NATION

PASSWORD

[DEFEATED] Crime Victims' Rights Act

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

[DEFEATED] Crime Victims' Rights Act

Postby Chipoli » Wed May 04, 2022 1:02 pm

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that a resolution regarding the rights of crime victims was passed by the World Assembly in the past that is no longer in effect;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.
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Fri May 27, 2022 9:11 pm, edited 29 times in total.

User avatar
Zyvetskistaahn
Envoy
 
Posts: 345
Founded: Oct 07, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Zyvetskistaahn » Thu May 05, 2022 7:04 am

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:
Chipoli wrote: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”.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 586
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Thu May 05, 2022 9:49 am

'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.'
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Makko Oko
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Jan 20, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Makko Oko » Thu May 05, 2022 9:58 am

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.

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Thu May 05, 2022 12:43 pm

Zyvetskistaahn wrote: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:
Chipoli wrote: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.

User avatar
Princess Rainbow Sparkles
Envoy
 
Posts: 317
Founded: Nov 08, 2021
Mother Knows Best State

Postby Princess Rainbow Sparkles » Thu May 05, 2022 12:59 pm

Chipoli wrote: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."

Chipoli wrote: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.

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

Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.

Chipoli wrote: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.

Chipoli wrote: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.
Last edited by Princess Rainbow Sparkles on Thu May 05, 2022 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Makko Oko
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Jan 20, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Makko Oko » Thu May 05, 2022 1:07 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Chipoli wrote: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."

Chipoli wrote: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.

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

Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.

Chipoli wrote: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.

Chipoli wrote: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"

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Thu May 05, 2022 1:46 pm

Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote:
Chipoli wrote: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."

Chipoli wrote: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.

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

Duplicative/redundant of the clause above.

Chipoli wrote: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.

Chipoli wrote: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.

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Thu May 05, 2022 1:49 pm

Makko Oko wrote:
Princess Rainbow Sparkles wrote: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.

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Sun May 08, 2022 3:07 pm

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

User avatar
Makko Oko
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 363
Founded: Jan 20, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Makko Oko » Sun May 08, 2022 3:21 pm

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

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Wed May 11, 2022 12:43 pm

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.

User avatar
Goobergunchia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 2157
Founded: Antiquity
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Goobergunchia » Wed May 11, 2022 5:09 pm

Chipoli wrote: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.

Chipoli wrote: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
(+5175 posts from mostly pre-Jolt)
Making NationStates a different place since 17 May 2003.
ADN Advisor (Ret.)
Nasicournian Officer
Citizen of the Rejected Realms
Discord: Goobergunch#2417
Ideological Bulwark #16
Sponsor, HR#22, SC#4
Rules: GA SC
NS Game Moderator
For your forum moderation needs: The Moderation Forum
For your in-game moderation needs: The Getting Help Page
What are the rules? See the OSRS.
Who are the mods, anyway?

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Wed May 11, 2022 6:50 pm

Goobergunchia wrote:
Chipoli wrote: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.

Chipoli wrote: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.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Diplomat
 
Posts: 586
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Thu May 12, 2022 3:00 am

Chipoli wrote: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.'
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Thu May 12, 2022 3:09 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Chipoli wrote: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

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1358
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Attempted Socialism » Thu May 12, 2022 3:13 am

Chipoli wrote: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.


Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Thu May 12, 2022 3:43 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Chipoli wrote: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.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10374
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Thu May 12, 2022 11:18 am

Chipoli wrote: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...)
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385*, GA#597, GA#607
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; *author of the most popular WA resolution ever
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing much

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Thu May 12, 2022 12:34 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Chipoli wrote: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?

User avatar
Comfed
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1634
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Thu May 12, 2022 7:09 pm

Chipoli wrote: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.
TNP NPO
WA (Co-)Authorship: SC#390

10000 Islands Foreign Affairs wrote:~The population of 10000 Islands suffered a huge increase

Ankuran wrote:"Here's Form T-34 for issuing a bribe. Enter the recipient's name here, check reason for bribe here, enter amount here. Now we'll just swipe your card here. Would you like to join our Frequent Briber's Club? Get five percent cash back on your first bribe."

“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, everybody dies.
Nation reflects RL beliefs, especially bad ones. All stats are canon.

User avatar
Deropia
Envoy
 
Posts: 245
Founded: Apr 08, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Deropia » Fri May 13, 2022 10:48 am

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.
Lieutenant-Commander Jason MacAlister
Deropian Ambassador to the World Assembly
macalister.j@diplomats.com
Office 1302, 13th Floor, World Assembly Headquarters
Minister of WA Affairs [TNP]
Captain, North Pacific Army Special Forces
Former Speaker of the Regional Assembly [TNP]

User avatar
Chipoli
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 47
Founded: Mar 16, 2022
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Chipoli » Fri May 13, 2022 3:49 pm

Deropia wrote: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

User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Fri May 13, 2022 5:24 pm

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


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

User avatar
Fachumonn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 981
Founded: Apr 11, 2021
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fachumonn » Fri May 13, 2022 5:27 pm

Sorry for double post but:
Crime Victims' Rights Act wrote:
    “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.


Last edited by Fachumonn on Fri May 13, 2022 5:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.


WA Ambassador: The People | Pronouns: He/Him/His/They/Them/Their | RL Ideology: Libertarian Socialism/Anarcho-Communism | GP Alignment: Independent, Leans Defender

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mesogiria

Advertisement

Remove ads