encourage the author to check for similarities with GA#247 again, however. (The policies definitely have a ring to them!)

The format for this draft was inspired by GA#247, yes. In this draft, I added some clauses and used the repeal and the feedback I have received to shape the rest of the draft, so that the flaws of 247 and any possible issues in this draft would be fixed.

[Chipoli]

1) The compensation can either be chosen by the victim or if they'd like the court can.
2) The restitution depends on how much damage was done. If someone destroys or takes something worth 500 dollars, they will have to pay that same amount back. That can be paid. If they destroy something worth millions, then that's simply a very serious crime. I very much don't want the accused to be in financial peril, but if they refuse to pay the restitution to the victim they end up losing the money stolen. Should someone else pay the victim if the accused cannot? Might criminals think they are exempt from paying the restitution if they are bankrupt?
3) Again, victims can make the choice. They can have insurance cover it or receive payment from the convicted.

I will note that there is no textual basis for your clarifications apparent to me, and you didn't show me the textual basis for this yourself, despite me asking for it. Nothing in this allows the victim to choose the value of an item that is monetarily worthless, for instance. Now, you could delegate this to the court hearing the case, but apparently you want the victim to have the power to crush the criminal under a ton of debt outside of what is justified by their crime. Further enhancing this is your worrisome elaboration to 3), because now it's obvious that restitution is no longer your aim. The victim can, for any motive -- revenge being a likely one --, forfeit insurance to heap debt upon the convicted. I would repeat my point that there is no textual basis for this, but in this case I think it is worse, as I am pretty sure the victim would have the right to both; contractually the insurance pays out, and then the victim uses the money to hound the convicted for base revenge.

I said in your previous thread that the draft back then contained some disconcerting notions. It could have been due to your IC or OOC opinions, but it could also have been due to the quality of the draft. To be blunt, I don't think I would want anything to do with what you call justice.

(OOC) I'd like to ask, how would you approach the issue of the restitution in the draft? Maybe your ideas would work better than mine. After all, I'm trying to do the best I can.

[Attempted Socialism]

I am inebriated right now, but my solution for restitution would be to block any WA action on it; to remove it entirely from your draft and delegate it to member nations. A one-size-fits-all will be bad, and the detail you have to get into is so deep that there is not enough space to write a restitution law taken from any RL nation, let alone one spanning the breadth and depth of the WA.