NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Moral Decency
Significance: Strong

The U.N made a huge step when it passed Resolution #22 Outlaw Pedophilia. This resolution would also like to congradulate U.N efforts with regards to children. The resolution would like to increase children protection across U.N member states to ensure that Pedophilia will never occur in such states.

Article 1:

The creation of a databank with U.N member states 'worst' pedophiles and keep them on record. This databank would be created by the use of Pedophile DNA through either a blood sample or a hair sample. U.N member states can collect this DNA by themselves and send this to the databank head office or allow a medical offical from the databank collect the DNA from the pedophile.

Article 2:

There will be a hierarchy of dangerous pedophiles ranging in three categories

Extremely Dangerous; these pedophiles are known to be sexually dangerous to children and will not or can not be changed from their thoughts. If they travel to another U.N member state local police state will be alerted.
Dangerous; These people do not take well to activities by local governments and could be a threat to children. At the U.N member state feeling they can alert the databank of these offenders and the databank would then notify other U.N members.
Low-risk: These are one time criminals or pedophiles that are locked away for a long time.

Article 3:

The databank can be accessed by certain people;

Government officials,
Police officers
Family members of victims (if approved by U.N member state)
and media

However these privledges can be removed if a U.N member state is using this information to target pedophiles even though they have not committed a crime.

Article 4:

The databank will be funded by voluntary U.N member state contributions as well as Non Government organizations.

Conclusion;

This resolution builds on Resolution 22 and protects the children of U.N member states.

How will this database handle cases in which a person is wrongfully accused or convicted and later acquited and exonerated?

What's to stop a country from classifying its political opponents as pedophiles, thereby destroying them through character assassination?

What about cases where the verdict is returned under seal?

How will this database handle cases in which a person is wrongfully accused or convicted and later acquited and exonerated?

What's to stop a country from classifying its political opponents as pedophiles, thereby destroying them through character assassination?

What about cases where the verdict is returned under seal?

Very good questions I would like to thank you for raising them. I can surely look into that and see if I can put in an article related to the issues you have raised.

While I understand the intentions of such a proposal, I would like to be the first to warn you of some of what you are about to face. Here are some of the arguments that will most likely be directed at you over this and the way that it is written. I neither support nor oppose these views, I simply put them out there for you.

There will be those who mark a clear difference between pedophile and criminal. Desiring something is not criminal. Acting on it is. This Database makes no such distinction.

Within your heirarchy, the fact that these are individuals who have acted on their desires. Otherwise, it would be necessary to somehow evaluate every single citizen of every nation to attempt to discern if they are a pedophile or not.

Giving family members of victims access to the database is simply asking for trouble. Odds are that they already know who it was that did whatever to their family. They do not really need to know where they live. Or where other pedophiles live. People who feel the need for some form of vengeance against pedophiles in general will resort to vigilantism.

The last clause puts this in jeopardy of a House of Cards violation, as does the introductory statement. If UNR#22 is repealed, and this openly states that it builds upon UNR#22, then this would become wasted space.

There will also be those who will claim that creating such a database is condoning international discrimination against pedophiles.

Just wanted to give you the friendly warning. Again, I'm not taking any side in this and will promptly make myself scarce from this subject.

Best of luck.

Second draft:

Category: Moral Decency
Significance: Strong

The U.N made a huge step when it passed Resolution #22 Outlaw Pedophilia. This resolution would also like to congradulate U.N efforts with regards to children. The resolution would like to increase children protection across U.N member states to ensure that Pedophilia will never occur in such states.

A criminal is defined as a person who would commit an act, wether it rape, robbery or murder because of the situation surrounding the person. Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles. Pedophillia is different in the sense to a normal criminal since the person committing the crime is attracted to one thing, the thought of engaging in intercourse with a child.

Article 1:

The creation of a databank with U.N member states 'worst' pedophiles and keep them on record. This databank would be created by the use of Pedophile DNA through either a blood sample or a hair sample. U.N member states can collect this DNA by themselves and send this to the databank head office or allow a medical offical from the databank collect the DNA from the pedophile. The databank is to be created to deal with pedophiles that have actually committed a crime against children within U.N member states.

Article 2:

There will be a hierarchy of dangerous pedophiles ranging in three categories

Extremely Dangerous; these pedophiles are known to be sexually dangerous to children and will not or can not be changed from their thoughts. If they travel to another U.N member state local police state will be alerted.
Dangerous; These people do not take well to activities by local governments and could be a threat to children. At the U.N member state feeling they can alert the databank of these offenders and the databank would then notify other U.N members.
Low-risk: These are one time criminals or pedophiles that are locked away for a long time.

Article 3:

The databank can be accessed by certain people;

Government officials,
Police officers
and media

However these privledges can be removed if a U.N member state is using this information to target pedophiles even though they have not committed a crime.

Article 4:

The databank will be funded by voluntary U.N member state contributions as well as Non Government organizations.

Article 5:

This resolution urges all U.N members to allow databank officials to research into the cases that are brought to the databank if there seems to be evidence that supports that these are 'wrongful convictions' or political motivated cases. Database officials would be able to look at evidence presented to the courts with regards to these certain cases. The databank officials would be able to interview the defendent and others if they so desire to. After careful review the databank officials will then decide if they proceed with adding the individual to the databank or if the evidence presented shows 'unequivocally' that the person is innocent. The U.N member state will then decide what to do with the person after, however if they are ruled innocent, they would not be added to the databank.

Conclusion;

This resolution builds on Resolution 22 and protects the children of U.N member states.

Third draft:

Category: Moral Decency
Significance: mild

The U.N made a huge step when it passed Resolution #22 Outlaw Pedophilia. This resolution would also like to congradulate U.N efforts with regards to children. The resolution would like to increase children protection across U.N member states to ensure that Pedophilia will never occur in such states.

A criminal is defined as a person who would commit an act, wether it rape, robbery or murder because of the situation surrounding the person. Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles. Pedophillia is different in the sense to a normal criminal since the person committing the crime is attracted to one thing, the thought of engaging in intercourse with a child.

Article 1:

The creation of a databank with U.N member states 'worst' pedophiles and keep them on record. This databank would be created by the use of Pedophile DNA through either a blood sample or a hair sample. U.N member states can collect this DNA by themselves and send this to the databank head office or allow a medical offical from the databank collect the DNA from the pedophile. The databank is to be created to deal with pedophiles that have actually committed a crime against children within U.N member states.

Article 2:

There will be a hierarchy of dangerous pedophiles ranging in three categories

Extremely Dangerous; these pedophiles are known to be sexually dangerous to children and will not or can not be changed from their thoughts. If they travel to another U.N member state local police state will be alerted.
Dangerous; These people do not take well to activities by local governments and could be a threat to children. At the U.N member state feeling they can alert the databank of these offenders and the databank would then notify other U.N members.
Low-risk: These are one time criminals or pedophiles that are locked away for a long time.

Article 3:

The databank can be accessed by certain people;

Government officials,
Police officers
and media

However these privledges can be removed if a U.N member state is using this information to target pedophiles even though they have not committed a crime.

Article 4:

The databank will be funded by voluntary U.N member state contributions as well as Non Government organizations.

Article 5:

This resolution urges all U.N members to allow databank officials to research into the cases that are brought to the databank if there seems to be evidence that supports that these are 'wrongful convictions' or political motivated cases. Database officials would be able to look at evidence presented to the courts with regards to these certain cases. The databank officials would be able to interview the defendent and others if they so desire to. After careful review the databank officials will then decide if they proceed with adding the individual to the databank or if the evidence presented shows 'unequivocally' that the person is innocent. The U.N member state will then decide what to do with the person after, however if they are ruled innocent, they would not be added to the databank.

Conclusion;

This resolution builds on Resolution 22 and protects the children of U.N member states.

Regardless of anything else, this proposal is not Strong. Your feelings about it may be strong, but the area of effect is extremely limited (perhaps a few thousands or tens of thousands in nations numbering in the billions), and the operative clauses do not justify such a rating.

Try Moral Decency, Mild, instead.

Now, I hate pedophiles more then the next guy, but I don't know, it just seems to me that the United Nations shouldn't be keeping a databank of known pedophiles and their DNA. In my opinion you would be better served mabye drafting a resolution promoting international police-force co-operation, but this seems a bit much.

I would like people to think long and hard about it though. Wouldn't a databank be better to protect the children of NS U.N members.

I would like people to think long and hard about it though. Wouldn't a databank be better to protect the children of NS U.N members.

No thank you, Big Brother, I think each individual nation is doing fine on their own without having to have a database of child molesters who once in a million leave their country.

I don't see any reasons for taking all of the child molesters (read: not pedophiles) of every member nation and putting them into an international database. Do you have any, or are you just so thoroughly disgusted with the idea that you want to throw every bit of legislative censure at the group that you can? All I see are congratulations to a Resolution with a misnomer for a title, and steps to create the database. Why is the database being created?

While we're as concerned as the next set of people about this issue, we can't help but be wary about the "Big Brother" aspect.

Why don't we also keep a database of murderers? Getting molested probably beats getting killed (that's a potential viewpoint, not something we necessary believe or want to debate). Why not all criminals? After all, they all could cause potential harm. Why not just a database of everyone? Hey, we've all done something wrong.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

Why keep a database on them? Can't we just execute them?

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

Why keep a database on them? Can't we just execute them?

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

Sure can, dude. That's how we deal with 'em in Cluichstan.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

An international criminal database focusing on just one brand of criminal strikes us as being a bit difficult to take. An international criminal database of criminals, period, would be a boon to law enforcement agencies, but isn't that something to leave to them to create, if they desire it - and not the U.N.?

This just strikes me as being too intrusive into both individual lives and concerns best left to individual nations, albeit in a laudable cause.

Altanar will not be voting in favor of this proposal, for the reasons stated.

I agree with Norderia, Ceorana, and Altanar. Not only do you to misuse a term many times (try looking up pedophile), your resolution just seems pointless. There are many crimes more serious than the molestation of children going on. Why don't we have a database of serial killers? Or terrorists? Or, for that matter, people who just plain killed someone? Yes, being molested as a child is an experience nobody should have to go through, but I'd rather have that happen to me (assuming I survive) than be tracked down and killed slowly and painfully in my twenties.

What's more is that this assumes a very uniform manner of both classifying, and dealing with a kind of criminal, and I can guarantee you that there is no UN consensus on how to deal with criminals. Where Gruenbergers and Cluichstanis execute most of their criminals, Norderia would do no such thing. Creating a database of criminals without any sort of consideration for the differences between national and international criminals, or the differences between national and national (between countries) seems to me to be both pointless (as what good does knowing who all of the criminals in a country across the globe do for us?) and ignorant.

Right to Refuse Extradition, however, isn't something Norderia waves around. There is rarely a time where Norderia won't extradite fugitives.

Well I am still going to go for it and we will see. If anyone has recommendations that will be good.

You really should have run the proposal through a spellchecker before submitting it; it's quite bad.

The whole idea seems unnecessary anyway. If a nation has someone on their criminal records, and that person somehow escapes from the nation, the nation is more than capable of alerting the neighboring nations of this person's criminal record and a request to return him or her to the initial nation for completion of punishment.

I also strongly oppose how the last paragraph implies or even explicitly states that the suspected paedophiles are essentially "guilty until proven innocent", as is emphasised in the following sentence:

After careful review the databank officials will then decide if they proceed with adding the individual to the databank or if the evidence presented shows 'unequivocally' that the person is innocent.

The requirement of fair trial necessitates the assumption that a person is presumed innocent until there is no significant doubt that they are guilty. In other words, it should be shown 'unequivocally' that the person is guilty before adding them to the databank; they shouldn't be added just because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove them innocent. Failure to prove guilt should be sufficient.

~Lady Sara~

Where Gruenbergers and Cluichstanis execute most of their criminals, Norderia would do no such thing.

We'll be sure to spread the word through the seedier elements, man. With any luck, they'll pack up and move to Norderia, where they can commit their crimes without fear of serious consequences.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

=================

The following report is read on the Crab News Channel:

Government officials in Cluichabad today announced the formation of the Norderian Board of Tourism. Its goal? To get as much of Cluichstan's criminal element to emigrate to Norderia. To that end, its first move has been to erect a billboard in West Cluichabad, where the crime rate is highest, that reads: "Wanna rape or murder someone? Visit beautiful Norderia! They won't kill you for your crimes like we will."

Good stuff. *chuckle* In sport, our own Cluichstan Crabs finished third in the NationStates baseball league in just its first year participating in international competition...

OOC EDIT: And the bit about the baseball league is sorta true. My team did finish third in an all-NS fantasy league I set up. :cool:

While the Commonwealth of New Thera will be voting against this proposal no matter what, there are a few points in particular which I feel should be changed before this proposal becomes acceptible:

First, it is not clear whether or not submission of this information to the databank will be compulsary for the country. Many member states will not wish to submit citizens' information such as DNA as many will feel that it is overly-intrusive and unecessary. If it is not compulsary, its usefulness is severely comprimised, as government and police organisiations will not be able to rely on having information for every person, and so will have to set up a secondary system anyway (in fact, this problem with exist even if it is compulsary, on a smaller scale, as not all states are UN members). Furthermore, this reliance on two seperate systems, one of which is likely to be much more efficient than the other, may even help paedophiles from states which opt out to slip through the cracks.

Second, making the information available to the media seems totally unecessary and nothing but destructive. Having publically available statistic information, such as the density of paedophiles in an area, the distance of the nearest known paedophile to a certain location, etc., may be beneficial, but otherwise you're just encouraging which-hunting of people who, in theory, may have done no wrong (see next point)

Third, your definition of paedophilia seems to make no distinction of whether or not somebody has comitted a crime. Surely somebody who has done no wrong should not be put in the same category as people who have raped children, but are "low-risk" because they are in prison for life? Also, a system of determining whether every single person is a paedophile, and of exactly how much risk they have of (re)offending seems an extremely difficult project. I would suggest a much more detailed, in depth ranking system, which makes the distinction between innocence and guilt and will allow police forces to actually many effective descisions knowing, for example, whether a person actually molested a child or just downloaded pornographic material.

Also, as other people have said, it seems odd to single out paedophilia, and ignore other crimes. As it is,the system seems likely to arbitrarily single out and ruin the lives of perfectly innocent, harmless people and be of very little actual use to anybody except scaremongering media who want something to be angry about on slow news days.

While the Commonwealth of New Thera will be voting against this proposal no matter what, there are a few points in particular which I feel should be changed before this proposal becomes acceptible:

Your voting against this non the less, so what is the point? If you are never going to vote for it.

We'll be sure to spread the word through the seedier elements, man. With any luck, they'll pack up and move to Norderia, where they can commit their crimes without fear of serious consequences.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

=================

The following report is read on the Crab News Channel:

Government officials in Cluichabad today announced the formation of the Norderian Board of Tourism. Its goal? To get as much of Cluichstan's criminal element to emigrate to Norderia. To that end, its first move has been to erect a billboard in West Cluichabad, where the crime rate is highest, that reads: "Wanna rape or murder someone? Visit beautiful Norderia! They won't kill you for your crimes like we will."

Good stuff. *chuckle* In sport, our own Cluichstan Crabs finished third in the NationStates baseball league in just its first year participating in international competition...

Send them all you like, we don't have to let them in.

Your voting against this non the less, so what is the point? If you are never going to vote for it.

The representative is offering constructive criticism. There will be maybe 5 people voting for this if it ever gets that far (which it won't). There are more than 5 people who are nice enough to offer suggestions to make it a proposal that doesn't stink of bovine diarrhea. If you'd just as soon only hear people telling you it sucks, that they won't vote for it, but give you nothing by way of improving it, then post it in General. They're under no compulsion to help.

Also, when telegram campaigning for a proposal, put something other than the entire text of the proposal without comment in the telegrams you send...

Your voting against this non the less, so what is the point? If you are never going to vote for it.

My aim is not to get exactly what I personally believe to be right, but what is actually right. With that in mind, assuming that the democratic system will arrive at that (and let's face it, it's more reliable than sticking my fingers in my ears and singing the "I'm Always Right" song), it is in my interests, then, that the proposal is in its best possible form, both so that it's less likely that an otherwise good proposal will be passed up because of a few flaws and so that if it does get passed despite my voting against, it will have the best possible results. If it doesn't get passed, nothing lost and perhaps the debate itself will have influenced people's thinking in a positive way.

Send them all you like, we don't have to let them in.


OOC: Ahh, the wonders of the illegal immigrant!

IC: Actually, the Great Star Empire would be enthused to take Cluichstan's criminals off their hands! As draconian as Cluichstan's criminal law may be, the Empire is even more so. We'll arrest them, torture them, and put them to work in a factory to earn their freedom.

Hard work never hurt anyone, and it'll teach them some lessons about life; mainly, "don't kill, rape, or steal, or you'll be tortured and sent to a forced labor camp."

We always make sure that our offenders are properly tried under Imperial law first. And, since we keep records of all citizens and criminals anyway, we can't see how this "Pedophile.com" would help in any way. Honestly, it's nothing more than a way to incite further violence.

Silly proposal. We won't support.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Ambassador to the UN
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda

OOC EDIT: And the bit about the baseball league is sorta true. My team did finish third in an all-NS fantasy league I set up. :cool:...out of three? :p

...out of three? :p

OOC: I think it was out of 12, if I remember correctly. Smartass. :p

Esteemed Delegates:

I was recently telegrammed in an effort to drum up support for the following proposal. I wanted to vent my spleen in this august forum when I discovered no thread had begun in regard to this proposal. I have therefore taken it upon myself to begin one.

The proposal in question:

Pedophillia Databank Act
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Ca Juana

Description: The U.N made a huge step when it passed Resolution #22 Outlaw Pedophilia. This resolution would also like to congradulate U.N efforts with regards to children. The resolution would like to increase children protection across U.N member states to ensure that Pedophilia will never occur in such states.

A criminal is defined as a person who would commit an act, wether it rape, robbery or murder because of the situation surrounding the person. Pedophilia or paedophilia (see spelling differences) is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent or peripubescent children. Persons with this attraction are called pedophiles. Pedophillia is different in the sense to a normal criminal since the person committing the crime is attracted to one thing, the thought of engaging in intercourse with a child.

Article 1:

The creation of a databank with U.N member states 'worst' pedophiles and keep them on record. This databank would be created by the use of Pedophile DNA through either a blood sample or a hair sample. U.N member states can collect this DNA by themselves and send this to the databank head office or allow a medical offical from the databank collect the DNA from the pedophile. The databank is to be created to deal with pedophiles that have actually committed a crime against children within U.N member states.

Article 2:

There will be a hierarchy of dangerous pedophiles ranging in three categories

Extremely Dangerous; these pedophiles are known to be sexually dangerous to children and will not or can not be changed from their thoughts. If they travel to another U.N member state local police state will be alerted.
Dangerous; These people do not take well to activities by local governments and could be a threat to children. At the U.N member state feeling they can alert the databank of these offenders and the databank would then notify other U.N members.
Low-risk: These are one time criminals or pedophiles that are locked away for a long time.

Article 3:

The databank can be accessed by certain people;

Government officials,
Police officers
and media

However these privledges can be removed if a U.N member state is using this information to target pedophiles even though they have not committed a crime.

Article 4:

The databank will be funded by voluntary U.N member state contributions as well as Non Government organizations.

Article 5:

This resolution urges all U.N members to allow databank officials to research into the cases that are brought to the databank if there seems to be evidence that supports that these are 'wrongful convictions' or political motivated cases. Database officials would be able to look at evidence presented to the courts with regards to these certain cases. The databank officials would be able to interview the defendent and others if they so desire to. After careful review the databank officials will then decide if they proceed with adding the individual to the databank or if the evidence presented shows 'unequivocally' that the person is innocent. The U.N member state will then decide what to do with the person after, however if they are ruled innocent, they would not be added to the databank.


The debate, as far as I go (there are likely more ways to object or support this), is one of why, as well as the slippery slope argument. Is there no international database for criminals already? And if it's legal in some nations (as a result of the several nations' Departments of Creative Solutions), where's the validity in a database?

And if it's pedophiles today -- which means, by strict definition, people who have committed no actual crime unless some nations' legal onus is "guilty until proven innocent" or "guilty by thought/fantasy" -- who's next? Alcoholics? Libertarians? Collegiate athletes from Florida? Who?

Attempting a telegram campaign without subjecting the proposal seems shady to me -- though it may be perfectly normal...I'm never sure how it works. Let's shed some light on this proposal and see if it, as a vessel, holds water.

Magister Jubal Harshaw
Minister Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

*clears throat*
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503844

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No.

Oulawing pedophilia, fine. Giving the UN unfettered access and unnecessary detail of our judicial systems is not.

As the Flibbleite Delegate so deftly pointed out, there was a thread on this proposal. I apologize to the Assembly -- but there was no thread to post in when I received the telegram from the proposal's author. The original thread must have dropped off the forum from lack of posts. I'm willing to bet there was a URL in the telegram (thus allowing me to see the thread even after it had been dropped from the UN thread bin) and I missed it.

As the Flibbleite Delegate so deftly pointed out, there was a thread on this proposal. I apologize to the Assembly -- but there was no thread to post in when I received the telegram from the proposal's author. The original thread must have dropped off the forum from lack of posts. I'm willing to bet there was a URL in the telegram (thus allowing me to see the thread even after it had been dropped from the UN thread bin) and I missed it.

There's a drop down box at the bottom of the forum. Lengthen the distance back in time you want the threads to be available.

I'm willing to bet there was a URL in the telegram (thus allowing me to see the thread even after it had been dropped from the UN thread bin) and I missed it.
There wasn't if you got the same telegram I got. The entire text of the one I got consisted of the text of the resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Even before get started see problems here with this.

The databank can be accessed by certain people;
Government officials,
Police officers
and media
I question just which government officials might get into this, can see police officers getting in, but MEDIA never going to happen here in my nation.
Even if this below applies
However these privledges can be removed if a U.N member state is using this information to target pedophiles even though they have not committed a crime.Here you have labeled them a PEDOPHILE and then say they are not one... since they didn't as per statement do the crime. Thus a big problem.. they are guilty before they do the crime and have been charged or tried and found guilty of it. Thus the problem of MEDIA getting into the data base...


Remember to be accused is one thing; to be charged is not the same.. Anyone can accuse a person of something and it never come to charges against them. Thus should the MEDIA get into it they become guilty before and actions can be taken.

There's a drop down box at the bottom of the forum. Lengthen the distance back in time you want the threads to be available.

Or set it permanently in User CP / Edit Options.

(Oh, merged too)

Or set it permanently in User CP / Edit Options.

(Oh, merged too)

I thank the Assembly (and specifically Norderia, Fris, Flibble) for their assistance. I shall immediately alter my courier's stale date in order to ensure this doesn't happen again.

In reference to this proposal, I am uncomfortable with the absence of delineation between fantasy and crime, and the recent posts regarding media access to such a database would make that delineation incredibly necessary. And even if the greatest care was taken to ensure that people who had not committed any crime were not "blacklisted" on to this database, the slightest breath of a possible listing leaked to any unscrupulous media outlet (and some would ask if there were any other kind of media outlet) could conceivably ruin the lives of any person who ran afou of the list...whether or not they ran afoul as a result of criminal activity...or a vendetta by someone in charge of the database.

I hereby repeat my vehement opposition to this proposal.