NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Treatment of Inmates

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

[PASSED] Treatment of Inmates

Postby Moronist Decisions » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:07 am

Please vote for this proposal here

Human Rights, Significant.

RECOGNIZES that those detained by police and judicial authorities either while awaiting adjudication or investigation, or while serving a penal sentence, may be vulnerable to abuse.

WORRIES that those members of society who have been accused but not yet found guilty may be forced to endure worse treatment than those whose guilt has been determined.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

1. DEFINES:
  1. "detainee" as a person who is in custody while subjected to questioning, criminal proceedings and/or trial, but for whom either (a) a verdict has not yet been determined at a trial, or (b) whose guilt is determined but is awaiting a punishment to be pronounced.
  2. "convict" as a person who is serving a custodial sentence after guilt has been pronounced.

2. STIPULATES that all detainees must be presumed to be innocent until a formal verdict is determined at a trial.

3. REQUIRES all member nations to provide the following, at a minimum, to all detainees and convicts:
  1. Sufficient and appropriate living space.
  2. Regular access to physical activity.
  3. A diet sufficient to sustain life.
  4. Appropriate clothing for extant environmental conditions as deemed necessary for the inmate.
  5. Prevention of abuse, with the proviso that effects that are directly due to the loss of freedom, such as isolation, shall not be considered abuse.
  6. Access to correspondence and visitation with consenting family members and friends from the outside community on a regular, reasonably frequent basis, in a manner consistent with the safety and security of the institution, institutional staff and inmates.

4. PERMITS member nations to temporarily suspend the services detailed in clauses 3b and 3f above for a reasonably short period of time, as punishment for misbehavior after a reasonable judgment is made.

5. MANDATES that member nations shall each establish national standards jointly with the World Assembly Commission on Human Rights for all services listed in clause 3 above, and further requires member nations to meet or exceed such standards.

6. ALLOWS member nations to monitor inmates who are taking advantage of the services above in order to maintain institutional security and order, except as otherwise regulated by extant or future international law.

7. OBLIGATES all nations to additionally provide all detainees with:
  1. Conditions, privileges, and rights that are no worse than those accorded to convicts who pose a similar risk to institutional safety and security.
  2. Notification of the reason for their detention.
  3. Access to legal documentation relevant to their trial, in a form accessible to the detainee.
  4. The right to prepare for their own defense.

8. OBLIGES member nations to provide oversight of convict and detainee care beyond that exercised by the direct management of the correctional institution

9. GRANTS all detainees and convicts the right to have appeals of conditions of detainment heard by oversight institutions specified in clause 8.

10. FORBIDS member nations from arranging to house their detainees and/or convicts at facilities in outside nations for the purposes of evading compliance with this resolution.
Last edited by Frisbeeteria on Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:46 am, edited 65 times in total.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Eternal Yerushalayim
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5087
Founded: Mar 14, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eternal Yerushalayim » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:14 am

Recalling your reply to my other thread, I think that most nations are reasonable enough not to suspend inmates' rights based on questionable reasons. Also,

The right to be protected from physical and mental abusefrom any sapient being or organization, or the state, for whatever reason.


Reducing the length of the sentence. :p
"The trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."-Margaret Thatcher
"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe. " -Saint Augustine
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."-Albert Einstein
"The first and simplest emotion which we discover in the human mind, is curiosity." -Edmund Burke

User avatar
Aeolic
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: May 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Aeolic » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:31 am

Ambassador of Aeolic strolls in with an unbeknowest face.

The Council of Aeolic declines this proposal as the price to pay for these convictes are to high. They already cost alot of money and buying do this we will be hurting the taxpayers.
"We are the Keepers of the Wind"

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14436
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:02 am

Out of curiosity, does solitary confinement count as psychological mistreatment? If so, we cannot support this, although we see no issues with the rest of the proposal. Just that one issue to hang us up.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Southern Cynocephali
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 436
Founded: Apr 28, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Southern Cynocephali » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:20 am

B/5. The right to correspond and meet with family member and friends in the outside community on a regular basis.


I think this is ambiguous, does it mean that inmates have a right to meet with family and friends outside of the prison facility? It could be interpreted that way. Perhaps it should read;

5. The right to correspond and meet with family member and friends from the outside community on a regular basis.
Last edited by Southern Cynocephali on Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Demonyms: Cynoceph (pref.), Cynocephalian, Cyno

Nation on NSWiki
SC Sportswire
APEX Tyres

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:27 am

Separatist Peoples wrote:Out of curiosity, does solitary confinement count as psychological mistreatment? If so, we cannot support this, although we see no issues with the rest of the proposal. Just that one issue to hang us up.


We don't in general - hadn't even thought about that. Between us, we'd encourage you to send a shrink in from time to time to make sure that they aren't going crazy from sensory deprivation, but we'd like to also seek other delegations' opinions. Thanks!

I think this is ambiguous, does it mean that inmates have a right to meet with family and friends outside of the prison facility? It could be interpreted that way. Perhaps it should read;

5. The right to correspond and meet with family member and friends from the outside community on a regular basis.


Sure - will change that. Thanks!
Last edited by Moronist Decisions on Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Droskianishk
Envoy
 
Posts: 201
Founded: Dec 13, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Droskianishk » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:42 am

While we support the idea behind this resolution, we believe this is micromanagement into the matters of nations especially those nations which have privatized their prison systems. We would support an act specifically protecting inmates of foreign origin (Prisoners of War, those awaiting extradition, etc.).

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:21 am

I like this. An enourmous improvement over that piece of crappe known as "For the Detained and Convicted"!

Yours in betterment of law,
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Aetrina
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 184
Founded: Jun 11, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Aetrina » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:00 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:Out of curiosity, does solitary confinement count as psychological mistreatment? If so, we cannot support this, although we see no issues with the rest of the proposal. Just that one issue to hang us up.


We don't in general - hadn't even thought about that. Between us, we'd encourage you to send a shrink in from time to time to make sure that they aren't going crazy from sensory deprivation, but we'd like to also seek other delegations' opinions. Thanks!

I think this is ambiguous, does it mean that inmates have a right to meet with family and friends outside of the prison facility? It could be interpreted that way. Perhaps it should read;

5. The right to correspond and meet with family member and friends from the outside community on a regular basis.


Sure - will change that. Thanks!


Solitary confinement in most institutions can last for years. It is also inefficient and costly to provide for mental health professionals for a problem that cannot be readily fixed in this setting. The exercise clause is a area of great concern for the Kingdom of Aetrina as our prisoners get plenty of "exercise" working around the facilities. Even those in solitary confinement are allowed 30 minutes a day of "exercise" As far as "The Right to correspond and meet with family members and friends from the outside community on a regular basis" This like everything else in a correctional setting is a "privilege" one that can and should be denied when ever the administration of a facility sees the need.
Eist wrote:Nice! Wait. Am I the knight or the unicorn?
I think the joke would be less effective if you were the unicorn.
Andrew Delling Ambassador of Aetrina
Proud member of The Kingdom Of Aetrina

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 14436
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:11 pm

Aetrina wrote:
Moronist Decisions wrote:
We don't in general - hadn't even thought about that. Between us, we'd encourage you to send a shrink in from time to time to make sure that they aren't going crazy from sensory deprivation, but we'd like to also seek other delegations' opinions. Thanks!



Sure - will change that. Thanks!


Solitary confinement in most institutions can last for years. It is also inefficient and costly to provide for mental health professionals for a problem that cannot be readily fixed in this setting. The exercise clause is a area of great concern for the Kingdom of Aetrina as our prisoners get plenty of "exercise" working around the facilities. Even those in solitary confinement are allowed 30 minutes a day of "exercise" As far as "The Right to correspond and meet with family members and friends from the outside community on a regular basis" This like everything else in a correctional setting is a "privilege" one that can and should be denied when ever the administration of a facility sees the need.



I would say that a blanket ban on visitation is the result of leniency on this. I would say that allowing for visitation to be revoked as a punishment, but not as a standing order would be a good point to clarify if this becomes an issue with other nations. However, I suppose the best option is to just leave that nuance to the nations to decide.

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat,
Authority on All Existence,
Globalist Dog,
Dark Psychic Vampire, and
Chief Populist Elitist!


User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:25 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:This will only be submitted if "For the Detained and Convicted" is repealed

TREATMENT OF INMATES
Human Rights, Significant

RECOGNIZING that those detained judicially are vulnerable to abuse from other inmates and

APPALLED that those members of society not yet judged guilty are often treated worse than those for whom guilt has been determined.

How so? This makes assumptions about a nations penal system and their judicial process.
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY

A. DEFINES
1. “detainee” as a sapient being who has been arrested but who is awaiting trial, and who has not been sentenced.
2. “convict” as a sapient being who is serving a custodial sentence after guilt is pronounced.
3. “inmate” to refer to both detainees and convicts.

B. REQUIRES all nations to provide, at a minimum, the following rights and services to all inmates:
1. The right to sufficient living space.

Hum, difficult to measure, but I do take the point.
2. The right to regular access to physical exercise in fresh air.

Tricky. Some individuals are too unstable to be allowed outside, especially those with a propensity for escape.
3. Access to psychological and medical services necessary to sustain life.
4. The right to a diet deemed sufficient by medical personnel to sustain life.

Ah, now this is quite a challenge. If I put someone on an all pork diet and they are Muslim or Jewish, I think people might frown at me. Likewise I could put someone on a blended slop that has the perfect blend of nutrients. It might be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
I'll have to go looking to see if these are already dealt with elsewhere.
5. The right to correspond and meet with family member and friends from the outside community on a regular basis.
6. The right to be protected from physical and mental abuse for whatever reason.

Locking someone up in a cell for 23 hours can be considered mental abuse.
Not sure how you can deal with this other than trying to reword it so that it distinguishes between the mental trauma of loss of freedom versus the mental trauma of being psychologically tortured.
It's a fine line on the mental, but I'm with you on the physical.

C. REQUIRES all nations to provide to all detainees, in addition,
1. The right to be treated no worse than the convicted judged to be of similar security risk.

convicted judged?
Perhaps: The right to be treated no worse than those convicted of crimes that are judged to be of similar security risk

2. The right to access legal documentation and references relevant to their trial.

Tricky but I understand why you want this. Difficult to establish a full law library and give them free access to it.
3. The right to prepare for their own defense.

No right to contact legal counsel as reasonable during working hours or some such? Perhaps this is protected elsewhere.
D. ENCOURAGES nations to avoid prolonged detention of detainees pending trial.

E. ALLOWS nations to suspend the rights listed in Part B temporarily when natural or other situations beyond the control of the institution prevent the provision of such services and/or rights, under the following conditions.
1. Requires all nations to take steps to avoid the suspension of rights, and to minimize their length, as far as practicable.
2. Rights may not be suspended if the conditions are caused by institutional neglect and/or misconduct.
3. Only rights that cannot be reasonably provided may be suspended during emergencies.
4. Rights must be resumed when there is a possibility that the permanent health of inmates is harmed.
5. All possible efforts must be made to mitigate the effects of such suspensions, and shall restore such rights as soon as practicable.
6. Qualified medical and psychological personnel must assess and coordinate the remediation of the effects on inmates caused by such a suspension.
7. All such suspensions shall be reported to the International Criminal Court, which shall monitor the application of the emergency powers granted under this clause. The ICC is empowered to order the rescission of such a suspension when it is apparent that such an action is no longer justified.

Seriously? They'll never cope. That's going to be thousands of notifications a day.
Consider the world population of just WA members. If just 1 percent of each nation is in jail, and .01% of those end up in Admin Seg, you'll have an office that is downing in paper.


E. ALLOWS member nations to temporarily suspend the right to meet with family members and other members of the community except as provided for under previous legislation if an inmate is judged to have misbehaved.

F. CLARIFIES that these rights are in addition to all rights otherwise guaranteed by previous legislation.

G. DECLARES that member states shall have full authority to determine the right of the detained and convicted to civil rights not otherwise guaranteed.


Key changes from the existing resolution:

- Requirement that detainees have at least the same rights and conditions as those who are convicted.
- Allowance (under tight conditions) for rights to be suspended during serious calamities (e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes ...) - when basically it's impossible to do otherwise.
- All inmates should now be protected against all physical and mental abuse.

Issues to be resolved:

- How should the emergency suspension right be phrased/limited? This needs to be so tight that it's not just "hey, someone escaped, let's lock everyone down for five years" type of thing. It's like: we have a hurricane, all the other housing units are completely flooded. Sorry, but you will have to squeeze into the housing units we currently have.
- I haven't decided on exercise yet. Most RL jurisdictions do allow some exercise even when under disciplinary detention.

Opinions?


I have to do more reading to see if I am missing some previously declared legislation. My biggest concern is with the paper mountain caused by people being put in Admin. Seg. I guess the concept is that the Court can cope with any amount of data flowing in to it and that it can cope with reviewing all of that data.


I am reading this without referring back to the prior legislation mentioned in the OP. Even if I'm objecting to stuff that has previously passed, I still want my objection lodged on this proposal.

Cermon T. Dawg
Secundus of the 24th Day Dawgists.
Voice of the House of Cerberion

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:09 pm

To clarify:

I have to do more reading to see if I am missing some previously declared legislation. My biggest concern is with the paper mountain caused by people being put in Admin. Seg. I guess the concept is that the Court can cope with any amount of data flowing in to it and that it can cope with reviewing all of that data.


Ad seg has no paperwork requirement (other than for someone to determine they have misbehaved). The only paperwork requirement is suspension of basic rights due to exigent circumstances.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Scandavian States
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Scandavian States » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:13 pm

[Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this become a House of Cards violation since it refers to the ICC? Unless I'm mistaken and the ICC was formed in WA Resolution #1. It would be better to create a committee to monitor this kind of thing to rectify the situation provided I am correct. Also, the bulk of the wording seems to suggest moderate strength, but a couple phrases within the resolution seem to suggest significant strength. Other than that, I'm not opposed to this resolution on an ideological level and would probably support it if those two issues were clarified.]

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:39 pm

Scandavian States wrote:[Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this become a House of Cards violation since it refers to the ICC? Unless I'm mistaken and the ICC was formed in WA Resolution #1. It would be better to create a committee to monitor this kind of thing to rectify the situation provided I am correct. Also, the bulk of the wording seems to suggest moderate strength, but a couple phrases within the resolution seem to suggest significant strength. Other than that, I'm not opposed to this resolution on an ideological level and would probably support it if those two issues were clarified.]

The ICC is basically a committee and giving existing committees additional jobs is fine.

User avatar
Aeolic
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: May 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Aeolic » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:57 pm

The payment for this plan would hurt taxpayers..
"We are the Keepers of the Wind"

User avatar
Scandavian States
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Scandavian States » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:07 pm

[So, even if the resolution that created the committee is thrown out, the committee lives? LOL, that's actually believable, since bureaucracies are more resilient than a hydra.]

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:34 pm

Moronist Decisions wrote:To clarify:

I have to do more reading to see if I am missing some previously declared legislation. My biggest concern is with the paper mountain caused by people being put in Admin. Seg. I guess the concept is that the Court can cope with any amount of data flowing in to it and that it can cope with reviewing all of that data.


Ad seg has no paperwork requirement (other than for someone to determine they have misbehaved). The only paperwork requirement is suspension of basic rights due to exigent circumstances.


I suppose, Admin Seg in my prisons automatically suspends the rights of visitation, outdoor exercise, and so on and so forth.
But if you are saying that's fine because they've been naughty so I don't need it reviewed then we're fine.

User avatar
Snefaldia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Dec 05, 2006
Father Knows Best State

Postby Snefaldia » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:23 pm

The States-Federation feels that the definition of a detainee is not correct. We suggest the following:

1. "detainee" as a sapient being who is in custody for criminal proceedings or trial, but is unconvicted.


We draw this distinction, as it most cases there is a vast difference between being sentenced, where a punishment is meted by a judicial body, and a conviction, whereby guilt is attached by said body. We must also draw a distinction between arrest, in which a suspect is found and brought into custody, and custody itself, where said suspect is held. In some countries, arrested parties may not be immediately taken into custody, just as the legal process may allow for detention first, and then formal charging with crime. We feel that our definition avoids these inconsistencies and remains harmonized with the rest of the text.

Dr. Nëmô Kassäty Taranton
Minister of WA Affairs
States-Federation of Snefaldia
Welcome to Snefaldia!

Ideological Bulwark #68

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:56 am

OOC: just so you know, I'm not deliberately ignoring anyone - I'll get back to these in the next couple of days. The comments look good and I'll take them into account for sure. I don't really want to write something that coddles inmates, but certainly is intended to make sure that we don't build a Kalashi prison. Keep them coming!!

IC: These are the general notes I'm building up for the next draft

Eternal Yerushalayim wrote:Recalling your reply to my other thread, I think that most nations are reasonable enough not to suspend inmates' rights based on questionable reasons. Also,

The right to be protected from physical and mental abusefrom any sapient being or organization, or the state, for whatever reason.


Reducing the length of the sentence. :p


Second part done. Unfortunately, nations like Kalaspia-Shimarata exist where prisoners are, to this day, subjected to regular acid burns, electric shocks, and are not fed sufficient food to maintain health.

- I will respond to the issue of exercise. The idea - which is one held by most RL penal systems - is that prisoners should be allowed to get some fresh air. I personally would not agree with allowing an inmate to be in a small room forever - but I agree that limiting outside time is a reasonable punishment. This exercise could be in a cage, and from my perspective, it can be structured. I will need to figure something out there - a compromise that works. Any suggestions would be welcome.

- I will address the AdSeg/solitary confinement issue with a CLARIFIES clause. It will take the form of permitting solitary confinement provided that their rights under A1-A6 are not otherwise violated, and that their condition is regularly monitored by staff (could be the guards who bring food). How does that sound?

Droskianishk wrote:While we support the idea behind this resolution, we believe this is micromanagement into the matters of nations especially those nations which have privatized their prison systems. We would support an act specifically protecting inmates of foreign origin (Prisoners of War, those awaiting extradition, etc.).


The rights of prisoners and extradition rights are already covered under previous legislation. As for the rest - I hope to find a way to establish some basic rights without intruding too far into the penal system of any nation, or to cost too much money for any nation.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Flibbleites
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 6569
Founded: Jan 02, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Flibbleites » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:18 am

Scandavian States wrote:[So, even if the resolution that created the committee is thrown out, the committee lives? LOL, that's actually believable, since bureaucracies are more resilient than a hydra.]

Pretty much, the only way to completely eliminate a committee is to repeal every resolution that uses it.

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:29 am

- I will address the AdSeg/solitary confinement issue with a CLARIFIES clause. It will take the form of permitting solitary confinement provided that their rights under A1-A6 are not otherwise violated, and that their condition is regularly monitored by staff (could be the guards who bring food). How does that sound?


Sounds okay. Will reserve judgment until it's in place though :)

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18642
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:30 am

2. The right to regular access to physical exercise in fresh air.

What about inmates from any species for whom this would actually be hazardous in itself? 'Water-breathers', for example...
For that matter, what about inmates in any facilities that are located in places where the local fresh air is at potentially-harmful temperatures?


5. The right to correspond and meet with family member and friends from the outside community on a regular basis.

Whether those family members and friends like it or not? I suggest changing the wording so that they are allowed "to recieve visitors". Incidentally, would it still be okay for prison staff to monitor any correspondance and conversations involved so that [for example] detainees couldn't get away with telling friends about the whereabouts of potential evidence that needs to vanish before they come to trial, or so that [for another example] 'organised crime' bosses couldn't continue to run their operations from behind bars by passing instructions in these ways?


F. CLARIFIES that these rights are in addition to all rights otherwise guaranteed by previous legislation.

Replacing the "all" with "any" would probably sound less like a 'House of cards', I think... and shouldn't that only be "previous legislation that is still in force"?


(Not sure about actually supporting this, owing to general NatSov policies and a dislike of WA attempts at micro-management... but it doesn't seem to require anything that Bears Armed doesn't already do anyhows...)
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:33 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Revisions to Draft v1

Postby Moronist Decisions » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:44 am

The following have been implemented; the last draft is in the OP.

    First sentence - incomplete sentence fixed.
    Snefaldia's definition of detainee has been used.
    Solitary confinement is now covered as
    E. CLARIFIES that nations may place inmates in solitary confinement provided that rights guaranteed under Sections B and C are not otherwise violated, and that their condition is monitored regularly.

    The exercise clause has been replaced with
    2. The right to regular access to physical activity in fresh air.


    Therefore, as long as there is some form of physical activity in fresh air, that would be fine. It can be structured walks as described by Cerberion.

As for the comment

No right to contact legal counsel as reasonable during working hours or some such? Perhaps this is protected elsewhere.


Covered under Fair Criminal Trial.

Cerberion:
- I didn't want to micromanage what is meant by "sufficient living space". Weasels would require much less space than a human, and a nation of T rex would require a much larger confinement unit than a nation of humans.
- Regarding
Ah, now this is quite a challenge. If I put someone on an all pork diet and they are Muslim or Jewish, I think people might frown at me. Likewise I could put someone on a blended slop that has the perfect blend of nutrients. It might be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
I'll have to go looking to see if these are already dealt with elsewhere.


it's meant to be just that it sustains life. Unless eating blended slop is considered physical abuse in your nation, then you're fine. As for the all pork diet ... that's beyond the scope (at this point) of this particular document, and if your nutritionist/doctor thinks that it's sufficient for sustaining life, it's fine. I would, however, be willing to add a religious clause if you believe it's fine.

Not sure how you can deal with this other than trying to reword it so that it distinguishes between the mental trauma of loss of freedom versus the mental trauma of being psychologically tortured.


How about ...

6. The right to be protected from physical and metal abuse, except those effects inherent in the loss of freedom.


- As for
The right to be treated no worse than those convicted of crimes that are judged to be of similar security risk


It's not just the crime that matters. Security risk depends also on their prior behavior in the facility, their criminal history, roots in the community, and their age. I do get your point though

How about

1. The right to be treated no worse than the convicted who are deemed to pose a similar risk to institutional safety and security.


I also changed the last clause to clarify that all conditions and rights can be modified by you as long as WA resolutions are not disallowed. What I don't want this to be would be a blocker to any potential replacement for "Fair Criminal Trial", though.

I am also considering devolving the reporting power for emergencies to nations, provided that such a review organization is independent of the institution itself.

--added on preview--

BA: Good points ...

What about inmates from any species for whom this would actually be hazardous in itself? 'Water-breathers', for example...
For that matter, what about inmates in any facilities that are located in places where the local fresh air is at potentially-harmful temperatures?


Edited clause to include: "unless deemed harmful by medical personnel". This also covers cases where they need to be in bed rest.

Whether those family members and friends like it or not?

I added "consenting" - we still want there to be a right to write letters in general. That said, visits can also be harmful - and generally are more harmful to institutional security. Also, added a new clause

C. ALLOWS nations, notwithstanding the previous provisions, to review and limit correspondence to those that are not detrimental to safety and security.


As for the last substantive point, already fixed as part of a broader edit.

Thanks, everyone!
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Cerberion
Diplomat
 
Posts: 993
Founded: Apr 22, 2010
Corporate Police State

Postby Cerberion » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:19 am

Moronist Decisions wrote:*snip*
Thanks, everyone!



Thanks for throughly addressing my concerns. I really appreciate it when an author takes such pains to be accomodating to other nation's view points.

I'll read the new draft later on today.

C.

User avatar
FreeWillToAll
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jun 17, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby FreeWillToAll » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:02 pm

Could we add the right to a speedy trial? and encourage a public defender service?

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads