NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a very draft version (which is bad english, but you get the idea)

I have mentioned this previously, but this is now an attempt at a serious discussion on the topic.

It was previously discussed here : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388572


Protection of Ex Criminals (there has to be a better name!)

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Strong
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 and activities 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 in connection with their past, but are permitted to do so if the person is considered newsworthy for another reason,
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.


I realise there is a lot of work to do. Clause 4 requires SO MUCH tidying up but right now I can't think of the phrase, and the way Clause 5 works might need revising.

But basically I think that people who have served 15 years in jail should not be tormented, tortured and abused when they are released, and that is what I am trying to do here (the protecting, not the tormenting).

As I said - it was discussed here : http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388572 so if anyone has any further comments I would be happy to listen :}

I plan to submit this around the start of March, assuming no one comes up with a good enough reason not to :}

I don't think I'm in favor of it.

If your nation is experiencing mob justice on ex-convicts in your black magic registry, perhaps you need to rethink your sentencing laws.

What right has your government to let those people out of prison if you can't guarantee - and I mean guarantee - that they won't revert to their old ways? You're endangering the lives of your law-abiding citizens and their children. Obviously, if your nation is experiencing mob justice, you aren't guaranteeing it very effectively.

I would be more in favor of a resolution preventing nationstates from applying finite numerical prison terms to crimes with a high recidivism. They go in, they don't come out until we're sure they're not a danger to our children anymore.

Oh, and clause IV is particularly obnoxious to me. Freedom of the press should be absolute.

Your not even having an exeption to sex offenders? I'm sorry but I think if someone was a serial killer I should know if he moves next to me.

Your not even having an exeption to sex offenders? I'm sorry but I think if someone was a serial killer I should know if he moves next to me.
Sex offenders is the point of his resolution.

Would clause five even forbid a day care that decided to hire a convicted sex offender that information to parents of the establishment? If anything, I might want to make it obligatory to give that information to parents -- not forbid them from finding out.

Regarding the prohibition on disclosure -- I think it's one thing to forbid the government from disclosing names (unsure whether or not I agree with that, could be persuaded), but I certainly object to restricting the private press from reporting stories they find newsworthy. In Cascadia Atlanticus, we give the press great lattitude -- on principles of keeping everybody accountable.

I have mixed feelings there since my nation is divided on this issue. ;)

One thing I wanted to talk about is your clause 4:

4) Newspapers and other media are forbidden from publishing the names and addresses of ex-criminals in connection with their past, but are permitted to do so if the person is considered newsworthy for another reason,

First, I like the first half of this ... namely that newspapers should not publish the names w/ addresses of ex-criminals.

But my government has reservatoins about the second provision related to "newsworthy" events. The Miervatia Today never publishes addresses of individuals unless they are in ads as paid for by the party who's address is being listed. The key here is the connection of a name and address. That just isn't news. It may be information, but it is not "news".

Would clause five even forbid a day care that decided to hire a convicted sex offender that information to parents of the establishment? If anything, I might want to make it obligatory to give that information to parents -- not forbid them from finding out.

Why? 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.

Ok. (I am dealing with these all in one go, rather than several posts at once)


What right has your government to let those people out of prison if you can't guarantee - and I mean guarantee - that they won't revert to their old ways? You're endangering the lives of your law-abiding citizens and their children. Obviously, if your nation is experiencing mob justice, you aren't guaranteeing it very effectively.


The people who free the prisoners believe that prisoners won't re-offend. But there is no absolute guarantee - I don't see how there can be. But it is not the fact that they will re-offend that is the problem. It is the fear that they will, and fear makes people do dumb, stupid ass things.


Oh, and clause IV is particularly obnoxious to me. Freedom of the press should be absolute.


So you would be happy with your press publishing secret memos, battle plans and so forth? So that everyone in the world - including the people you are planning to attack in secret - know five days in advance what is going to happen?

Freedom of the press is important, but over here we have "sub-judicy" laws that prevent the press from reporting on trials before the take place, and we think TilEnca is a better place for it.


Your not even having an exeption to sex offenders? I'm sorry but I think if someone was a serial killer I should know if he moves next to me.


Why? So you can protect your children, or so you can burn his house down and force him to move elsewhere?


Would clause five even forbid a day care that decided to hire a convicted sex offender that information to parents of the establishment? If anything, I might want to make it obligatory to give that information to parents -- not forbid them from finding out.


That depends on your nation. Some nations have passed laws that say convicted sex offenders can not work with children.
And if the parents find out - can you really, truly, honestly say they would just go "oh - okay. We will withdraw our children" and do nothing more?


Regarding the prohibition on disclosure -- I think it's one thing to forbid the government from disclosing names (unsure whether or not I agree with that, could be persuaded), but I certainly object to restricting the private press from reporting stories they find newsworthy. In Cascadia Atlanticus, we give the press great lattitude -- on principles of keeping everybody accountable.


By newsworthy I meant that if the ex-criminal saves a bus full of nuns you can report that ("Mr Smith saves bus full of nuns") but you can just say "Today Mr Smith, convicted bunny killer, moved in to this house" - that is clearly just an attempt to get round the rules.


First, I like the first half of this ... namely that newspapers should not publish the names w/ addresses of ex-criminals.

But my government has reservatoins about the second provision related to "newsworthy" events. The Miervatia Today never publishes addresses of individuals unless they are in ads as paid for by the party who's address is being listed. The key here is the connection of a name and address. That just isn't news. It may be information, but it is not "news".


(I did mention Clause 4 needs work, didn't I?)

Basically the idea is that you can publish the names of someone if they do something that needs reporting. But just being an ex-criminal is not enough to justify it (the name and shame campaign in a recent national newspaper for example).


Why? 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.


I disagree. The government can be sure, and generally we are - we don't release people who we think will be a danger. But the citizens are another matter. You can show them all the evidence, and all they will do is reply "but they are a rapist!!". I love my country, and my people, and I would hope that you all feel the same about your people. But can any of you tell me there won't be some level of irrational fear in the populace? Fear that will lead to hate and anger and violance and death?

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

What of privacy? All people should have the right to a private, peaceful existence. For the sake of reformation, a convicted felon would need a chance to avoid public concern. We can’t really have that if, say, every time someone is horribly murdered, the first person they look at is Hank the grocer, who has several dozen tattoos and a rap sheet as long as my laundry list. What we need is a way to avoid the pain of reliving a crime.

I will concede, however, that repeat offenders should be monitored, but not in such a way as to which would be intrusive to their daily lives. People are people, regardless of past history.

2) These records should not be put in to the public domain for any reason,

I agree with this! However, how can you effectively enforce this mandate minus the support of a community? The Police and Federal Units can only go so far, and complete so many actions before resources become tapped. Your point is to create a database for future reference with ongoing criminal investigations, but in light of such details, all felons in a localized area will become suspects, and their anonymity will be violated.

3) Any "offenders register" for ex-criminals should contain only their name, and not their current or past addresses,

So this Green List will be entailed where, exactly? And, whats more is, who will be viewing such a document? Further, how effective will this registry be if we can’t track these dangerous individuals?

4) Newspapers and other media are forbidden from publishing the names and addresses of ex-criminals in connection with their past, but are permitted to do so if the person is considered newsworthy for another reason,

Do you think this could spark a second Area 51? Imagine if vigilante hunters were to hack into a .gov web base and then go on a Child Mollestor Massacre. You have to think of the long term effects, as well as the short term.

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,

Then the point is what, exactly? Why cross reference future employees of a station if the knowledge contained is void prior to use or distribution? The idea behind not hireing an embezzler at a bank stop is sound, but can not be placed into effect with the statue of limitations you have dictated.

6) Anyone found using information obtained illegally about ex-criminals is to be punished under the laws of the nation.

Then why compile any list? This is simple Mob on Mob justice as a reaction to a stimulus. The backlash of endeavoring to create such a list is simple. Imagine Hitler signing over a list that showed where all the faults of German Society lay, and yet, no one was allowed to effect change.

The people who free the prisoners believe that prisoners won't re-offend. But there is no absolute guarantee - I don't see how there can be. But it is not the fact that they will re-offend that is the problem. It is the fear that they will, and fear makes people do dumb, stupid ass things.
The problem here is that in many nations there is usually only one reason this kind of response occurs - rapists/pedophiles. In your country there is another - black magic users. Perhaps in other countries there is another category or two. While I respect the right of a convicted felon to be rehabilitated and anonymously reintroduced into society, in the case of felons whose crime cannot be mitigated the citizens have a right to their fear. Whether they have a right to mob justice is another issue and not one we are debating here. It is our position that rapists and pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated successfully. By that standard alone they shouldn't be released into society in the first place. I believe you stated that this class of criminal could be rehabilitated but I would need to see evidence of this.

The case you cited when we first started discussing this related to a pedophile and a pediatrition inadvertently caught up in the mess, not black magic users. It would appear you have found a workable solution to the black magic user issue, but not the rapist/pedophile one. I think it would be a better idea to listen to the voices of your citizens than to try to dissuade them or tell them they are wrong. They aren't wrong. We don't condone violence or vigilante justice. But we also don't support putting our populace at risk without their knowledge merely to uphold the appearance of democracy. If another class of convicted criminals, other than your black magic users, were suffering this kind of mob violence, we'd probably be more inclined to be supportive of a proposal of this kind. As it stands, we cannot support a proposal whose main goal is to protect the rights of convicted rapists and pedophiles.

Freedom of the press is important, but over here we have "sub-judicy" laws that prevent the press from reporting on trials before the take place, and we think TilEnca is a better place for it.
We don't and we're fine just as we are.

That depends on your nation. Some nations have passed laws that say convicted sex offenders can not work with children. And if the parents find out - can you really, truly, honestly say they would just go "oh - okay. We will withdraw our children" and do nothing more?
The majority of them propably will. But that isn't the point. The point is that you are submitting a proposal that will place populations at risk and requires governments to not only aid in the effort, but to ensure its secrecy. I don't see how you can reconcile the rights of your citizens vs. dangerous criminals with this kind of plan.

By newsworthy I meant that if the ex-criminal saves a bus full of nuns you can report that ("Mr Smith saves bus full of nuns") but you can just say "Today Mr Smith, convicted bunny killer, moved in to this house" - that is clearly just an attempt to get round the rules.
Here your proposal dictates what our journalists can and cannot do.

I disagree. The government can be sure, and generally we are - we don't release people who we think will be a danger. But the citizens are another matter. You can show them all the evidence, and all they will do is reply "but they are a rapist!!". I love my country, and my people, and I would hope that you all feel the same about your people. But can any of you tell me there won't be some level of irrational fear in the populace? Fear that will lead to hate and anger and violance and death?
As I said before, we think your citizens are trying to send you a message that you are refusing to hear. It is that that is causing the fear and hate and anger, etc. Until it can be proven beyond doubt that there is a successful treatment for rapists and/or pedophiles, your citizens' fear is as far from irrational as it could possibly be.

The main disagreement with the resuilotion is worry over the Rapist/pedophiles, and the fear of them. An answer to that, as well as protecting them, is to tighten realisement(sp) rules, a possible clause

7) For a convicted person of a High crime (Murder, Rape, pedophilia, and serial cases of those 3) Have to pass a psychological test before realeasment.

The test could look at the current mindstate of the convict in question, and see if they are ready.

The main problem with a test is that the convict may try and fake the results to try and get out. Not all Psychological test revlove around questionaires, and one could be designed around a responce to a stimilus presented (such as a child or a women). Things like Sweat, heart rate, Brain activity, physical movements (Body movements, hand clenching and the like) and eyedilations

Okay. I give in.

The people who free the prisoners believe that prisoners won't re-offend. But there is no absolute guarantee - I don't see how there can be. But it is not the fact that they will re-offend that is the problem. It is the fear that they will, and fear makes people do dumb, stupid ass things.

"Believe" isn't good enough. Your obligation is to ensure it. I leave it up to you what combination of testing, post-release monitoring, or impairment of abilities is appropriate. You can't just let Voldemort back into society without making sure he's incapable of casting spells anymore.

Your people wouldn't have these fears if your government were doing its job properly.



So you would be happy with your press publishing secret memos, battle plans and so forth? So that everyone in the world - including the people you are planning to attack in secret - know five days in advance what is going to happen?

Freedom of the press is important, but over here we have "sub-judicy" laws that prevent the press from reporting on trials before the take place, and we think TilEnca is a better place for it.

Of course I'm not happy with them doing it, but it's something I feel is worth the nuisance. Really keeps the middle layers of the bureaucracy on their toes!



Why? So you can protect your children, or so you can burn his house down and force him to move elsewhere?

If I can't trust my government to take sensible steps, of course I must resort to vigilante justice to protect my family.

What sane person could say otherwise?



I disagree. The government can be sure, and generally we are - we don't release people who we think will be a danger. But the citizens are another matter. You can show them all the evidence, and all they will do is reply "but they are a rapist!!". I love my country, and my people, and I would hope that you all feel the same about your people. But can any of you tell me there won't be some level of irrational fear in the populace? Fear that will lead to hate and anger and violance and death?
My citizens aren't like that. But maybe that's because we don't create dangers for their children by letting predators walk the streets.