NationStates Jolt Archive

One of these is serious, the other one slightly less so (but it still something I think we need). It should be clear which is which, but I will leave it up to you to decide.

Also they are at a really early stage, so there is some detail missing from the categories and strengths.


(not sure of a title, but something like protection of ex-criminals)

Category : Don't know (human rights I think?)
Strength : Strong to Significant
Propsoed by : TilEnca

Description :

NOTING that not all nations execute their convicted criminals,
UNDERSTANDING that the public can sometimes be skittish about having ex-criminals living in their area,
REALISING that all ex-criminals have to be somewhere,
ACCEPTING that the public can not always be trusted to behave in a sensible manner when it comes to the treatment of ex-criminals,
DISCOURAGING the idea of mob justice for ex-criminals who have already served their time,

The UN hereby states that

1) Records of the whereabouts of ex-criminals should be kept by the justice system of the nation,
2) These records should not be put in to the public domain for any reason,
3) Any "offenders register" for ex-criminals should contain only their name, and not their current or past addresses,
4) Newspapers and other media are forbidden from publishing the names and addresses of ex-criminals should they come to have this information,
5) In situations where an ex-criminal is applying for a job, their name can be checked against the "offenders register" but this information can not be given to anyone else for any purpose,
6) Anyone found using information obtained illegally about ex-criminals is to be punished under the laws of the nation.

Please note that this resolution makes no comment on whether or not nations are permitted to execute their criminals, as that is a matter of national decision, not international. This only deals with what happens when criminals are released after serving their time.


and


The Anti-Spoiler Law

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed By : TilEnca

Description :

ACCEPTING that there are times when some people see films, tv shows, plays, and read books, fanfiction, stories before other people do,
REALISING there is nothing that can be done to prevent this,
NOTING that it is really annoying if they proceed to tell you what happens when you have asked them not to,
UNDERSTANDING that some people don't realise that not everyone wants to know what happens in a story before they see it,

The UN hereby states that

1) Anyone posting "spoilers" on the internet without a warning of the content (eg the words "SPOILER WARNING" and suitable space so you can avoid it) can have their account suspended, their computer confiscated and their house burnt to the ground as a warning not to do it again,
2) Anyone talking about a film and giving away the plot in earshot of someone who might not have seen it can be subjected to a severe beating by the person who hasn't seen it,
3) Any newspaper, magazine, text service or other media who write an article about a film, tv show or book and give away the substantive plot points on the cover (where someone could see it without warning) or on the first page of the text service can be fined an unlimited amount, and all the employees connected with the article can be fired, imprisoned, beaten with sharp sticks and have their houses burned down as a warning not to do it again.

An example of this would be if you have seen the film "Under These Same Skies", then walk past a group of people waiting to see it saying "wow - who would have thought Jessica and Mark turn out to be brother and sister", or if you put on the front cover of a magazine a headline that details how Tony Taylor (a popular character in the series "Young and Stupid") is killed in the finale.


So - what do you think?

I love them both sweetheart.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Golly, wherever did you get the idea for the first one? :D

Good idea, but I'm not really down with the UN deciding what information the people of my nation can handle. Different nations have different species and cultures with characteristics that make some able to handle sensitive information and others unable to do so. I don't approve of restricting the activities of people using international legislation when it's not essential to do so in every nation.

The second is well done and silly, two qualities I approve of when they exist in tandem. However, it doesn't strike me as deserving of the attention of the UN. We have bigger fish to fry. Hmmm. A Bigger Fish to Fry proposal may be the way to go. :D j/k

4) Newspapers and other media are forbidden from publishing the names and addresses of ex-criminals should they come to have this information,

What if they're publishing it not in regard to their status as an ex-criminal? If someone had once been convicted of any crime, this clause could be interpreted as banning the media from naming them when reporting an event in which they were involved, even if they avoided mentioning the crime committed.

We find the first proposal to be an infringement of sovereign powers, and therefore not something we are able to support. As to the second proposal.... finally a proposal we can endorse without reservation! Well done.

Golly, wherever did you get the idea for the first one? :D


Who knows? Could it be the recent "naming and shaming" capaign of paedophiles who have served their time and been released a UK newspaper did that lead to the full scale outsting of various people from their homes? (Including, I might add, a paedatrician because some of the public did not know what that word meant!!)


Good idea, but I'm not really down with the UN deciding what information the people of my nation can handle. Different nations have different species and cultures with characteristics that make some able to handle sensitive information and others unable to do so. I don't approve of restricting the activities of people using international legislation when it's not essential to do so in every nation.


I know. But honestly I think the protection of ex-criminals from mob justice, especially after they have served their time and been released is something that should concern the UN. Protection of human rights and so forth.


The second is well done and silly, two qualities I approve of when they exist in tandem. However, it doesn't strike me as deserving of the attention of the UN. We have bigger fish to fry. Hmmm. A Bigger Fish to Fry proposal may be the way to go. :D j/k

(grin) Are you SURE?

What if they're publishing it not in regard to their status as an ex-criminal? If someone had once been convicted of any crime, this clause could be interpreted as banning the media from naming them when reporting an event in which they were involved, even if they avoided mentioning the crime committed.

"Publishing of their name and address and the fact they were convicted of a crime".

I do get what you mean, and it could be modified to indicate that you can't say "This person is an ex-drug dealer and he lives at Number 73" but you can say "This person saved the life of a bus full of nuns and he lives at Number 73" (but why should you publish someone's address? Shouldn't that be protected under privacy laws?)

We find the first proposal to be an infringement of sovereign powers, and therefore not something we are able to support. As to the second proposal.... finally a proposal we can endorse without reservation! Well done.

May I ask why it is such an infringement? Protecting the rights of innocent citizens is something the UN should be doing?

TiLenca.... we definatly would support you on the former proposal, and on the latter if the penalties are reduced somewhat.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

TiLenca.... we definatly would support you on the former proposal, and on the latter if the penalties are reduced somewhat.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

Hurray for the first and - well what would be the fun in the second if you couldn't set somone's house on fire? (smirk)

You have my support if it goes forward. Well done.

I'm afraid Ecopoeia really cannot lend its support to the latter since spoilers are an invaluable weapon in the armoury of a revolutionary attempting to subvert society by undermining the happiness of the people.

The former proposal is something we can possibly support, though we are reviewing other comments.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I do get what you mean, and it could be modified to indicate that you can't say "This person is an ex-drug dealer and he lives at Number 73" but you can say "This person saved the life of a bus full of nuns and he lives at Number 73" (but why should you publish someone's address? Shouldn't that be protected under privacy laws?)

Thanks. They might not necessarily want to publish their address, but it was mainly about the naming. Although sometimes giving addresses is not abnormal - say a head of government had once committed a crime, it would not be possible under the current wording to publish the address of their home, even if was something akin to 10 Downing Street in the UK or the White House in the US.

I'd also like some kind of clarification of what an "offenders register" is, please.

Finally, I have a nagging feeling that there could be sets of extraordinary circumstances which "2) These records should not be put in to the public domain for any reason" doesn't make allowances for. But I can't think of any, so it's not a big deal.

Pedophilia is a capital crime in Maubachia, but we would support the rights of parents to know the whereabouts of sexual predators in other nations. And in the cases of vigilante justice, well... don't diddle children, and you don't have to worry.

May I ask why it is such an infringement? Protecting the rights of innocent citizens is something the UN should be doing?


Because we do not believe it is the UN's position to dictate how specific crimes are handled within a nation, unless of course it is an ongoing pattern of torture or something of that nature. Yes, we believe it is the UN's job to help protect the rights of innocent citizens, but we fail to see which innocent citizens you are referring to. The convicted criminals?

Zamundaland does not keep a registry of convicted criminals. At one point we tried one with sex offenders but then decided that (a) treatment is unsuccessful and (b) recitivism was extremely high, so.. we simply decided to execute them. We also execute drunk drivers. It is our belief that if adequate laws are in place, along with adequate penalties uniformly dispensed without favoritism, there is no reason for mob justice. Mob justice only occurs when the populace has no faith in its police/judicial system. Surely a no confidence vote by citizens of a country is an internal issue, and not something the UN should be concerning itself with.

Thanks. They might not necessarily want to publish their address, but it was mainly about the naming. Although sometimes giving addresses is not abnormal - say a head of government had once committed a crime, it would not be possible under the current wording to publish the address of their home, even if was something akin to 10 Downing Street in the UK or the White House in the US.


I do get that now. I was (I admit) not thinking about if they did a good thing when they were released :}


I'd also like some kind of clarification of what an "offenders register" is, please.


Some nations have a sex-offenders register. In TilEnca we have a register of people who have used magic for extremely nefarious purposes (such as killing, trying to open a portal to the void and so forth).

I don't want to define this, as it is a national issue, but I wanted to be clear that if you have (for example) a black-magic registry, you can't publish the details on it to the general public. But at the same time I don't want to limit this to only one type of offender (be it sex offenders or black-magicians..... that is magicians who do evil, not magicians who are black, btw)


Finally, I have a nagging feeling that there could be sets of extraordinary circumstances which "2) These records should not be put in to the public domain for any reason" doesn't make allowances for. But I can't think of any, so it's not a big deal.

Well - if you think of something, let me know :}

Pedophilia is a capital crime in Maubachia, but we would support the rights of parents to know the whereabouts of sexual predators in other nations. And in the cases of vigilante justice, well... don't diddle children, and you don't have to worry.

And, unsurprisingly, this is one of the reasons I want to try to pass this law.

(OOC - you did read the thing where someone decided to force a doctor who dealt with children out of her house, because they misunderstood the word paedatrician? If you have people with that type of mentality and reading ability getting their hands on the names of actual freed criminals, imagine the chaos!!!)

Because we do not believe it is the UN's position to dictate how specific crimes are handled within a nation, unless of course it is an ongoing pattern of torture or something of that nature. Yes, we believe it is the UN's job to help protect the rights of innocent citizens, but we fail to see which innocent citizens you are referring to. The convicted criminals?

Zamundaland does not keep a registry of convicted criminals. At one point we tried one with sex offenders but then decided that (a) treatment is unsuccessful and (b) recitivism was extremely high, so.. we simply decided to execute them. We also execute drunk drivers. It is our belief that if adequate laws are in place, along with adequate penalties uniformly dispensed without favoritism, there is no reason for mob justice. Mob justice only occurs when the populace has no faith in its police/judicial system. Surely a no confidence vote by citizens of a country is an internal issue, and not something the UN should be concerning itself with.

Where does it say we are telling you how to deal with crimes? It specifically says that it does not comment on the death penalty within nations, and if you like it can be added to further say that it does not comment on how the justice system in any nation works.

All it does say is that once someone has been released, their information has to be protected.

And, by the by, mob justice does not only occur when the populace has no faith in the police/justice system. It also occurs when parents learn a paedophile is living next door to them. They don't keep their kids away from them, instead they burn the house down and drive the person out of their home. There is enough evidence of this, I am not making it up.

(We keep information in TilEnca private already, because of a few attacks on black-magic users. But that was done not only for the safety of the black-magic users, but for the people who would attack them. Anyone who can open a portal to another realm is usually capable of other nasty spells as well!!)

We are clear that your proposal is not commenting on the death penalty - I do not believe I stated that it did.

We are also clear on what the intended result of the legislation is. We just don't agree with it.

And yes, I read about the pediatrician. It is our position that perhaps increased spending on education would be of assistance in this particular area.

Actually, no confidence is exactly what mob justice is. They have absolutely no confidence that their children will be safe, or that the government can protect their family, hence mob justice. In reality, they are correct. Your government cannot protect its family from these ......individuals.

If we are understanding this correctly, the only convicted criminals that are having this problem are those convicted of pedophilia. If you have another class of convicted criminals that are experiencing mob violence, we would be glad of an opportunity to explore the facts. However, we are not about to vote for legislation that protects the rights of convicted pedophiles, which is, so far as we can determine, the only purpose of this proposal.

we of verillonia, have a few thoughts on the first proposal....if the criminal has been thru the proper channels of rehabilitation and as long as they do not return to their old ways of life, then they have the right to protection as anyone else..but let us think more on it..if they fail, then what? is there any kind of punitive justice? what of the victims? wont they want to know why they were not notified and protected? there is much that needs to be digested before you can really vote for or against such a proposal...and i really think this is something that only the idividual nations really have a say in in their own countries. This is only an opinion of the Borderlands of Verillonia and as such should be viewed as that...just an opinion. thank you.

The Anti-Spoiler Law

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed By : TilEnca

Description :

ACCEPTING that there are times when some people see films, tv shows, plays, and read books, fanfiction, stories before other people do,
REALISING there is nothing that can be done to prevent this,
NOTING that it is really annoying if they proceed to tell you what happens when you have asked them not to,
UNDERSTANDING that some people don't realise that not everyone wants to know what happens in a story before they see it,

The UN hereby states that

1) Anyone posting "spoilers" on the internet without a warning of the content (eg the words "SPOILER WARNING" and suitable space so you can avoid it) can have their account suspended, their computer confiscated and their house burnt to the ground as a warning not to do it again,
2) Anyone talking about a film and giving away the plot in earshot of someone who might not have seen it can be subjected to a severe beating by the person who hasn't seen it,
3) Any newspaper, magazine, text service or other media who write an article about a film, tv show or book and give away the substantive plot points on the cover (where someone could see it without warning) or on the first page of the text service can be fined an unlimited amount, and all the employees connected with the article can be fired, imprisoned, beaten with sharp sticks and have their houses burned down as a warning not to do it again.

An example of this would be if you have seen the film "Under These Same Skies", then walk past a group of people waiting to see it saying "wow - who would have thought Jessica and Mark turn out to be brother and sister", or if you put on the front cover of a magazine a headline that details how Tony Taylor (a popular character in the series "Young and Stupid") is killed in the finale.

:D :D :D

Man, this proposal reminds me of a time I almost clobbered someone for talking about Memento in that part where... :eek: *smackbashpow*

As far as the first one, however, I agree that making individuals convicted of a crime tell the neighborhood about it conflicts with the process of reintegration. If you know your neighbor is a sex offender, you're probably not gonna look him in the eye sooner than you would if you didn't know his background.

On the other hand, knowing these tendencies about the people you live close to is also a safety precaution. If I knew my neighbor had been convicted on pedophilia charges, I would NOT want my children playing over in his or her yard. Not knowing could lead to very severe consequences, I think.

So instead, perhaps a proposal like this could "split the difference", that is, not FORCE ex-criminals to make themselves known, but not keep such records confidential. That is, if I were a neighbor suspicious of the guy next door, I could look up his criminal background freely (though that may cause issues too).

That's my solution.

Actually, no confidence is exactly what mob justice is. They have absolutely no confidence that their children will be safe, or that the government can protect their family, hence mob justice. In reality, they are correct. Your government cannot protect its family from these ......individuals.


But what if they are not dangerous any more? Do they deserve to be hounded out of house and home, and (in some occasions) have their houses burned while they are still in them?
The family might feel the government can not protect them, but what about the person in question? They committed a crime, went to jail, got released and now they should be forced to live in fear?
If the government should protect the family, should it not also protect everyone else on an equal footing?


If we are understanding this correctly, the only convicted criminals that are having this problem are those convicted of pedophilia. If you have another class of convicted criminals that are experiencing mob violence, we would be glad of an opportunity to explore the facts. However, we are not about to vote for legislation that protects the rights of convicted pedophiles, which is, so far as we can determine, the only purpose of this proposal.

Black-Magic users. There have been some occasions where a magic-user in TilEnca has turned to "the side of Lucy" and used magic for evil purposes (killing, opening portals to the void - that sort of thing). Once they have been through the justice system, and been released, we protect their identities as a lot of people REALLY don't like black-magic users. This was a serious problem in the previous century, but by protecting their identities we have managed to stop the lynchings and drownings and burnings and the odd long bow incident, and those who once used magic badly now have a chance to re-integrate in to society without living in fear.

In a similar way - someone who has been convicted of murder and released should have a chance to start life again without everyone pointing and whispering about him. If everyone knew who he was, that would be almost impossible to do.

we of verillonia, have a few thoughts on the first proposal....if the criminal has been thru the proper channels of rehabilitation and as long as they do not return to their old ways of life, then they have the right to protection as anyone else..but let us think more on it..if they fail, then what? is there any kind of punitive justice? what of the victims? wont they want to know why they were not notified and protected? there is much that needs to be digested before you can really vote for or against such a proposal...and i really think this is something that only the idividual nations really have a say in in their own countries. This is only an opinion of the Borderlands of Verillonia and as such should be viewed as that...just an opinion. thank you.

I am not suggesting that if someone commits a crime after being released they should be protected, but if they come out of prison should they not be given the chance to live a normal and happy life? Something you can't do if everyone is pointing and whispering about you?

:D :D :D

Man, this proposal reminds me of a time I almost clobbered someone for talking about Memento in that part where... :eek: *smackbashpow*


(OOC)

I was standing looking at a shelf of videos, and someone in the shop said in loud voice "Oh - 'Open Water' - that's the one where....."

It annoyed me :}

There are a lot of other, even worse, examples. And burning their houses down is not a bad way to go about it.

(Back in character)


As far as the first one, however, I agree that making individuals convicted of a crime tell the neighborhood about it conflicts with the process of reintegration. If you know your neighbor is a sex offender, you're probably not gonna look him in the eye sooner than you would if you didn't know his background.
On the other hand, knowing these tendencies about the people you live close to is also a safety precaution. If I knew my neighbor had been convicted on pedophilia charges, I would NOT want my children playing over in his or her yard. Not knowing could lead to very severe consequences, I think.


But can you put your hand on your heart and say that every person in your neighbourhood would accept that the person can live there? That there would be no attempts to get him to move out to another town (or city or county?)


So instead, perhaps a proposal like this could "split the difference", that is, not FORCE ex-criminals to make themselves known, but not keep such records confidential. That is, if I were a neighbor suspicious of the guy next door, I could look up his criminal background freely (though that may cause issues too).


And you don't think that would be possibly open to all sorts of abuse? (I guess you do cause of the "may cause issues" thing). And if they do find out, we get back to the people accepting he can live there without trying to get him to leave thing.

But what if they are not dangerous any more? Do they deserve to be hounded out of house and home, and (in some occasions) have their houses burned while they are still in them? The family might feel the government can not protect them, but what about the person in question? They committed a crime, went to jail, got released and now they should be forced to live in fear?
If the government should protect the family, should it not also protect everyone else on an equal footing?



Black-Magic users. There have been some occasions where a magic-user in TilEnca has turned to "the side of Lucy" and used magic for evil purposes (killing, opening portals to the void - that sort of thing). Once they have been through the justice system, and been released, we protect their identities as a lot of people REALLY don't like black-magic users. This was a serious problem in the previous century, but by protecting their identities we have managed to stop the lynchings and drownings and burnings and the odd long bow incident, and those who once used magic badly now have a chance to re-integrate in to society without living in fear.

In a similar way - someone who has been convicted of murder and released should have a chance to start life again without everyone pointing and whispering about him. If everyone knew who he was, that would be almost impossible to do.


There is a distinction that needs to be made regarding criminals. If we are talking about criminals in general, no I would not support any sort of registration and notification of a neighborhood when a convicted criminal is released after having paid their debt to society. However. If we are discussing rapists and pedophiles, that is a different situation. There is more than a criminal intent going on with sex crimes and the latest research indicates that there is no remedial effort which is successful, there is no "cure", there is no changing the behavior. In this instance, we believe warning citizenry of an inherent danger outweighs any "rights" which revert to the recently-released convicted rapist/pedophile.

We understand the steps taken to protect the black magic users in your country, and feel this is implicitly your right to decide. Have you any evidence that black magic users inevitably revert to the Lucy side, regardless of extended efforts at rehabilitation? No? Then you've done the right thing. Until rapists/pedophiles can be rehabilitated, and said rehabilitation can be proven, it is unreasonable to suggest that the rights of the one, certain-to-do-it-again individual outweigh the rights of society as a whole.

But in any event... the position we formally take on this issue is that it is an individual nation's right to decide whether they wish to reinstitute full rights for convicted criminals, which would include any guaranteed or implied right to privacy.

There is a distinction that needs to be made regarding criminals. If we are talking about criminals in general, no I would not support any sort of registration and notification of a neighborhood when a convicted criminal is released after having paid their debt to society. However. If we are discussing rapists and pedophiles, that is a different situation. There is more than a criminal intent going on with sex crimes and the latest research indicates that there is no remedial effort which is successful, there is no "cure", there is no changing the behavior. In this instance, we believe warning citizenry of an inherent danger outweighs any "rights" which revert to the recently-released convicted rapist/pedophile.


I am not suggesting we don't monitor them. But if the police/justice system monitors them, rather than putting their name in the papers along with a picture and their address, then there is the inherent danger of the person being found dead at the bottom of a canal, in the name of the neighbours "protecting their children".
And unless they commit another crime, they are (by the virtue of several UN resolutions) to be considered innocent. And I, personally, believe that all innocent people should enjoy the same rights and protections under the laws of a nation.


We understand the steps taken to protect the black magic users in your country, and feel this is implicitly your right to decide. Have you any evidence that black magic users inevitably revert to the Lucy side, regardless of extended efforts at rehabilitation? No? Then you've done the right thing. Until rapists/pedophiles can be rehabilitated, and said rehabilitation can be proven, it is unreasonable to suggest that the rights of the one, certain-to-do-it-again individual outweigh the rights of society as a whole.


There is evidence to suggest that someone who uses magic for evil never loses the urge, but can learn to control it. But even if they don't actually want to destroy the world any more, there is always the suspicion in people's minds that Mr Talena (a psudeonym for a guy who came very close to destroying the world one time) is still planning on doing it, even though there is no evidence to support that.
In much the same way that even if a paedophile is totally cured (which is not impossible) everyone is still going to be thinking "he wants to rape my children".


But in any event... the position we formally take on this issue is that it is an individual nation's right to decide whether they wish to reinstitute full rights for convicted criminals, which would include any guaranteed or implied right to privacy.

I say that the rights of people to live their lives without the constant fear of being beaten up or murdered is an international issue, on the grounds that other UN resolutions deal with the same thing (albeit in a different way)

The first proposal's great. If citizens or the government aren't completely sure that a convict can be safely reintroduced into society, then that convict isn't completely rehabilitated yet. Don't let criminals out if you aren't going to trust them; if you are going to trust them, give them the same protection as everyone else.

1) Records of the whereabouts of ex-criminals should be kept by the justice system of the nation,

We already insert a free transmitting microchip into all our citizens at birth, this discourages crime of any kind. There is no civil rights issue here because everybody is eager to embrace this technology, it has many social benefits here.
In later life should the citizen wish to emigrate permanently the microchip can be removed at any border post. If they change their minds they have to pay heavily for inconveniencing their nation, tourists are issued with temporary chip so they can freely use amenities provided by the Nation. These are largely bio-degradable and reside in the digestive tract for the period of their visit then are deactivated and processed in the normal way by the body shortly after depature.

Therefore we see no reason to support this resolution in its present form, we will however follow the thread with interest.

The delegate to the UN for McGonagall.

Would it be possible for everyone to use the other thread for further discussions of this?

(http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393797)