[GA - Withdrawn] Fairness for Victims of Crime

Status
Not open for further replies.
Magecastle

Magecastle

Wolf of the North
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
Magecastle Embassy Building A5
Discord
green_canine
ga.jpg

Fairness for Victims of Crime
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton, Co-authored by: The Hinterplace | Onsite Topic​

Whereas crime victims deserve privacy and closure, the General Assembly hereby:

  1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution, a "victim" as any person (V) in a member state, as well as those authorised to make legal decisions on V's behalf (if V is legally incompetent) and V's next of kin (if V is deceased), where V has been harmed by any person (H) during H's commission of a crime that H has been charged with committing, assisting, or conspiring to assist or commit,
  2. declares that each victim of any crime which a person has been charged with committing (with that victim's free and informed consent in each instance) enjoys the right to:
    1. be informed about the progress and verdict of that person's trial,
    2. attend that person's trial, including their sentencing, and
    3. be informed about that person's temporary or permanent release from any location, including prison, where they may be detained for committing that crime against them,
  3. mandates that members not disclose any victim's personal information in a manner that could result in the person who committed that crime violating their privacy (including by contacting or attempting to contact them by any means without their free and informed consent),
  4. clarifies that Article c does not prevent those representing a victim, or the person charged with committing the crime against them, in a trial between the two parties from using that victim's personal information in that trial for the sole purposes of such representation,
  5. requires members to tell every victim about all of the provisions of this resolution as soon as possible after they become a victim, and
  6. clarifies that nothing in this resolution prevents members from enacting further protections for victims.
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
11501
 
Last edited:
I am against this proposal, mainly on 2b, because closed hearings are sometimes necessary. With that said, I would be interested to hear why others are against the proposal, since I haven’t been aware of any flaws that would inspire this level of opposition.
 
Simone Republic;p=40357300:
Not much comments, it's obstruction of justice anyway if H as you define it contacts V during trial.

There are some quirks that you don't address anyway, such as what happens if V then sues H in civil court if H is acquitted (more frequent in the US), and how clause (c) would apply (if it does, because the V would automatically lose their right to be deemed as a victim anyway) and what happens if V is deemed to have committed perjury and is then sued by H

You probably have to define that this excludes civil tort, criminal only, but you said "crime" at the beginning, so I guess it's OK, since you defined none of the terms you used beyond a kind of ordinary meaning
Click to expand...


I am chasing Tin for the issues described, both on the forums and on TNP.
 
Last edited:
Changing my vote to present. The definition seems to make it so that someone would have to personally commit the crime to be considered "H", regardless of whether they are charged for personally committing it or assisting/conspiring the same.
 
Kenmoria:
I am against this proposal, mainly on 2b, because closed hearings are sometimes necessary. With that said, I would be interested to hear why others are against the proposal, since I haven’t been aware of any flaws that would inspire this level of opposition.
Click to expand...

Reverse it, assume that H is acquitted for a crime, for any number of possible reasons (and there are several where each circumstance would be different, and there's a subtle difference between US and UK and the rest of the world): (1) H is acquitted due to a finding of fact (2) H is acquitted due to an insanity defence (3) H is acquitted due to involuntary offences (4) (and this is the worst one) that V is accused of perjury and the situation is reversed.

The example I gave on WALL is this:
  1. Clause (1) of this proposal defines "a "victim" as any person (V) in a member state... where V has been harmed by any person (H) during H's commission of a crime that H has been charged with committing, assisting, or conspiring to assist or commit"
    The problem is that it says that "H" has been "charged with committing, assisting, or conspiring"

  2. What happens if H is acquitted of the offence after the charge? There are two scenarios here: (1) a court has accepted that there was a prima facie case of H being charged, and (2) the evidence of V is rejected even at the prima facie level and H then turns around and sues V for libel/slander/false accusations


 
Last edited:
Kenmoria:
I am against this proposal, mainly on 2b, because closed hearings are sometimes necessary. With that said, I would be interested to hear why others are against the proposal, since I haven’t been aware of any flaws that would inspire this level of opposition.
Click to expand...
This is now in queue although Tin said she might redraft given all the issues that Magecastle (and myself) raised, see above

Magecastle:
Changing my vote to present. The definition seems to make it so that someone would have to personally commit the crime to be considered "H", regardless of whether they are charged for personally committing it or assisting/conspiring the same.
Click to expand...
Again, as mentioned on WALL, what happens say if H and V were involved in an altercation, V accused H of assault, and then a jury finds that H acted in self defence and that V attacked H instead? The jury ruling it as a fact is the end of the matter under the Trier of Fact requirement (Seventh Amendment to the US constitution, or in common law, collateral estoppel). The incident happened, but there is no crime, and that finding is final.
 
Last edited:
Against. The definitions are rather vague, ambiguous, and easily expandable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top