[DEFEATED] Rights for Crime Victims Act

[Goobergunchia]

OOC: So I'm giving this a go again. The last proposal I wrote had a number of serious flaws and was also marked illegal. I believe this concept has a lot of potential and a resolution can probably be passed. I will appreciate any feedback provided below.

Category: Civil Rights Strength: Significant


The World Assembly,

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

Noting that the accused are innocent until proven guilty;

Assured that crime victims can play a vital role in the criminal justice system due to their potential ability as a witness and their ability to provide an understanding of the seriousness of the crime in question;

Acknowledging that legislation (GA#247) regarding the rights of crime victims was previously passed but is no longer in effect;

Urging that the correct proceedings should be conducted in court to satisfy the rights of the crime victim without infringing the rights of the accused or any other parties;

Defines the following terms necessary for this proposal:

A “crime victim” is a person who has been verified by a competent authority as defined in the local jurisdiction to have prima facie evidence of having demonstrably suffered physical, emotional, financial, or sexual harm due to an alleged criminal offense by another individual(s).

“The accused” is a person who is charged with or being prosecuted for a crime against the victim.

“The convicted” is a person who has been convicted of a crime after being accused of it.

A “court proceeding” is any method of invoking the action of a court.

“Incompetent” is a term for a person who cannot testify or stand trial for reasons including but not limited to mental incapacity or physical disability.

Instructs all member nations to provide their crime victims with the following rights:

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

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

b. Neither the accused nor any associates may harass, stalk, harm, or threaten the victim.

c. The accused may not contact the victim in any way without the presence of law enforcement unless the victim freely consents to the contact.

d. The crime victim may request the court to give protective orders to limit the disclosure of the victim's personal information unless some of the victim's information is necessary to determine the case's outcome, in which case only the essential information would be revealed.

2. Crime victims have the right to be informed about the following:

a. The victim has the right to be informed of their rights.

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

3. Crime victims can exercise their rights through an attorney or themselves. If the crime victim is incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim or anyone else appointed as suitable by the court may assume the crime victim's rights.

4. Crime victims have the right to seek compensation from the convicted for any damages suffered as a result of the crime.

a. If a judge finds that the convicted is unable to pay their compensation, they will be put on probation in order to be able to find a source of income to pay the compensation.

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

[Outer Sparta]

Wasn't your last one marked illegal for plagiarism as well?

[Chipoli]

Wasn't your last one marked illegal for plagiarism as well?

Yes, it was. This time I put everything in my own words of course even though the structure is still similar.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

I remember this proposal. It got voted out when reached quorum, yes?

[Comfed]

I remember this proposal. It got voted out when reached quorum, yes?

No. The original proposal got to vote but was discarded for plagiarizing its definitions. I am happy to see that the new draft has the plagiarism removed.

Edit: Although you're right that even if it was legal it received a majority "against" vote.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

I remember this proposal. It got voted out when reached quorum, yes?

No. The original proposal got to vote but was discarded for plagiarizing its definitions. I am happy to see that the new draft has the plagiarism removed.

Edit: Although you're right that even if it was legal it received a majority "against" vote.

So, the definitions were the direct ones from Google or another search engine/definition website?

[Comfed]

No. The original proposal got to vote but was discarded for plagiarizing its definitions. I am happy to see that the new draft has the plagiarism removed.

Edit: Although you're right that even if it was legal it received a majority "against" vote.

So, the definitions were the direct ones from Google or another search engine/definition website?

No, they were copied from a previous resolution which was repealed.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=519297

[Chipoli]

Bump.

[Simone Republic]

As mentioned on DIscord, I find it really hard to structure this one, given that it actually covers four separate topics:

1. physical harm, as in some kind of common assault/murder, or traffic accidents etc

2. emotional harm, this could include sexual harassment that is not physical (say on-line) but also PTSD, emotional abuse etc

3. financial harm, which (I am working to assume) is some kind of fraud, corruption, deception etc.

4. (unspoken as I noticed you've cut it out) is victims of sex crimes

I still think it would be easier to structure this if financial harm is separate - that topic involves things that have less emotional attachment and there is the possibility of regulatory redress (OOC: say the CFPB in the US, or FSCS in the UK) - otherwise the resolution gets too unwieldy. Yes I know that there is emotional attachment to a financial loss as well, but financial loss is easier to calculate (typically victims are made whole with some possibility of compensation of interest based on deposit rates or opportunity costs, etc.)

The sexual and physical harm part is the most emotional one and there are a number of issues such as whether the (alleged) victims is willing to (or should) confront the (alleged) perpetrator? Also there is an issue of what happens if the accused turns out to have been wrongfully accused - who is responsible for compensation here? (I am not distinguishing between cases where the accused brought it upon themselves, vs the victims deliberately perpetrating a lie - two separate issues here but it gets too complex)

(OOC: In the US, 36 states and Washington, DC, have laws on the books that offer compensation for exonerees, according to the Innocence Project. The federal standard to compensate those who are wrongfully convicted is a minimum of $50,000 per year of incarceration and sometimes the sum is higher for some states, and for those on death row).

[Tinhampton]

...Also there is an issue of what happens if the accused turns out to have been wrongfully accused - who is responsible for compensation here? (I am not distinguishing between cases where the accused brought it upon themselves, vs the victims deliberately perpetrating a lie - two separate issues here but it gets too complex)

(OOC: In the US, 36 states and Washington, DC, have laws on the books that offer compensation for exonerees, according to the Innocence Project. The federal standard to compensate those who are wrongfully convicted is a minimum of $50,000 per year of incarceration and sometimes the sum is higher for some states, and for those on death row).

GA#108 "For the Wrongly Convicted" covers this already.

[Simone Republic]

...Also there is an issue of what happens if the accused turns out to have been wrongfully accused - who is responsible for compensation here? (I am not distinguishing between cases where the accused brought it upon themselves, vs the victims deliberately perpetrating a lie - two separate issues here but it gets too complex)

(OOC: In the US, 36 states and Washington, DC, have laws on the books that offer compensation for exonerees, according to the Innocence Project. The federal standard to compensate those who are wrongfully convicted is a minimum of $50,000 per year of incarceration and sometimes the sum is higher for some states, and for those on death row).

GA#108 "For the Wrongly Convicted" covers this already.

Thanks for pointing that out Tinhampton. For some reason I thought it was repealed when the original crime victims resolution was repealed.

[Chipoli]

As mentioned on DIscord, I find it really hard to structure this one, given that it actually covers four separate topics:

1. physical harm, as in some kind of common assault/murder, or traffic accidents etc

2. emotional harm, this could include sexual harassment that is not physical (say on-line) but also PTSD, emotional abuse etc

3. financial harm, which (I am working to assume) is some kind of fraud, corruption, deception etc.

4. (unspoken as I noticed you've cut it out) is victims of sex crimes

I still think it would be easier to structure this if financial harm is separate - that topic involves things that have less emotional attachment and there is the possibility of regulatory redress (OOC: say the CFPB in the US, or FSCS in the UK) - otherwise the resolution gets too unwieldy. Yes I know that there is emotional attachment to a financial loss as well, but financial loss is easier to calculate (typically victims are made whole with some possibility of compensation of interest based on deposit rates or opportunity costs, etc.)

The sexual and physical harm part is the most emotional one and there are a number of issues such as whether the (alleged) victims is willing to (or should) confront the (alleged) perpetrator? Also there is an issue of what happens if the accused turns out to have been wrongfully accused - who is responsible for compensation here? (I am not distinguishing between cases where the accused brought it upon themselves, vs the victims deliberately perpetrating a lie - two separate issues here but it gets too complex)

(OOC: In the US, 36 states and Washington, DC, have laws on the books that offer compensation for exonerees, according to the Innocence Project. The federal standard to compensate those who are wrongfully convicted is a minimum of $50,000 per year of incarceration and sometimes the sum is higher for some states, and for those on death row).

This resolution is mainly about protecting crime victim's rights, not about going detail into how they were harmed.

[Chipoli]

Bump! I will start working on the resolution again. I would appreciate any criticism on writing, formatting, or tone. I'm also to ideas on what should be added to this resolution. I also want feedback on what makes this resolution well/poorly written. Let me know interested in co-authoring. Thanks!

[Chipoli]

Bump Again. Changes will be made to the draft soon if I feel they are necessary.

[Simone Republic]

Please see my telegram

[Chipoli]

OOC: The resolution has been modified according to my interpretations of Simone's feedback.

[Tinhampton]

Instructs all member nations to provide their crime victims with the following rights... Encourages member nations to allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated in the name of civility and justice.

So do crime victims actually have those rights or no?

[Chipoli]

Instructs all member nations to provide their crime victims with the following rights... Encourages member nations to allow crime victims to exercise the rights stated in the name of civility and justice.

So do crime victims actually have those rights or no?

Yes, now that the wording has been corrected.

[Chipoli]

If no one else has any problems with this proposal, I intend to submit soon.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

“The accused” is a person that has been charged with committing a crime at some point against the victim in the case being prosecuted.

Ooc: This seems very... bungled up... it's unclear if "in the case being prosecuted" applies to "the victim" -- which would lead to those accused in unrelated cases to be treated as the accused in that case if the victim happens to be the same -- "committing a crime", which makes it meaningless as then if the crime wasn't committed in the criminal trial they aren't the accused anymore; or "charged with" -- which definitely isn't obvious. Maybe try something like this _

"The accused" is a person who is charged with or being prosecuted for a crime against the victim;

“The age of majority” is the age at which an individual will be legally considered an adult and subject to the full legal rights and responsibilities of an adult, such as attending and testifying in court.

This also applies to section 3 -- some member nations may set a higher threshold for full adulthood than legal competence, and in those cases where a victim may be legally competent but not yet a full adult, I see no reason that the parents of the victim need to assume their rights... it may also be illegal for contradiction given that "Legal Competence" lets member nations decide for themselves "maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other [non-informed consent-related] rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions", which would naturally include testifying and standing trial.

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

Maybe it's just me, but the word "or" seems to indicate that a member nation can ban the accused's associates from doing those things, but allow the accused themselves to do that? Maybe try something like this _

Neither the accused nor any associates may harass, stalk, harm, or threaten the victim.

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

Possibly worth clarifying that the victim must freely consent to the contact for this to be allowed.

Crime victims have the right to be notified of any court proceeding involving the crime or any release or escape of the accused.

Even if they don't want to be notified?

3. Crime victims can exercise their rights through an attorney or themselves. If the crime victim is under the age of majority, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim, or anyone else appointed as suitable by the court may assume the crime victim's rights.

As said before, remove "under the age of majority".

4. If any property or assets have been stolen or destroyed, the crime victim has the right to seek restitution from the accused, if they are found guilty, for a price that doesn't bankrupt or put them into financial peril.

But it doesn't have to be provided? And even if it was, how much should be provided?

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

Member nations are already obligated to comply unless it's said otherwise, and "Instructs" is binding. This seems redundant.

Good luck!

[Chipoli]

Thanks for your feedback. I was unable to answer for a bit as I was on vacation, I'll see how your feedback can fit into my proposal.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

I recently abandoned this draft: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=521288, "The Essential Rights of a Victim Act."

As I am not the most skilled WA resolution writer, it was heavily commented on, and I decided to abandon it. Though, you can pull some stuff from here if you want, but I ask that you put it in your own words.

[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.

[Chipoli]

“The accused” is a person that has been charged with committing a crime at some point against the victim in the case being prosecuted.

Ooc: This seems very... bungled up... it's unclear if "in the case being prosecuted" applies to "the victim" -- which would lead to those accused in unrelated cases to be treated as the accused in that case if the victim happens to be the same -- "committing a crime", which makes it meaningless as then if the crime wasn't committed in the criminal trial they aren't the accused anymore; or "charged with" -- which definitely isn't obvious. Maybe try something like this _

"The accused" is a person who is charged with or being prosecuted for a crime against the victim;

“The age of majority” is the age at which an individual will be legally considered an adult and subject to the full legal rights and responsibilities of an adult, such as attending and testifying in court.

This also applies to section 3 -- some member nations may set a higher threshold for full adulthood than legal competence, and in those cases where a victim may be legally competent but not yet a full adult, I see no reason that the parents of the victim need to assume their rights... it may also be illegal for contradiction given that "Legal Competence" lets member nations decide for themselves "maturity and/or mental capability for people to hold any other [non-informed consent-related] rights or responsibilities within their jurisdictions", which would naturally include testifying and standing trial.

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

Maybe it's just me, but the word "or" seems to indicate that a member nation can ban the accused's associates from doing those things, but allow the accused themselves to do that? Maybe try something like this _

Neither the accused nor any associates may harass, stalk, harm, or threaten the victim.

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

Possibly worth clarifying that the victim must freely consent to the contact for this to be allowed.

Crime victims have the right to be notified of any court proceeding involving the crime or any release or escape of the accused.

Even if they don't want to be notified?

3. Crime victims can exercise their rights through an attorney or themselves. If the crime victim is under the age of majority, incompetent, incapacitated, or deceased, the legal guardians of the crime victim, or anyone else appointed as suitable by the court may assume the crime victim's rights.

As said before, remove "under the age of majority".

4. If any property or assets have been stolen or destroyed, the crime victim has the right to seek restitution from the accused, if they are found guilty, for a price that doesn't bankrupt or put them into financial peril.

But it doesn't have to be provided? And even if it was, how much should be provided?

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

Member nations are already obligated to comply unless it's said otherwise, and "Instructs" is binding. This seems redundant.

Good luck!

After reviewing your feedback I have this to say:

1. I removed the age of majority as I realized the legal competence resolution already covered the age of majority like you said.
2. I updated the definition for the accused, and the harass or threaten clause.
3. I clarified that the victim must freely consent to any contact from the accused.
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.

[Chipoli]

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.