[PASSED] Repeal GAR619 Sexual Predator Registry Act

[Attempted Socialism]

This resolution is now at vote. I have made my campaign telegram to the delegates available here, which also serves as an elaboration on why I hope you will vote for.

The General Assembly,

Accepting the premise that sexual predation is a particularly heinous crime,

Agreeing that a balance must be found between public safety and the rights of convicted persons, however,

Believing the target’s claims about the positive effects of putting people on a list and higher recidivism for sexual crimes are incorrect,

Opining that a convicted person can change,

Convinced that any equitable justice system must be based on rehabilitation and the public good rather than a private desire to use the state as a means for revenge,

Arguing that finite punishment should not be extended indefinitely by remaining on a public list of convicts, and

Finding the following flaws in the recently passed Sexual Predator Registry Act:

1. It requires a list of some past offenders to be made public, including their place of residence and employment, enabling vigilantism with little apparent gain. Any completely innocent associates of a past offender who live or work the same place, such as a family member, cohabiter, or co-worker, also risk exposure or being targeted by vigilantes.
2. It requires information to be spread across World Assembly member nations without regard for presence or lack of transnational risk of a repeat offence, lowering the utility of the list for law enforcement internationally. Moreover, information on past offenders could instead be used to target them regardless of actual or current criminal suspicion.
3. It contains no statute of limitations, requiring many past offenders – now rehabilitated – to be continuously reassessed despite their exclusion from the list for long periods, demeaning the subject and leading to member nation’s police forces being diverted away from current priorities.
4. It does not require the conviction and presence on the list to be relevant to a background check, increasing the risk listed ex-convicts are unhireable even for positions with no material opportunity for sexual predation. People deprived of gainful employment may depend on public assistance or turn to crime for support.
5. Unrestricted dissemination and possible reproduction of the lists makes it difficult for a pardoned or exonerated person to escape the stigma of having previously been branded a “sexual predator” by the target resolution, and enables vigilantes to copy the list without deleting those no longer considered “high risk”.

Hereby repeals the Sexual Predator Registry Act.


Co-authors: West Barack and East Obama, Novella Islands.

[Attempted Socialism]

The General Assembly,

Accepting the premise that sexual predation is a particularly heinous crime, and

Agreeing that a balance must be found between public safety and the rights of convicted persons, however,

Believing claims about higher recidivism for sexual crimes to be incorrect,

Reiterating its belief that a convicted person can change,

Arguing that a finite punishment should not be extended indefinitely by remaining on a public list of convicts,

Fearing that public access to lists of offenders invite vigilantism,

Finding these flaws to be present in the recently passed Sexual Predator Registry Act:

1. Clause 2 contains no statute of limitations, requiring past offenders – now rehabilitated – to be continuously assessed despite their exclusion from the list for a long period, demeaning the subject at high cost to the member state.
2. Clause 3 requires a list of past offenders to be made public, including their place of residence and employment, enabling vigilantism with little apparent gain.
3. Clause 4 does not require the conviction and presence on the list to be relevant to the background check, increasing the risk of former convicted persons to be unhireable even in jobs that give no conceivable opportunity for sexual predation.
4. Clauses 5 and 6 require information to be spread across the World Assembly without regards for the crime committed and the presence or lack of transnational risk of repeat offence.

Hereby repeals the Sexual Predator Registry Act.

The General Assembly,

Accepting the premise that sexual predation is a particularly heinous crime, and

Agreeing that a balance must be found between public safety and the rights of convicted persons, however,

Believing claims about higher recidivism for sexual crimes to be incorrect,

Reiterating its belief that a convicted person can change,

Championing rehabilitation as the proper goal of any justice system where prisoners, when released, have paid their debt and should be readmitted into general society,

Arguing that finite punishment should not be extended indefinitely by remaining on a public list of convicts,

Fearing that public access to lists of offenders invite vigilantism,

Finding these flaws to be present in the recently passed Sexual Predator Registry Act:

1. Clause 2 contains no statute of limitations, requiring past offenders – now rehabilitated – to be continuously assessed despite their exclusion from the list for long periods, demeaning the subject at high cost to the member state.
2. Clause 3 requires a list of past offenders to be made public, including their place of residence and employment, enabling vigilantism with little apparent gain. Any completely innocent associate of the past offender who lives or works the same place, family, cohabiters, and co-workers, also risk exposure or being a target by vigilantes.
3. Clause 4 does not require the conviction and presence on the list to be relevant to the background check, increasing the risk of former convicted persons to be unhireable even in jobs that give no conceivable opportunity for sexual predation. People deprived of gainful employment may depend on public assistance or turn to crime for support.
4. Clauses 5 and 6 require information to be spread across the World Assembly without regards for the crime committed and the presence or lack of transnational risk of repeat offence.

Hereby repeals the Sexual Predator Registry Act.


Co-authors: West Barack and East Obama, Novella Islands.

The General Assembly,

Accepting the premise that sexual predation is a particularly heinous crime, and

Agreeing that a balance must be found between public safety and the rights of convicted persons, however,

Believing claims about higher recidivism for sexual crimes to be incorrect,

Opining that a convicted person can change,

Championing rehabilitation as the proper goal of any justice system where prisoners, when released, have paid their debt and should be readmitted into general society,

Arguing that finite punishment should not be extended indefinitely by remaining on a public list of convicts,

Fearing that public access to lists of offenders invite vigilantism,

Finding these flaws to be present in the recently passed Sexual Predator Registry Act:

1. Clause 2 contains no statute of limitations, requiring past offenders – now rehabilitated – to be continuously assessed despite their exclusion from the list for long periods, demeaning the subject at high cost to the member state.
2. Clause 3 requires a list of past offenders to be made public, including their place of residence and employment, enabling vigilantism with little apparent gain. Any completely innocent associate of the past offender who lives or works the same place, family, cohabiters, and co-workers, also risk exposure or being a target by vigilantes.
3. Clause 4 does not require the conviction and presence on the list to be relevant to the background check, increasing the risk of former convicted persons to be unhireable even in jobs that give no conceivable opportunity for sexual predation. People deprived of gainful employment may depend on public assistance or turn to crime for support.
4. Clauses 5 and 6 require information to be spread across the World Assembly without regards for the crime committed and the presence or lack of transnational risk of repeat offence. Information on past offenders can instead be used to target them regardless of actual, current, criminal suspicion. 7d further allows countries to retain past offenders on their lists even if subsequent assessment by the home country clears the person of high risk, perpetuating this risk.

Hereby repeals the Sexual Predator Registry Act.


Co-authors: West Barack and East Obama, Novella Islands.

The General Assembly,

Accepting the premise that sexual predation is a particularly heinous crime, and

Agreeing that a balance must be found between public safety and the rights of convicted persons, however,

Believing the claims about the positive effects of registries and higher recidivism for sexual crimes to be incorrect,

Opining that a convicted person can change,

Championing rehabilitation as the proper goal of any justice system where prisoners, when released, have paid their debt and should be readmitted into general society,

Arguing that finite punishment should not be extended indefinitely by remaining on a public list of convicts,

Fearing that public access to lists of offenders invite vigilantism,

Finding these flaws to be present in the recently passed Sexual Predator Registry Act:

1. Clause 2 contains no statute of limitations, requiring past offenders – now rehabilitated – to be continuously assessed despite their exclusion from the list for long periods, demeaning the subject at high cost to the member state.
2. Clause 3 requires a list of past offenders to be made public, including their place of residence and employment, enabling vigilantism with little apparent gain. Any completely innocent associate of the past offender who lives or works the same place, such as a family member, cohabiter, or co-worker, also risks exposure or being targeted by vigilantes.
3. Clause 4 does not require the conviction and presence on the list to be relevant to the background check, increasing the risk of former convicted persons to be unhireable even in jobs that give no conceivable opportunity for sexual predation. People deprived of gainful employment may depend on public assistance or turn to crime for support.
4. Clauses 5 and 6 require information to be spread across the World Assembly without regards for the crime committed and the presence or lack of transnational risk of repeat offence. Information on past offenders can instead be used to target them regardless of actual, current, criminal suspicion. 7d further allows countries to retain past offenders on their lists even if subsequent assessment by the home country clears the person of high risk, perpetuating this risk.

Hereby repeals the Sexual Predator Registry Act.


Co-authors: West Barack and East Obama, Novella Islands.

The General Assembly,

Accepting the premise that sexual predation is a particularly heinous crime,

Agreeing that a balance must be found between public safety and the rights of convicted persons, however,

Believing the target’s claims about the positive effects of registries and higher recidivism for sexual crimes are incorrect,

Opining that a convicted person can change,

Convinced that any equitable justice system must be based on rehabilitation and the public good rather than a private desire to use the state as a means for revenge,

Arguing that finite punishment should not be extended indefinitely by remaining on a public list of convicts, and

Finding the following flaws in the recently passed Sexual Predator Registry Act:

1. It requires a list of past offenders to be made public, including their place of residence and employment, enabling vigilantism with little apparent gain. Any completely innocent associate of the past offender who lives or works the same place, such as a family member, cohabiter, or co-worker, also risks exposure or being targeted by vigilantes.
2. It contains no statute of limitations, requiring many past offenders – now rehabilitated – to be continuously reassessed despite their exclusion from the registry for long periods, demeaning the subject and leading to member nation’s police forces being diverted away from current priorities.
3. It does not require the conviction and presence on the list to be relevant to the background check, increasing the risk ex-convicts are unhireable even for positions with no material opportunity for sexual predation. People deprived of gainful employment may depend on public assistance or turn to crime for support.
4. It requires information to be spread across World Assembly member nations without regard for presence or lack of transnational risk of repeat offence. Information on past offenders can instead be used to target them regardless of actual, current, criminal suspicion.
5. It allows countries to set rules on national registries where the original country assessing a past offender as not high risk is insufficient for removal from their particular registry. The unrestricted dissemination and reproduction of the lists further makes it difficult for a pardoned or exonerated person to escape the stigma of having previously been branded a “sexual predator” by the target resolution.

Hereby repeals the Sexual Predator Registry Act.


Co-authors: West Barack and East Obama, Novella Islands.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

"The mission is broadly indifferent to the resolution at vote, and does not mind its repeal."

Ooc: I initially supported this when it first came to vote, but after reading Europe's recommendation I came to be opposed to this because of the problems described here. Support.

[Wallenburg]

This is good. Full support.

[WayNeacTia]

Full support.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Obviously support, but you should elaborate on the impacts of Argument 4 and why it is bad.

[Tinhampton]

If the WA has never before said that "that a convicted person can change" then it can't be reiterating its claims to that effect surely

Otherwise, why not?

[Hulldom]

No notes immediately. Full support.

[Sanctaria]

The Sanctarian delegation supports this draft and looks forward to a swift repeal of the Sexual Predator Registry Act.

[Juansonia]

full support.

[Attempted Socialism]

To everyone: Thanks for your support. I'm glad you like it.

Obviously support, but you should elaborate on the impacts of Argument 4 and why it is bad.

Yep, fair point. I'll think about it and see if I can figure out a passable line.

If the WA has never before said that "that a convicted person can change" then it can't be reiterating its claims to that effect surely

Otherwise, why not?

I think the WA has said things to that effect, but I'll change it to "opining" when I next update the draft.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Support.

[Morover]

"My nation supports repeal."

[Chipoli]

Stefan Savych, Chipoli Ambassador to the World Assembly: "We'd like to offer our support for this repeal as well. We see no problems at this time."

[Attempted Socialism]

I have elaborated on the fourth point and swapped "reiterating" for "opining" as I promised yesterday.

Thanks to the people popping in to support the draft. Right now it feels good that no substantial criticisms have emerged.

[Heidgaudr]

"An excellent proposal Ambassador. I look forward to its submission and I will be voting in favor of it if and when it makes it to voting. I see no major issues with the current draft. The only thing I'll add for this conversation is that those forced to register are more likely to become victims of identity theft because so much personal identifying information is made public. Whether this is of enough import to add to the draft is up to you."

[Attempted Socialism]

"An excellent proposal Ambassador. I look forward to its submission and I will be voting in favor of it if and when it makes it to voting. I see no major issues with the current draft. The only thing I'll add for this conversation is that those forced to register are more likely to become victims of identity theft because so much personal identifying information is made public. Whether this is of enough import to add to the draft is up to you."

Ambassador Pride: "Thank you for your support and contribution, Ambassador. I believe you may be correct that the registry can be a source of targets for identity theft, but I have to believe a successful theft would require more than name, likeness, address, and workplace. The list could become an easy starting point, however. I will consider elaborating on the general point of privacy, but I also do not want to over-egg the pudding, as the saying goes."



Edit: OOC: And just as a general note, next draft will contain minor fixes to grammar and readability.

[The Manning Isles]

Full support on this

[Erinaen]

Full support, as mentioned elsewhere.

I would like to propose an addition; something along the lines of

recognizing; that no evidence exists suggesting registries reduce the number of offenders

The reasons given are all good and I agree with them wholeheartedly; but I believe it would be remiss to not mention, on top of all the other problems, that registries simply do not work. Even if we lived in a world where the significant downsides did not exist, this remains legislation that imposes a significant compliance burden while accomplishing literally nothing of any use.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Full support, as mentioned elsewhere.

I would like to propose an addition; something along the lines of

recognizing; that no evidence exists suggesting registries reduce the number of offenders

The reasons given are all good and I agree with them wholeheartedly; but I believe it would be remiss to not mention, on top of all the other problems, that registries simply do not work. Even if we lived in a world where the significant downsides did not exist, this remains legislation that imposes a significant compliance burden while accomplishing literally nothing of any use.

Believing claims about higher recidivism for sexual crimes to be incorrect,

OOC: In the draft this sort of covers your point, in addition to the proposal's other points about wishing to champion rehabilitation efforts over this. Thanks though!

[Attempted Socialism]

Full support, as mentioned elsewhere.

I would like to propose an addition; something along the lines of

recognizing; that no evidence exists suggesting registries reduce the number of offenders

The reasons given are all good and I agree with them wholeheartedly; but I believe it would be remiss to not mention, on top of all the other problems, that registries simply do not work. Even if we lived in a world where the significant downsides did not exist, this remains legislation that imposes a significant compliance burden while accomplishing literally nothing of any use.

Believing claims about higher recidivism for sexual crimes to be incorrect,

OOC: In the draft this sort of covers your point, in addition to the proposal's other points about wishing to champion rehabilitation efforts over this. Thanks though!

I think a minor change to the sentence can include it, though. I'll have a think and send you a telegram.

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. We will offer our support for repeal when it comes to it, including for countercampaigns, provided a countercampaign is first dispatched against this proposal. Procedural fights of that nature are annoying and we feel delegations should discontinue them.

[Juansonia]

/bump

[Wadelhelpia]

Full support

[Morover]

"My nation urges the sponsor to submit this repeal posthaste."