[GA - PASSED] Sexual Predator Registry Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caius

Caius

The Minister
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
United States of Dictators
Discord
cayus.code
ga.jpg

Sexual Predator Registry Act
Category: International Security | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Greater Cesnica | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly,

Understanding that those who have committed serious sexual offences with a predatory component may be at higher risks of recidivism,

Believing that it is in the interest of public safety for key information regarding sexual predators to be disseminated to the inhabitants of member nations,

Cognizant that the potential harm inflicted by sexual predators may extend beyond their home member nations, which is particularly manifested in the evils of child sex trafficking and sex tourism,

Recognizing the need for balancing public safety with the rights of convicted persons,

Hereby:
  1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
    1. "child" as someone under the age of sexual consent,
    2. "position of trust" as an instance where an individual:
      1. is the appointed guardian, advisor, carer, or advocate of the victim(s),
      2. looks after the victim(s) in a medical, clinical, foster housing, detaining, or caring facility,
      3. is a teacher, educator, or provider of apprenticeship to the victim(s), or
      4. is an officer of any governmental body provided for in national or international law responsible for assessing or reporting on the state of the victim(s)' welfare,
    3. "serious sexual offence" as:
      1. any criminal offence involving non-consensual sexual intercourse or penetration,
      2. sexual assault of a child,
      3. any sexual offence involving abuse of a position of trust, or
      4. the dissemination and/or production of child sexual abuse material and
    4. "sexual predator" as an individual that has been convicted of committing a serious sexual offence.
  2. Mandates that member nations carry out regular risk assessments of reoffence by each sexual predator under their jurisdiction not currently imprisoned on a full-time basis, based on factors including but not limited to rehabilitated status or rehabilitative potential, nature of past offences/reoffences, and mental state, but specifically excluding the presence or absence of any arbitrary and reductive characteristic; sexual predators being so assessed have the right to present evidence against their risk of reoffence.
  3. Further mandates that member nations establish publicly accessible registries of sexual predators determined to be at high risk of reoffending within their respective member nations that are not currently imprisoned on a full-time basis, wherein at minimum the following information regarding added sexual predators shall be made accessible:
    1. their identity, including full name, known aliases, and a photograph of the individual, if such photograph exists and accurately captures the likeness of the individual,
    2. their general location(s) of residence,
    3. their general location(s) of employment, if applicable, and
    4. their applicable serious sexual offences.
  4. Prohibits member states from barring access or use of publicly accessibly registries of sexual predators on the basis of said registries being used to perform a background check on a person,
  5. Establishes the International Sexual Predator Registry (ISPR), to be administered by the World Assembly Judiciary Committee, and requires that member nations contribute information on any sexual predators within their jurisdiction that is contained in their respective publicly accessible registries, as well as any additional information of utility to law enforcement, border protection, and other applicable agencies in preventing serious sexual offences.
  6. Directs the World Assembly Judiciary Committee to disseminate the ISPR to member nation law enforcement agencies, border protection agencies, child protection agencies, and any applicable organizations created by international legislation.
  7. Clarifies that:
    1. no individual shall be considered a "sexual predator" who has had each of their conviction(s) for serious sexual offences overturned or expunged, or has received a pardon,
    2. no part of this resolution shall be construed to be applicable to individuals aged three years or less apart who engage in consensual sexual activity, excepting where an offence involved abuse of a position of trust,
    3. member nations must censor or otherwise exclude information regarding sexual predators' offences that may detrimentally impact their victims' privacy, excepting situations where a victim has waived their right to anonymity, and that
    4. member nations may adopt stricter policies concerning sexual offences in accordance with past and future international law.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
11100
 
Last edited:
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn or marked illegal it will proceed to a vote at Major Update on July 30th.
 
Comfed:
Hard against. It's extremely counterproductive to rehabilitation and basically eliminates the human right to privacy.
Click to expand...
As I said on the Europeians forums: This would apply where the rehabilitative potential is low and the risk for recidivism is high- we've established that the average recidivism rate for sex offences is low, so this applies in exceptional circumstances.
 
Greater Cesnica:
As I said on the Europeians forums: This would apply where the rehabilitative potential is low and the risk for recidivism is high- we've established that the average recidivism rate for sex offences is low, so this applies in exceptional circumstances.
Click to expand...
Who determines those exceptional circumstances?
 
Comfed:
Who determines those exceptional circumstances?
Click to expand...
Outlined in Article 2. It is a given that these would be assessed by boards set up to determine recidivism risk or by the courts, with relevant input very likely including testimony from clinical professionals and the such.
 
Last edited:
Greater Cesnica:
It is a given that these would be assessed by boards set up to determine recidivism risk or by the courts, with relevant input very likely including testimony from clinical professionals and the such.
Click to expand...
Is it, though? This isn't actually a requirement at all.
 
Comfed:
Is it, though? This isn't actually a requirement at all.
Click to expand...
So breaking down each listed criterion:
- Nature of past offences/reoffences is pretty straightforward- this is established by the offender's criminal history and can be done by any competent judicial authority.
- Rehabilitated status or rehabilitative potential is something that simply cannot be assessed accurately without a thorough analysis and profile of the offender, which in the real world is almost always reinforced by the assessment of pertinent experts, such as psychologists and psychiatrists. I do not believe that this would change significantly in the case of the Multiverse.
- As before, assessment of one's mental state is something that would not be accurately assessed without expert testimony and analysis of an individual's circumstances. Same point about it not differing much from IRL circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Against. Public sex offender registries are ineffective at reducing recidivism and encourages vigilantism and harassment (https://theconversation.com/sex-off...ffending-and-vigilante-justice-is-real-109573). Furthermore, if a serious sex offender is deemed to have a high risk of re-offending, then they should not be released from prison in the first place, and if for some reason a they are, then clearly the authorities aren't doing their job right, so it's doubtful that they would then be included in the registry.
 
Last edited:
Gorundu:
Against. Public sex offender registries are ineffective at reducing recidivism and encourages vigilantism and harassment (https://theconversation.com/sex-off...ffending-and-vigilante-justice-is-real-109573). Furthermore, if a serious sex offender is deemed to have a high risk of re-offending, then they should not be released from prison in the first place, and if for some reason a they are, then clearly the authorities aren't doing their job right, so it's doubtful that they would then be included in the registry.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of the studies that suggest this pertaining to IRL registries- however given the different scope and parameters here I feel that such conclusions can't be translated here. Regarding vigilantism and harassment, I would argue that the proportional risk versus potential benefits for communities being informed of high-risk offenders (which, again, IRL registries for the most part don't limit themselves to) is rather low. I do agree with you that high-risk offenders shouldn't be released in the first place; this provides recourse for that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top