by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics




by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. . 42 reads.

GA Recommendation Archive: Vote AGAINST 'Crime Victims' Rights Act' | OWL


Crime Victims' Rights Act



Discussion Links:

Forum thread
LinkTSP Discord


OWL recommends voting  AGAINST  the at-vote resolution, "Crime Victims' Rights Act". The Delegate has been asked to cast their vote accordingly.

Please find below the Office's Analysis for an examination of the resolution and the reasons for the final recommendation.

The Office's Analysis

A well-intentioned attempt to replace a resolution that was repealed a long time ago, the at-vote resolution "Crime Victims' Rights Act" seeks to offer protection for victims of violent crimes as well as grant them certain rights during criminal proceedings to have their story heard. However, there are a number of wording-related issues present in the current version of the proposal which render it unsupportable.
Firstly, the provided definitions are severely lacking ‒ e.g. defining "the accused" to have committed an offense against the victim in a related case (rather than the actual one that is being prosecuted) or that they have committed the crime "recently" (thereby excluding criminals who could only be apprehended after a significant amount of time) doesn't actually cover all relevant cases for the resolution, harming its effectiveness; furthermore, excluding those who are charged with "another crime that occurred as a result from the same occurrence or incident" from the definition of "crime victim" could rob victims of important rights in nations which do not recognize states of self-defense. Concerningly, the definitions also very closely resemble those of GA#247 "Rights of Crime Victims", seemingly without having the appropriate permission obtained.
Additional concerns from the operative text of the proposal include that clause 1(c) doesn't prohibit the accused from contacting the victim indirectly ‒ even against their wishes ‒ which voids this directive of any effective protection for the victim, and clause 1(a)'s way too broad mandate that the victim has the right to be tested for serious illnesses they "may have been exposed to during the act of the crime" ‒ neither a reference to the actual likelihood of such infection nor a limitation that the illness be carried by the attacker is made, thus leaving the scope of this clause so wide that effectively any crime victim has the right to be tested, since an uninvolved passer-by at the crime scene may have carried a serious illness.

Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Crime Victims' Rights Act".