[ABANDONED] Rights of Crime Victims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aprenencia

Aprenencia

Registered
The World Assembly,

Hereby declares General Assembly Resolution #247 "Rights of Crime Victims" shall be struck out and voided.

ACKNOWLEDGES that General Assembly Resolution #247 is overall a well written resolution.

UNDERSTANDS that while General Assembly Resolution #247 is well written, the scope of the resolution has the ability to be broadened in a future resolution to include a more variety of topics such as:

  • a. The legalization of victimless crimes and definition of what crime circumstances constitute a "victimless crime."

    b. Who determines that criminals are determined to be innocent, guilty, or are allowed to plead no contest when charged with a crime.

    c. The implementation of explicit due process.

POINTS out that the mandates imposed in the resolution are clearly flawed and the flaws shall be corrected in a future resolution. Mandates in the resolution with flaws include but are not limited to:

  • a. "Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action." This clause fails to define what an "independent civil action" is.

    b. "The right to be tested at no cost for sexually transmitted infections and other serious communicable diseases if the crime victim may have been exposed to those illnesses during the commission of the crime." This clause fails to determine who covers the costs for sexually transmitted infections.

    c. "Representation: crime victims shall have the right to exercise their rights in-person or through a personal representative or attorney. Member nations are encouraged, but not required, to provide crime victims with an attorney." This clause doesn't answer whether or not victims can exercise their rights online?

    d. "The right to an order restraining the accused and known associates of the accused from harassing, threatening, stalking, or otherwise harming the crime victim." This is clause doesn't answer who can issue an order restraining the accused and known associates.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #247.
 
A couple of things:

Firstly, and this could just be a nitpick from me, but I believe the word tense at the beginning of your clauses is off. “Understands” should be “Understanding”, “Achknowledges” should be “Acknowledging”, etc., etc.

Also, “points out” isn’t a very strong word choice and I think you could find a better simile for the same meaning. “General Assembly Resolution #247 is overall a well written resolution.” and “the scope of the resolution has the ability to be broadened in a future resolution to include a more variety of topics” only open up more questions that your draft doesn’t seem to address.

If the resolution itself is well-written then why repeal it? If it has the ability to be broadened to include more topics then it’d be helpful to explain why this broadening of topics is potentially problematic. It’s mostly “The author didn’t define this specific term and so this resolution isn’t helpful”, but I would think that a repeal needs more than that to be successful.

You can say something is “clearly flawed” till your blue in the face, but repeals are about presenting your case as to why the resolution you’re wanting to repealed is flawed. It may be clear to you, but the draft you’ve provided doesn’t do a sufficient job of getting your point across.

Ultimately, you’ll need more detail and logical progression throughout your proposal. Go from what the target resolution you’re repealing is lacking but then elaborate and explain why it lacking A, B, and C is problematic. I’ll defer to an author with more experience in the General Assemly’s affairs, but these are just a few thoughts from me.
 
Last edited:
Aprenencia:
UNDERSTANDS that while General Assembly Resolution #247 is well written, the scope of the resolution has the ability to be broadened in a future resolution to include a more variety of topics such as:

  • a. The legalization of victimless crimes and definition of what crime circumstances constitute a "victimless crime."

    b. Who determines that criminals are determined to be innocent, guilty, or are allowed to plead no contest when charged with a crime.

    c. The implementation of explicit due process.
Click to expand...
Broadening the scope doesn't require a repeal. You can simply write a new resolution covering that area.

Aprenencia:
POINTS out that the mandates imposed in the resolution are clearly flawed and the flaws shall be corrected in a future resolution. Mandates in the resolution with flaws include but are not limited to:

  • a. "Restitution: crime victims shall have the right to seek restitution from the accused through the criminal justice process or through an independent civil action." This clause fails to define what an "independent civil action" is.

    b. "The right to be tested at no cost for sexually transmitted infections and other serious communicable diseases if the crime victim may have been exposed to those illnesses during the commission of the crime." This clause fails to determine who covers the costs for sexually transmitted infections.

    c. "Representation: crime victims shall have the right to exercise their rights in-person or through a personal representative or attorney. Member nations are encouraged, but not required, to provide crime victims with an attorney." This clause doesn't answer whether or not victims can exercise their rights online?

    d. "The right to an order restraining the accused and known associates of the accused from harassing, threatening, stalking, or otherwise harming the crime victim." This is clause doesn't answer who can issue an order restraining the accused and known associates.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #247.
Click to expand...
a. "independent civil action" is pretty clear in meaning. It means the ability to file a civil lawsuit independent from any criminal accusations.
b. The costs are obviously covered by the state, since resolutions mandate member states to take action.
c. In-person means a victim representing themselves, without an attorney, not that they actually have to be somewhere in person.
d. Restraining orders can be issued by whichever authorities in the nation can issue a restraining order. That doesn't need to be specified.
 
Last edited:
The 'flaws' you mention, uh, to say the least, are not particularly well grounded.

Independent Civil Action is a legal term that can be safely presumed by Member-States to refer to whatever such mechanisms for such exist within their jurisdiction. In other words, the victim has the right to seek justice either through criminal penalty for the offender, or through another legal means, such as a lawsuit. This is simply not a term that needs to be defined; it's written as it is specifically to allow it to apply broadly to the vastly different legal systems within Member-States.

Regarding costs for STD testing, It says 'at no cost'; the person receiving the test cannot be charged for it; this is naturally further extended to any insurance or other cost-bearing intermediary. The cost is logically to be absorbed by the entity providing the test.

Flaw C, is uh. I'm not really sure where you're going with this? I don't think there's really any grounds to look at this and say you don't have to respect people's rights if the court is being held via skype, or something. That would be 'in-person' for all intents and purposes, or, through a representative, should they choose one.

Finally, regarding the restraining order bit, presumably that falls to the people normally involved in such a proceeding. The Resolution doesn't have to spell out for you who is going to do that; your Government is presumed to have a functional legal system which can apply this legislation. It's not building a new legal system for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top