[PASSED] Addressing Domestic Abuse

[Barfleur]

Edit: Thank you Fris for stickying!
Edit 2: AND WE JUST ABOLISHED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LET’S GO!

Addressing Domestic Abuse
Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Barfleur

---

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that many cultures place the home and family on a deserved pedestal;

Rejecting the notion that any person has the right or privilege to deliberately harm a person solely because the two are in an intimate or family relationship;

Aware of the generational nature of domestic abuse, with children who see or are subjected to domestic abuse being significantly more likely to perpetrate such abuse as adults, and to suffer other forms of harm well into their life;

Asserting that domestic abuse is a matter of international concern, as:

1. there is a fundamental right to security and integrity of the person, of the house, and of the family, rights which are disregarded by those who commit domestic abuse; and
2. many nations, even otherwise respected nations, consider violence between intimate partners, or between parents and children, to be of lesser or no importance, thus denying certain vulnerable persons equal rights and equal dignity under the law;

Seeking to ensure that perpetrators of domestic abuse face justice and that their victims receive the support they need to rebuild their lives,

Hereby enacts as follows:

1. In this Resolution, "domestic abuse" means any one or more of the following, when the perpetrator is a spouse, civil partner, parent, legal guardian, or cohabitant of the victim:
   
   1. physical or sexual violence, other than a physical act done within reasonable self-defense;
   2. threats to inflict serious bodily harm, when the perpetrator appears to have the means and will to carry the threat into execution;
   3. preventing the victim from finding or maintaining employment, working, or receiving remuneration for their work;
   4. confiscating the assets of the victim, or preventing the victim from accessing any property which the victim has a legal right to access;
   5. administering any drug or similar substance to the victim, without the victim's consent, other than an act permitted under international law; or
   6. interfering with the interactions between the victim and the victims's friends or family or monitoring any form of communications with the intention of rendering the victim dependent on the perpetrator or unable to appreicate the fact that the perpetrator is engaging in, has engaged in, or is likely to engage in, any other act described in items (a) to (e).
2. Each member shall:
   
   1. ensure that domestic abuse is a criminal offense under its law, with penalties commensurate to its effect on the victim and to the history and relevant convictions of the offender;
   2. provide that a violent or sexual offense shall be treated as aggravated if committed as domestic abuse;
   3. forbid the fact that the perpetrator and victim of an offense were in a family or romantic relationship from being used as evidence of innocence or as reason for a lighter sentence; and
   4. forbid the defense in any prosecution from questioning the alleged victim regarding why such person remained in a relationship with the defendant, unless such questioning would materially benefit the defense beyond simply rendering the alleged victim less credible or causing mental harm to the alleged victim.
3. Each member shall require schools and educational institutions within the jurisdiction of that nation to:
   
   1. educate students, in a manner appropriate to the ages of such students, of the nature of domestic abuse, including that any person may be a perpetrator or a victim of domestic abuse;
   2. provide resources to students who suffer, or who know a person who suffers, from domestic abuse, including assistance to students seeking to leave any such situation;
   3. on request of any person who works or is a student at such school or institution, separate that person from another person who has been convicted of committing domestic abuse against the requesting party;
   4. refrain from punishing or retaliating against a student who is reported to have been subjected to an instance of domestic abuse; and
   5. ensure that students and faculty are aware of the laws governing domestic abuse, including, but not limited to, the purpose and effect of those laws and the authorities responsible for enforcing those laws.
4. Members, in promulgating regulations or legislation the effect of which is to restrict or limit the ability of persons to leave their place of residence, are required to:
   
   1. consider the effects of such regulations or legislation on the occurence, detection, and punishment of domestic abuse; and
   2. ensure that while such regulations or legislation is in effect, there exists an accessible way for victims of domestic abuse to escape such situation.
5. Members shall not reduce, suspend, or vacate charges for any criminal offense against a suspect by reason of the fact that the suspect has married the alleged victim of such offense, or has promised or otherwise indicated an intent to do so. Any national law or regulation which permits or requires such reduction, suspension, or vacatur shall be held null, void, and of no effect.

Co-authored by Tinhampton

Here's a proposal that I've been working on for some time. I plan on submitting on or before Saturday, February 5.

[Imperium Anglorum]

For reference, GA 399 s 5:

5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:

a. those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
b. future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
c. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

[Barfleur]

Thank you IA for posting the relevant part of GA#399. My clause 3 relies on GA#399's section 5(b), on the grounds that convicted domestic abusers are likely to use a firearm to commit further violence against members of the same household. See Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence:

Firearms contribute significantly to domestic violence in the U.S. — to threaten, to coerce, to control, and to kill. Around 4.5 million women in the United States have been threatened with a gun, and nearly 1 million women have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner. Over half of all intimate partner homicides are committed with guns. Indeed, a woman is five times more likely to be murdered when her abuser has access to a gun. To reduce the number of domestic violence homicides, we must ensure that people who abuse their intimate partners or family do not have access to firearms.

See also US Dept. of Justice:

“According to the CDC, data suggests that about one in six homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner,” said ATF Acting Director Lombardo. “Nearly half of female homicide victims in the U.S. are killed by a current or former male intimate partner.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The test in GA 399 s 5(b) requires 'imminence', which can't be satisfied merely by the possibility (even if likely) of some lawless action occurring at some indefinite future time. It needs to be imminent, ie about to occur.

[Barfleur]

Amended my clause 3 to weaken the requirements--which is something I regret I have to do, as DV felons are about the only population I think should be categorically barred from gun ownership, given their proven history of violence and their high propensity to future violence, menacing, and coercion. However, I want the rest of the proposal to be legal, so I must do what I must do.

Also added clause 5, item (a) of which serves to assist abuse survivors in accessing welfare and other benefits to prevent them from sliding into poverty or being subjected to economic coercion, and item (b) of which seeks to ensure that people who have left abusive situations are able to defend themselves from harm.

[Separatist Peoples]

Amended my clause 3 to weaken the requirements--which is something I regret I have to do, as DV felons are about the only population I think should be categorically barred from gun ownership, given their proven history of violence and their high propensity to future violence, menacing, and coercion. However, I want the rest of the proposal to be legal, so I must do what I must do.

Also added clause 5, item (a) of which serves to assist abuse survivors in accessing welfare and other benefits to prevent them from sliding into poverty or being subjected to economic coercion, and item (b) of which seeks to ensure that people who have left abusive situations are able to defend themselves from harm.

"Ambassador, I am not certain that your correction avoids conflict with GAR399. The only condition under which the WA can regulate domestic firearms is preventing imminent lawless action. I doubt any restriction limiting DV perpetrators' access internationally can survive that requirement."

[Barfleur]

Amended my clause 3 to weaken the requirements--which is something I regret I have to do, as DV felons are about the only population I think should be categorically barred from gun ownership, given their proven history of violence and their high propensity to future violence, menacing, and coercion. However, I want the rest of the proposal to be legal, so I must do what I must do.

Also added clause 5, item (a) of which serves to assist abuse survivors in accessing welfare and other benefits to prevent them from sliding into poverty or being subjected to economic coercion, and item (b) of which seeks to ensure that people who have left abusive situations are able to defend themselves from harm.

"Ambassador, I am not certain that your correction avoids conflict with GAR399. The only condition under which the WA can regulate domestic firearms is preventing imminent lawless action. I doubt any restriction limiting DV perpetrators' access internationally can survive that requirement."

"I agree with Ambassador Bell, and have consequently amended clause 3 to track the 'imminent' requirement of GA#399. I have also added clause 6, which seeks to mitigate the effects of nationally-imposed lockdowns on domestic violence and child harm, an unfortunately well-documented phenomenon."

[Goobergunchia]

We suggest that the author double-check the spelling of clause 5.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Barfleur]

"We thank the esteemed delegate from the Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic. We are also pleased to add the delegation from Tinhampton as a coauthor, having taken--with Assistant Delegate-Ambassador Venkman's permission--their words for our clause 7. For the original text as submitted by the Tinhamptonian delegation, see the proposal 'Prohibit Marry-Your-Rapist Clauses,' which should be on file with the clerk."

OOC: In taking the idea and words for clause 7, I expanded its scope to include non-sexual crimes as well as rape and sexual abuse. This should sidestep the questions concerning the original proposal's compatibility with GA#240.

[Tinhampton]

To confirm that I am completely okay with Barfleur pillaging whatever he likes from PMYRC - including his current A7.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Amended clause 4 to additionally forbid schools from punishing students who report domestic abuse, even if by policy they should not have been in a relationship with the perpetrator in the first place. This will remove a significant barrier to the reporting of crimes involving abuse, and will ensure that the only person punished is the perpetrator.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

As per my usual custom, I'll offer criticism a few points at a time and see where that gets us.

Category: Moral Decency (?) | Strength: Mild (?)

Civil Rights is the correct category. I'll explain the reason. Moral Decency proposals curtail individual rights to achieve some desirable end. Most environmental proposals would be Moral Decency if there weren't a specific category for them. Moral Decency stops people from exercising an inherent liberty (lets say, a general economic freedom or freedom to control their own property) to achieve some desirable end (avoid catastrophic ecosystem collapse, avoid a poisoned water supply, etc.).

Applying that principle here, by framing this as Moral Decency you're saying that individuals would ordinarily have a "right" to abuse others, but that we need to curtail that "right" to achieve some end. Hopefully, I've already convinced you that would be the wrong conception simply by laying it out.

If not, consider that Civil Rights proposals serve to enhance and protect individual rights. Is there a personal right being protected here? Obviously, the right of the victim to have home security and to not to suffer a particular kind of harm. I suppose you could theoretically approach this from the angle that no one has a right to be free from violence in their home, and that people inherently have the right to use violence on others unless specifically curtailed. I don't want to live in that world with you. That's also not the flavor I got from your preamble where you explicitly reject the idea that anyone has a right to deliberately harm someone else by virtue of their domestic relationship.

Civil Rights is the correct category. Probably significant.

Each member nation shall:... forbid the defense, in any criminal prosecution, from questioning the alleged victim regarding why such person remained in a relationship with the defendant.

I'd object to this. Due process of law is too important for you to sabotage in this way. You're tilting the scales and interfering with a fair trial. A person who claims to be a victim of repeated violence from the same person can fairly be questioned about why, if that were true, they would stay in such a relationship. The question is relevant and material to evaluating credibility. I've also seen it reveal an interest that gives rise to a motive to lie. That said there are also many reasonable answers to that question that improve rather than harm a person's credibility. And, even where an accuser does not or cannot supply a satisfactory answer themselves, the state can effectively respond if the truth is on their side: there are many experts in domestic violence who can explain to a judge or jury why a person may have been psychologically unable to separate themselves from an abuser.

But you have to let the defense point out when a person's behavior seems inconsistent with their allegations, or you're prejudicing the process. You cannot shield an accuser from open-ended questions about the circumstances surrounding allegations - particularly when they touch on credibility - without critically impinging a defendant's right to a fair trial. If the state's case cannot survive the asking of the question "if that's true then why would you stay," you do a disservice by shielding the jury from its light.

I'll start with that.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Closely related to the foul deeds of 1(a)(iii) is preventing the victim from having outside social contacts, or otherwise mediating or monitoring all social activity outside the home. Without a set of friends to fall back on and keep them grounded, many victims never realize that 'this isn't normal.' Removing that grounding has no purpose other than to keep the victim ensnared."

[Barfleur]

Category: Moral Decency (?) | Strength: Mild (?)

Civil Rights is the correct category. I'll explain the reason. Moral Decency proposals curtail individual rights to achieve some desirable end. Most environmental proposals would be Moral Decency if there weren't a specific category for them. Moral Decency stops people from exercising an inherent liberty (lets say, a general economic freedom or freedom to control their own property) to achieve some desirable end (avoid catastrophic ecosystem collapse, avoid a poisoned water supply, etc.).

Applying that principle here, by framing this as Moral Decency you're saying that individuals would ordinarily have a "right" to abuse others, but that we need to curtail that "right" to achieve some end. Hopefully, I've already convinced you that would be the wrong conception simply by laying it out.

If not, consider that Civil Rights proposals serve to enhance and protect individual rights. Is there a personal right being protected here? Obviously, the right of the victim to have home security and to not to suffer a particular kind of harm. I suppose you could theoretically approach this from the angle that no one has a right to be free from violence in their home, and that people inherently have the right to use violence on others unless specifically curtailed. I don't want to live in that world with you. That's also not the flavor I got from your preamble where you explicitly reject the idea that anyone has a right to deliberately harm someone else by virtue of their domestic relationship.

Civil Rights is the correct category. Probably significant.

"That is good advice, and I do appreciate the lesson on proper categorization--a skill which you do not usually appreciate until you absolutely need it! I have taken the advice and changed the category to 'civil rights,' and will probably keep the strength at 'mild,' though that is subject to change."

Each member nation shall:... forbid the defense, in any criminal prosecution, from questioning the alleged victim regarding why such person remained in a relationship with the defendant.

I'd object to this. Due process of law is too important for you to sabotage in this way. You're tilting the scales and interfering with a fair trial. A person who claims to be a victim of repeated violence from the same person can fairly be questioned about why, if that were true, they would stay in such a relationship. The question is relevant and material to evaluating credibility. I've also seen it reveal an interest that gives rise to a motive to lie. That said there are also many reasonable answers to that question that improve rather than harm a person's credibility. And, even where an accuser does not or cannot supply a satisfactory answer themselves, the state can effectively respond if the truth is on their side: there are many experts in domestic violence who can explain to a judge or jury why a person may have been psychologically unable to separate themselves from an abuser.

But you have to let the defense point out when a person's behavior seems inconsistent with their allegations, or you're prejudicing the process. You cannot shield an accuser from open-ended questions about the circumstances surrounding allegations - particularly when they touch on credibility - without critically impinging a defendant's right to a fair trial. If the state's case cannot survive the asking of the question "if that's true then why would you stay," you do a disservice by shielding the jury from its light.

I'll start with that.

"That is also good advice, and I agree that due process--even for those accused of terrible crimes--is too important to risk throwing away. Therefore, I have qualified clause 2(d) to ensure that the defense does have a right to ask that question, but only if they have a legitimate reason to do so. In any case, the World Assembly and courts of law ought not to be encouraging or allowing unnecessary character assassination."

"Closely related to the foul deeds of 1(a)(iii) is preventing the victim from having outside social contacts, or otherwise mediating or monitoring all social activity outside the home. Without a set of friends to fall back on and keep them grounded, many victims never realize that 'this isn't normal.' Removing that grounding has no purpose other than to keep the victim ensnared."

"Amended. Thank you for the feedback."

[Barfleur]

OOC: Now that I am less busy, I will think about submitting in the coming weeks. The substance and idea of the proposal itself seems to be fairly uncontroversial (at least from the feedback I have received), so I have high hopes for this.

Anything you think should be added or taken out?

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Now that I am less busy, I will think about submitting in the coming weeks. The substance and idea of the proposal itself seems to be fairly uncontroversial (at least from the feedback I have received), so I have high hopes for this.

Anything you think should be added or taken out?

My only reservation is clause 3, as I tend to agree with Sep's insinuation that there is no form of that clause that can ever be legal.

[Bears Armed]

As this is written, I do think that as it limits people's actions it counts as 'Moral Decency' rather than 'Civil Rights'.

[Barfleur]

OOC: I will submit this by next Friday. I have also removed clause 3 in its entirety and changed the category from "civil rights" to "moral decency." I believe this is the right choice, as the proposal would protect individuals primarily from actions by other individuals, rather than by any state authority, and relies on near-universal moral values regarding the family and the home. But if there are others who disagree, by all means let me know.

[Goobergunchia]

We continue to suggest that the author double-check the spelling of what is now clause 6.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy WA Ambassador
Moderately Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Barfleur]

"We appreciate the eagle eyes of Deputy Ambassador Kofelgas. It is henceforth ordered that diplomacy shall not be carried out using mobile devices, even those belonging to MacGeorge himself. I also suppose this counts as a last call."

[Apatosaurus]

"Apatosaurus offers its full support to this proposal."

[Barfleur]

OOC: I have submitted this proposal in a slimmed-down format to comply with the word count. Delegates can approve here. The campaign will commence shortly.

[Barfleur]

With 57 approvals, the proposal is now in queue. It will be up for a vote after the present proposal is finished (likely passed, given the margin) and Minskiev’s proposal to repeal AtLES.

[Gemeinschaftsland]

---

The Europeian Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote FOR the General Assembly Resolution, Addressing Domestic Abuse.
Its reasoning may be found here.

---

[Minskiev]

The Rejected Realms World Assembly Office recommends a vote FOR “Addressing Domestic Abuse”.
Recommendation | Voting Thread

We find that this proposal covers this area of legislation well enough to vote for. While there may be a few typos here and there, reasonable in 1a is vague, and providing resources to students who don't actually suffer from domestic abuse under 3b is questionable in some cases, none of these are major enough to vote against. Domestic abuse is an important topic and this proposal should curtail instances of it internationally.