[Revived, DRAFT] Ex-Convict Enfranchisement

[Separatist Peoples]

Not all prisons are about rehabilitation- some particularly ineffective governments (that we heard a lot from back when the WA tried multiple times to pass prison reform) just like to punish and release and hope for the best.

"You say that as if it doesn't work, and yet the C.D.S.P. has a pretty low rate of return criminals for having an almost entirely isolative/punitive system. Must be the Foreign Legion Reformation Program we run..."

[Hakio]

It may need some rewriting but the purpose of the law here, I would call commendable. We support this legislation or in theory something like this drafted resolution.

[Araraukar]

Ex-convicts, even non-violent ones, are sometimes disqualified from, for example, holding certain jobs (such as teaching children or dispensing controlled substances), entering certain financial agreements, owning certain firearms, enlisting in the military, or being licensed to practise medicine or law.

That, then, is an inequality issue in that particular nation, and unless a compelling reason for the inequality exists - a drug addict as a dispenser of controlled substances, or pedophile as child councelor would be compelling enough - rather than simply the fact that someone's done prison time, I would count it as violation of the CoCR.

The Charter of Civil Rights is not a wrecking ball that demolishes every form of distinction between every person in the world.

No, but if a person is not deemed "civilization worthy" because of their criminal past, they should remain in prison until they are. And if they are released because they are no longer deemed a danger to others or the society, they should not be discriminated against anymore.

and if it can be demonstrated that there is a compelling practical purpose in felony disenfranchisement, then that could equally be justified.

Yes. If.

But simply having been in prison should not, in a civilized society, count as justification.

If we were to wake up to find that all felony disenfranchisement laws everywhere had been abolished by the CoCR, that would be a little surprising.

OOC: Just like the ICC was apparently needless because everything was already legislated upon? Or that NEF isn't actually enforced as long as someone puts "concerned" in the preamble? More surprising things have happened recently, and this one at least makes sense to me.

Not all prisons are about rehabilitation
*snip*
just like to punish and release and hope for the best.

Yes, but if the person has been punished, then their debt to society will have been paid by that punishment, as in, their slate has been wiped clean. So past errors should no longer count as far as the society is concerned.

I have to say that it further amuses me that though Araraukar doesn't afford its citizens all of what the WA likes to call human rights, and that it's very likely many of our judicial system's punishment choices would be viewed "inhuman" by many here, I find myself defending equal treatment of people as per the WA legislation.

tl;dr If a nation's judicial system is lacking, that is that nation's issue. If their prison system is inefficient, they should rectify it. If they do not trust a person to vote in public elections just because they have been in prison in their past, then there's something really fucked up in that nation and they should deal with it as soon as possible. The CoCR protects equal treatment of ex-cons, unless compelling evidence of that particular person not being suitable in a particular case can be presented.

[Point Breeze]

OOC

If they [a nation] do not trust a person to vote in public elections just because they have been in prison in their past, then there's something really fucked up in that nation and they should deal with it as soon as possible

You said it, brother.

[Defwa]

Ex-convicts, even non-violent ones, are sometimes disqualified from, for example, holding certain jobs (such as teaching children or dispensing controlled substances), entering certain financial agreements, owning certain firearms, enlisting in the military, or being licensed to practise medicine or law.

That, then, is an inequality issue in that particular nation, and unless a compelling reason for the inequality exists - a drug addict as a dispenser of controlled substances, or pedophile as child councelor would be compelling enough - rather than simply the fact that someone's done prison time, I would count it as violation of the CoCR.

The Charter of Civil Rights is not a wrecking ball that demolishes every form of distinction between every person in the world.

No, but if a person is not deemed "civilization worthy" because of their criminal past, they should remain in prison until they are. And if they are released because they are no longer deemed a danger to others or the society, they should not be discriminated against anymore.

and if it can be demonstrated that there is a compelling practical purpose in felony disenfranchisement, then that could equally be justified.

Yes. If.

But simply having been in prison should not, in a civilized society, count as justification.

If we were to wake up to find that all felony disenfranchisement laws everywhere had been abolished by the CoCR, that would be a little surprising.

OOC: Just like the ICC was apparently needless because everything was already legislated upon? Or that NEF isn't actually enforced as long as someone puts "concerned" in the preamble? More surprising things have happened recently, and this one at least makes sense to me.

Not all prisons are about rehabilitation
*snip*
just like to punish and release and hope for the best.

Yes, but if the person has been punished, then their debt to society will have been paid by that punishment, as in, their slate has been wiped clean. So past errors should no longer count as far as the society is concerned.

I have to say that it further amuses me that though Araraukar doesn't afford its citizens all of what the WA likes to call human rights, and that it's very likely many of our judicial system's punishment choices would be viewed "inhuman" by many here, I find myself defending equal treatment of people as per the WA legislation.

tl;dr If a nation's judicial system is lacking, that is that nation's issue. If their prison system is inefficient, they should rectify it. If they do not trust a person to vote in public elections just because they have been in prison in their past, then there's something really fucked up in that nation and they should deal with it as soon as possible. The CoCR protects equal treatment of ex-cons, unless compelling evidence of that particular person not being suitable in a particular case can be presented.

They aren't being treated differently just because they were in jail- they have shown contempt for or refusal to participate in civilized society and could be said relinquished the benefits that civilized society offers.
The concept of paying a debt to society is not a universal one. Some may consider breaking laws to be something that can never be fixed and that the person may never be trusted again. But indefinite imprisonment is definitely not desirable.

I still contest it is a reasonable assumption to say that the above are valid reasons. Mind you, I'm not defending the action or the ineffective prison systems that semi justify it.

[Araraukar]

They aren't being treated differently just because they were in jail- they have shown contempt for or refusal to participate in civilized society and could be said relinquished the benefits that civilized society offers.

And have been punished for it/rehabilitated, depending on the system. Is that not why prisons exist?

Some may consider breaking laws to be something that can never be fixed and that the person may never be trusted again.

They can't be trusted to vote in a public election? Seriously? Please demonstrate to me how an ex-convict voting in a normal public election is a threat to society/stability of society?

But indefinite imprisonment is definitely not desirable.

Then kill them instead. It's more humane anyway.

[Point Breeze]

Some may consider breaking laws to be something that can never be fixed and that the person may never be trusted again.

They can't be trusted to vote in a public election? Seriously? Please demonstrate to me how an ex-convict voting in a normal public election is a threat to society/stability of society?

[grim sarcasm] When they vote for the wrong party/candidate. [/grim sarcasm]

[Normlpeople]

"Perhaps those opposed will be glad to know the way this is worded, they still won't have to give former convicts the vote. It only allows full voting rights IN government, not FOR government. Unless a former convict gains office, and nothing restricts nations from banning former convicts as candidates, there is no requirement to allow them a vote. "

[Lalaki]

They aren't being treated differently just because they were in jail- they have shown contempt for or refusal to participate in civilized society and could be said relinquished the benefits that civilized society offers.
The concept of paying a debt to society is not a universal one. Some may consider breaking laws to be something that can never be fixed and that the person may never be trusted again. But indefinite imprisonment is definitely not desirable.

Some societies do believe that the violation of the law is a permanent offense. That is exactly why I authored this resolution. So that ex-convicts who have had a legitimate change of heart and now want to help can overcome fear and prejudice. People do change. This should be a universal concept.

[Araraukar]

Some societies do believe that the violation of the law is a permanent offense.

Those societies need to get their heads out of their asses and either deal with the lawbreakers in a permanent manner that means there's no chance of recurrence, or stop breaking WA's anti-discrimination laws.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

My opinion on the category is Furtherment of Democracy, Significant.

This is actually quite a strong reform because denying votes to former offenders is quite a widespread practice in many countries to same extent.

I assume this applies to people who have been released, even though Minoa allows most prisoners to vote.

Can you clarify on those convicted of electoral fraud?

Thank you.

[Lalaki]

My opinion on the category is Furtherment of Democracy, Significant.

This is actually quite a strong reform because denying votes to former offenders is quite a widespread practice in many countries to same extent.

I assume this applies to people who have been released, even though Minoa allows most prisoners to vote.

Can you clarify on those convicted of electoral fraud?

Thank you.

What is Minoa's position on convicts accused of electoral fraud?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

My opinion on the category is Furtherment of Democracy, Significant.

This is actually quite a strong reform because denying votes to former offenders is quite a widespread practice in many countries to same extent.

I assume this applies to people who have been released, even though Minoa allows most prisoners to vote.

Can you clarify on those convicted of electoral fraud?

Thank you.

What is Minoa's position on convicts accused of electoral fraud?

Anyone who is convicted of wilful electoral fraud (as in offences to compromise the fairness of an election) may be, by the discretion of the court and conditional on the severity of the offence, disqualified from the electoral process for up to five years.

We see lifetime disqualification as an absolute no-no.

[Bananaistan]

HEREBY requires all member nations that hold elections for public offices and positions to treat all adult former convicts equally, granting them full voting rights in government.

............

AND URGES all democratic member nations to not pass extra regulations for public elections that make it harder for ex-convicts to vote for public officials and laws.

We have major problems with these two clauses. Looking at the active clause "... treat all adult former convicts equally,", equally with whom? As this stands it means each other. Which is a crazy idea. I mean the shoplifter given a small fine is equal to the multiple rapist? Really?

The next part of that clause also causes us grave concerns. "Granting them full voting rights in government"! So the convicted shoplifter and rapist I previously referred to can now rock up to executive meetings, gain entrance and vote! Or into parliament.

The last clause seems to contradict the mandates clause.

We are utterly opposed to this. Any member nation of this fine assembly that is already a democracy, will certainly be a reasonable nation. If any such reasonable nation wishes to impose restrictions on the voting rights of ex-cons, then they will have reasonable reasons to do so, such as the example of the person convicted of voting fraud.

We would also question whether this would be legally enforceable in any member state in any case. Or at least that it would be very easily loopholed by any country wishing to do so. A sentence handed down by a court extends far beyond solely custodial sentences. For example, the rapist may be sentenced to X many years in jail with Y suspended. They end up released on good behaviour after serving Z years. However as part of the sentence they are to be placed on the sex offenders register for life and are required to sign in at a police station at regular intervals. Fair and reasonable depending on the severity of the crime.

Now, we can see no reason why a reasonable nation by law could not do something similar in restricting a convicts right to vote for a period of time or for life, once this was said and done by the judge at the time of sentencing, as part of sentencing, and in accordance with the punishment set down by law for the crime of which the convict was found guilty. The restriction on voting is a part of the sentence. And the convict essentially remains a convict until such time as all restrictions are lifted and they are free to resume their lives like any other person.

We would also note that Bananaistan does not have any such laws in places restricting the rights of convicts to vote and, indeed, those currently incarcerated even get a postal vote. We're still opposed to this though.

[Wrapper]

I mean the shoplifter given a small fine is equal to the multiple racist? Really?

Ummm... being racist is a crime in Bananaistan? Being racist multiple times, doubly so? Please tell me this is a froodian slip, Ambassador.

[Bananaistan]

I mean the shoplifter given a small fine is equal to the multiple racist? Really?

Ummm... being racist is a crime in Bananaistan? Being racist multiple times, doubly so? Please tell me this is a froodian slip, Ambassador.

Yes sir, it was indeed a "froodian" slip.

[Lalaki]

What is Minoa's position on convicts accused of electoral fraud?

Anyone who is convicted of wilful electoral fraud (as in offences to compromise the fairness of an election) may be, by the discretion of the court and conditional on the severity of the offence, disqualified from the electoral process for up to five years.

We see lifetime disqualification as an absolute no-no.

That would most likely be struck down. However, a way to get around that is to pass restrictions on how people convicted of fraud can vote for a certain period of time. This would technically go against the very last clause of the resolution, but it is only an "URGES" clause, and is therefore not actionable.

[Lalaki]

Ummm... being racist is a crime in Bananaistan? Being racist multiple times, doubly so? Please tell me this is a froodian slip, Ambassador.

Yes sir, it was indeed a "froodian" slip.

The Community of Lalaki recommends that Bananaistan reads the first draft of the resolution, and also through the thread for background.

[Communist Victoria]

I'm kinda new to the WA, and i assume by debates defwa mentioned, i think he meant these.
Maybe the strength could be medium.
Anyway, I wish my resolutions could be this good!

[Point Breeze]

I'm kinda new to the WA, and i assume by debates defwa mentioned, i think he meant these.
Maybe the strength could be medium.
Anyway, I wish my resolutions could be this good!

These are in fact the debates she mentioned.

OOC: Also, just FYI, there's mild, significant, or strong strength. A case might be made for significant, but in my opinion mild is fine.

In time, grasshopper, all in good time! You're definitely on the right track. Keep it up and you'll be one of the "regulars" soon enough.

[Bananaistan]

Yes sir, it was indeed a "froodian" slip.

The Community of Lalaki recommends that Bananaistan reads the first draft of the resolution, and also through the thread for background.

What has the first draft or the background got to do with anything? I made fair comments on the current draft, you might address them instead of this just fob me off answer.

[Hirota]

HEREBY requires all member nations that hold elections for public offices and positions to treat all adult former convicts equally, granting them full voting rights in government.

There are multiple reasons why a citizen may not be eligable to vote, and conviction is only one of them.

For example, repatriated citizens may have to wait a period of time before becoming eligible to vote in some nations. I'd argue that if a citizen was to be convicted, yet released before that period of time expired, this legislation would arguably grant them eligibility before they would normally be granted that right.

A second example may be voting rights may only be granted if a citizen has completed a tour of duty in the armed forces (or to reference Starship troopers, completed a two year tour of duty in Federal Service).

You could argue that a true democracy wouldn't have these limitations, nonetheless, my government would be concerned that the democratic processes for some member states would be excessively limited by this legislation. If the World Assembly chooses to enforce legislation that goes beyond the question of voting eligibility for ex-cons would be determined by the will of it's member states.

I'm pretty certain that's not the intention, so I would urge a rewrite of this particular clause.

[Point Breeze]

I was pushing for such a clause earlier in the drafting. Something along the lines of "Voting rights will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unduly discriminate against felons"

Or something.

[Wrapper]

I was pushing for such a clause earlier in the drafting. Something along the lines of "Voting rights will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unduly discriminate against felons"

Or something.

How about: "Voting rights shall not be denied based solely on one's status as a parolee." Or something like that.

[Jarish Inyo]

Voting rights should not be extended to individuals still carrying out their sentence. A parolee is still carrying out their sentence.

There is a difference between an ex-convict and a parolee. The difference should be noted.