[PASSED] Medical Standards in Prisons

[Connopolis]

I'm also glad you'll be requesting it be pulled pending a redraft, as it could use some further work.

I do like this idea. Of course, I think that nations' criminal justice systems should focus more on rehabilitation and less on punishment and imprisonment anyway, but as long as people are being locked up in prison, they have the right to medical care.

Just a couple things that jumped out at me about the current version:

Correctional Facility as any government building whose purpose is to house criminals as punishment.

This is a pretty big loophole. Not only does it not apply to any nation that confined its prisoners somewhere other than a building as such, it also does not apply to any nation that uses private prisons, as it only applies to government buildings.

a) Employs two full time psychiatrists and two full time physicians; each of which working on separate shifts. The first working during the day, and the second during the night. At least one qualified psychiatrist and one qualified physician must be present in the medical ward at all times.

I don't generally complain about micromanagement, but this seems like excessive specificity.

b) Employs orderlies at a two to one ratio to ensure that prisoners are ensured medical attention at all times. At least one orderly for every two prisoners must be present in the medical ward at all times.

Does this mean that in a prison with 400 inmates, there must be present in the medical word at least 200 medical orderlies at all times? If that is what you mean, that's absurdly excessive. If it's not what you mean, then this clause desperately needs to be clarified.

c) Allows immediate access to anaesthesia, analgesics, and other such drugs to all prisoners.

This clause could do with the addition of "when medically necessary" or some such phrase. Otherwise, it means that all prisoners must, at all times, be able to access these drugs, whether they need them or not, whether they need any medical attention at all or not.

d) Provides and adequate number of sleeping quarters; enough to accommodate 35% of the correctional facility's residents.

This clause is confusing and needs to be reworked. It seems to say that prisons only need to have enough room to house 35% of the people they currently house, but that makes no sense. I get the feeling that your intent here is to say "no more than three to a cell." If so, this needs to be expressed much more clearly in the clause.

The number of people in a cell might not be the best way to measure how much space people have anyway. Three people in a 5 ft x 10 ft cell is a lot different than three people in a 15 ft x 30 ft cell. Perhaps specifying the minimum number of square feet per person would work better?

STIPULATING that capital punishment or State regulated executions by drugs be painless, effectively killing the accused quickly and painlessly.

Execution seems to be beyond the scope of the resolution. If you want to write a resolution saying that executions must be as humane and painless as possible, I suggest a separate resolution (for some reason, GAR112 doesn't do that). This particular clause would only apply to executions where death is caused by drugs, anyway. Other methods of execution could still be quite painful, so long as they didn't violate GAR9.

Thank you Quelesh, I've changed the draft accordingly. I would have never caught that "Correctional Facility" loophole if you hadn't pointed it out.

[Droskianishk]

Some various things worth mentioning; you ban 'sensory irritants', this is too broad as there are a variety of 'irritants' to various numbers of people, this could lead to lawsuits against the state based on 'smells' or 'sounds' which are common or natural to the prison and not intended to torture (suggest banning the use of irritants -for- torture). And secondly you only mention there must be 'adequate' medical treatment. What qualifies as 'adequate'? Doesn't that have to reflect on what ends are to be attained by medical treatment in prisons? If our prisons are to be holes for prisoners to rot in to the death then 'adequate' medical treatment could be laughing at them or throwing them in a more dank hole... or simply killing them since capital punishment is excluded from all of this.

Either way this is micromanagement; opposed.

[Connopolis]

Some various things worth mentioning; you ban 'sensory irritants', this is too broad as there are a variety of 'irritants' to various numbers of people, this could lead to lawsuits against the state based on 'smells' or 'sounds' which are common or natural to the prison and not intended to torture (suggest banning the use of irritants -for- torture). And secondly you only mention there must be 'adequate' medical treatment. What qualifies as 'adequate'? Doesn't that have to reflect on what ends are to be attained by medical treatment in prisons? If our prisons are to be holes for prisoners to rot in to the death then 'adequate' medical treatment could be laughing at them or throwing them in a more dank hole... or simply killing them since capital punishment is excluded from all of this.

Either way this is micromanagement; opposed.

This proposal no longer bans sensory irritants, as that's already been covered in prior resolutions. This now alters it scope to healthcare in correctional facilities. And I'm not judging you, or your country, but in what sense can adequate medical care be interpretted as throwing prisoners into a dark hole? Plus that also violates a prior resolution, the links of which are found earlier in this thread.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"Even taking it down for a redraft will not change the fact that medical standards for prisons are a national issue. Medical care is guaranteed to all Monikians regardless their incarceration status. Why should prisoners be singled out for special treatment? We cannot support this even after a serious redraft simply because it is not an international issue."

[Knootoss]

"Even taking it down for a redraft will not change the fact that medical standards for prisons are a national issue. Medical care is guaranteed to all Monikians regardless their incarceration status. Why should prisoners be singled out for special treatment? We cannot support this even after a serious redraft simply because it is not an international issue."

It is a Human Rights issue. However, all the stuff about employing x people should go.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Even taking it down for a redraft will not change the fact that medical standards for prisons are a national issue. Medical care is guaranteed to all Monikians regardless their incarceration status. Why should prisoners be singled out for special treatment? We cannot support this even after a serious redraft simply because it is not an international issue."

It is a Human Rights issue. However, all the stuff about employing x people should go.

QiHS already covers the incarcerated, though. Between that, For the Detained and Convicted, and, to an extent, Prevention of Torture, member states pretty much have a standard for the treatment of inmates. Why do we need any more then that?

[Knootoss]

That case is for the author to make.

[Connopolis]

"Even taking it down for a redraft will not change the fact that medical standards for prisons are a national issue. Medical care is guaranteed to all Monikians regardless their incarceration status. Why should prisoners be singled out for special treatment? We cannot support this even after a serious redraft simply because it is not an international issue."

It is a Human Rights issue. However, all the stuff about employing x people should go.

I tried to tune down on the micromanagement, so instead of: Employs x amount of so and so; one working during the day, one working during the night... etc., I've changed it to: Employs at least x amount of so and so... etc. I'm not sure if that's still too pushy.

[Separatist Peoples]

Still too micromanaging for my tastes. At least four trained medical experts on staff at all times is a lot, especially for high-security prisons that house less then one hundred prisoners.

Please leave this to individual nations. We all have to give our prisoners adequate healthcare as per QiHS, so this is already covered. Anything else to be done is just going to be more invasive then the WA needs to be in the internal affairs of national governments.

[Connopolis]

It is a Human Rights issue. However, all the stuff about employing x people should go.

QiHS already covers the incarcerated, though. Between that, For the Detained and Convicted, and, to an extent, Prevention of Torture, member states pretty much have a standard for the treatment of inmates. Why do we need any more then that?

For the Detained and Convicted, and Prevention of Tortue no longer apply. QiHS does grant universal healthcare, however, prisoners tend to have a higher mortality rate in most cases, therefore, they need more medical attention. You're not exempted, in any resolution, from keeping your prisoners in a dilapidated, pungent buildings, so long as you're not torturing them, they have adequate nourishment, and somewhere to sleep; all this does is grant them healthcare. I understand if your nation's prisons already have a functioning medical ward, or high standard of health care, therefore, you'd be exempt from the resolution because you've already met the criteria.

[Separatist Peoples]

QiHS already covers the incarcerated, though. Between that, For the Detained and Convicted, and, to an extent, Prevention of Torture, member states pretty much have a standard for the treatment of inmates. Why do we need any more then that?

For the Detained and Convicted, and Prevention of Tortue no longer apply. QiHS does grant universal healthcare, however, prisoners tend to have a higher mortality rate in most cases, therefore, they need more medical attention. You're not exempted, in any resolution, from keeping your prisoners in a dilapidated, pungent building, so long as you're not torturing them, they have adequate nourishment, and somewhere to sleep; all this does is grant them healthcare. I understand if your nation's prisons already have a functioning medical ward, or high standard of health care, therefore, you'd be exempt from the resolution because you've already met the criteria.

Just because there is a higher rate of injuries doesn't mean they require better healthcare then QiHS gives. They deserve the same as everybody else. You are arguing that they require more healthcare staff. If QiHS is being followed, then there is already enough medical staff on hand, as directed by the nations' correctional facilities departments. This is just an attempt to micromanage and standardize something that is already handled by the national government. And if QiHS is not being obeyed, what makes you think that the nation will pay attention to this resolution any more then QiHS?

[Connopolis]

For the Detained and Convicted, and Prevention of Tortue no longer apply. QiHS does grant universal healthcare, however, prisoners tend to have a higher mortality rate in most cases, therefore, they need more medical attention. You're not exempted, in any resolution, from keeping your prisoners in a dilapidated, pungent building, so long as you're not torturing them, they have adequate nourishment, and somewhere to sleep; all this does is grant them healthcare. I understand if your nation's prisons already have a functioning medical ward, or high standard of health care, therefore, you'd be exempt from the resolution because you've already met the criteria.

Just because there is a higher rate of injuries doesn't mean they require better healthcare then QiHS gives. They deserve the same as everybody else. You are arguing that they require more healthcare staff. If QiHS is being followed, then there is already enough medical staff on hand, as directed by the nations' correctional facilities departments. This is just an attempt to micromanage and standardize something that is already handled by the national government. And if QiHS is not being obeyed, what makes you think that the nation will pay attention to this resolution any more then QiHS?

So you're telling me that just because more people are injured doesn't mean that more medical care is required? And I don't think I mentioned anyone disobeyed QiHS anywhere in any of my posts, so if a nation ignore QiHS, they'll obviously ignore this resolution, or any resolution involving healthcare for that matter.

[Separatist Peoples]

Just because there is a higher rate of injuries doesn't mean they require better healthcare then QiHS gives. They deserve the same as everybody else. You are arguing that they require more healthcare staff. If QiHS is being followed, then there is already enough medical staff on hand, as directed by the nations' correctional facilities departments. This is just an attempt to micromanage and standardize something that is already handled by the national government. And if QiHS is not being obeyed, what makes you think that the nation will pay attention to this resolution any more then QiHS?

So you're telling me that just because more people are injured doesn't mean that more medical care is required? And I don't think I mentioned anyone disobeyed QiHS anywhere in any of my posts, so if a nation ignore QiHS, they'll obviously ignore this resolution, or any resolution involving healthcare for that matter.

In order for 'adequate' medical care to be made available to all people, it follows adequate medical care must exist in prisons, otherwise the healthcare is not available to all citizens. Adequate medical care in and of itself suggests that there are enough medical personnel with the required training to handle the usual needs of the facility. If there were not enough people, the healthcare would not be 'adequate'. Yes?

[Connopolis]

So you're telling me that just because more people are injured doesn't mean that more medical care is required? And I don't think I mentioned anyone disobeyed QiHS anywhere in any of my posts, so if a nation ignore QiHS, they'll obviously ignore this resolution, or any resolution involving healthcare for that matter.

In order for 'adequate' medical care to be made available to all people, it follows adequate medical care must exist in prisons, otherwise the healthcare is not available to all citizens. Adequate medical care in and of itself suggests that there are enough medical personnel with the required training to handle the usual needs of the facility. If there were not enough people, the healthcare would not be 'adequate'. Yes?

I agree, however, there's a loophole there. Adequate is not defined, therefore, if I find adequate healthcare as hiring a grocery store bagger to adminster analgesics, or anaesthesia in my hospitals (not that I do, nor should anybody), I can technically do that, if my government finds that adequate, can't I? I recognize QiHS as an extremely important resolution, and a basis for future healthcare resolutions, but it's extremely broad.

[Separatist Peoples]

In order for 'adequate' medical care to be made available to all people, it follows adequate medical care must exist in prisons, otherwise the healthcare is not available to all citizens. Adequate medical care in and of itself suggests that there are enough medical personnel with the required training to handle the usual needs of the facility. If there were not enough people, the healthcare would not be 'adequate'. Yes?

I agree, however, there's a loophole there. Adequate is not defined, therefore, if I find adequate healthcare as hiring a grocery store bagger to adminster analgesics, or anaesthesia in my hospitals (not that I do, nor should anybody), I can technically do that, if my government finds that adequate, can't I? I recognize QiHS as an extremely important resolution, and a basis for future healthcare resolutions, but it's extremely broad.

Do we really need a definition on "adequate" in regards to healthcare?!?

If a nation chooses to recognize grocery baggers as adequate healthcare specialists to get out of caring for inmates, then they suffer the consequences of their hospitals and urgent cares being full of unqualified workers as well. We are, generally, more intelligent then that. We don't need the WA to hold our hands and tell us how to run our prison's healthcare. Nations that do abuse the definition of adequate the way you describe it certainly deserve the unmitigated chaos they are likely to encounter from it. Let them learn their lessons on their own.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I have a feeling that Resolution #29 and #97 may have already covered this.

[Connopolis]

I agree, however, there's a loophole there. Adequate is not defined, therefore, if I find adequate healthcare as hiring a grocery store bagger to adminster analgesics, or anaesthesia in my hospitals (not that I do, nor should anybody), I can technically do that, if my government finds that adequate, can't I? I recognize QiHS as an extremely important resolution, and a basis for future healthcare resolutions, but it's extremely broad.

Do we really need a definition on "adequate" in regards to healthcare?!?

If a nation chooses to recognize grocery baggers as adequate healthcare specialists to get out of caring for inmates, then they suffer the consequences of their hospitals and urgent cares being full of unqualified workers as well. We are, generally, more intelligent then that. We don't need the WA to hold our hands and tell us how to run our prison's healthcare. Nations that do abuse the definition of adequate the way you describe it certainly deserve the unmitigated chaos they are likely to encounter from it. Let them learn their lessons on their own.

It's actually not that aggrevating to argue with you because you do bring up some very valid points. The arguments some people create just don't hold water. Not to exempt myself, sometime, like in my On Recreational Drug Proposal, some of my arguments were slightly biased...

Of course those nations that intentionally misuse definition of adequate are going to experience chaos, but what if they define adequate healthcare in prison as what I stated prior, and adequate healthcare in hospitals something of a higher quality. We shouldn't make their prisoners die just to tell their government: "I told you so."

[Separatist Peoples]

Do we really need a definition on "adequate" in regards to healthcare?!?

If a nation chooses to recognize grocery baggers as adequate healthcare specialists to get out of caring for inmates, then they suffer the consequences of their hospitals and urgent cares being full of unqualified workers as well. We are, generally, more intelligent then that. We don't need the WA to hold our hands and tell us how to run our prison's healthcare. Nations that do abuse the definition of adequate the way you describe it certainly deserve the unmitigated chaos they are likely to encounter from it. Let them learn their lessons on their own.

It's actually not that aggrevating to argue with you because you do bring up some very valid points. The arguments some people create just don't hold water. Not to exempt myself, sometime, like in my On Recreational Drug Proposal, some of my arguments were slightly biased...

Of course those nations that intentionally misuse definition of adequate are going to experience chaos, but what if they define adequate healthcare in prison as what I stated prior, and adequate healthcare in hospitals something of a higher quality. We shouldn't make their prisoners die just to tell their government: "I told you so."

The definition generally would have to be recognized universally, private or public system. Nations don't get to pick and chose who gets what definition of adequate. That is the antithesis of what QiHS does, private or public system.

[Connopolis]

It's actually not that aggrevating to argue with you because you do bring up some very valid points. The arguments some people create just don't hold water. Not to exempt myself, sometime, like in my On Recreational Drug Proposal, some of my arguments were slightly biased...

Of course those nations that intentionally misuse definition of adequate are going to experience chaos, but what if they define adequate healthcare in prison as what I stated prior, and adequate healthcare in hospitals something of a higher quality. We shouldn't make their prisoners die just to tell their government: "I told you so."

The definition generally would have to be recognized universally, private or public system. Nations don't get to pick and chose who gets what definition of adequate. That is the antithesis of what QiHS does, private or public system.

Adequate: enough, necessary.

You can use a definiton like that to your advantage. Enough, or necessary is a very malleable word.

[Separatist Peoples]

Adequate: enough, necessary.

You can use a definiton like that to your advantage. Enough, or necessary is a very malleable word.

Except that by using it to deny healthcare to prisoners, a nation holds the rest of its medical facilities to the same standards. Besides:

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;
b) Community participation;
c) Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves.

I point out QiHS's Section 1, Bullet a.

[Connopolis]

Still too micromanaging for my tastes. At least four trained medical experts on staff at all times is a lot, especially for high-security prisons that house less then one hundred prisoners.

Please leave this to individual nations. We all have to give our prisoners adequate healthcare as per QiHS, so this is already covered. Anything else to be done is just going to be more invasive then the WA needs to be in the internal affairs of national governments.

Four trained professionals managing 100 people isn't necessarily that many, and by no stretch of the imagination is it excessive. If I went to a hospital that only had 10 physicians for 500 people, I'd be very disappointed.

[Monikian WA Mission]

a) Employs at least two full time psychiatrists and two full time physicians. At least one qualified psychiatrist and one qualified physician must be present in the medical ward at all times.

"Better, but still highly micromanaging. It makes me wonder if nations are completely incapable of providing health care on their own without the WA mandating they do. Never mind the fact that nearly all nations of MT status have some sort of health care provision.

b) Employs orderlies at a one to three ratio to ensure that prisoners are ensured medical attention at all times. At least one orderly for every three prisoners must be present in the medical ward at all times.

"So basically there needs to be one orderly for every three prisoners. You do realize that some nations have very high prison populations. For example Penal Colony 128 in the Vega system in Monkiah houses over 100,000 prisoners which means that we would require 33,000 orderlies. Perhaps your nations health care system is so poor that you would need that many, but in Monkiah this is not the case. We do just fine with 5,000 orderlies on Penal Colony 128. And 250 physicians and psychologists combined.

"Mandating any number of orderlies internationally is severe micromanagement.

c) Allows immediate access to anesthesia, analgesics, and other such drugs to all prisoners when medically necessary.

"Fine, but I don't see a need for the WA to ensure that these drugs are made available. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that hasn't already been covered by previous legislation.

d) Provides and adequate number of sleeping quarters; enough to accommodate 35% of the correctional facility's residents.

"Do you expect 35% of any penal institution to be hospitalized at any given time? Unless a nation is prone to epidemics--I would highly doubt that this is necessary. In fact it is an unnecessary expense.

REQUIRING that each Correctional Facility offer rehabilitation courses for each of its residents to further ensure that they abstain from crime in general. These rehabilitation courses include, but are not limited to:

a) Substance abuse
b) Poverty management
c) Anger management
d) Hormonal irregularities
e) Poor parental relations.

"Well first off substance abuse is a medical issue and should be dealt with in a medical fashion. Monkiah has legalized all intoxicants and offers addiction treatment as part of our national health service. Poverty is an economic problem which cannot be readily addressed medically. Poor parental relations--can be dealt with in the case of minors by placing them in more appropriated surroundings and in adults not much can be done. If an adult has a problem with her parents--she can ignore their existence.

"Over all what I'm seeing is a micromanaging, expensive piece of tripe which addresses a national issue. DO NOT WANT!"

---

"Even taking it down for a redraft will not change the fact that medical standards for prisons are a national issue. Medical care is guaranteed to all Monikians regardless their incarceration status. Why should prisoners be singled out for special treatment? We cannot support this even after a serious redraft simply because it is not an international issue."

It is a Human Rights issue. However, all the stuff about employing x people should go.

"Aram, the author has not made the case that this is an international issue regardless of whether or not it is a case of Sapient Rights. Of course if this ever passed as a Human Rights resolution, the Monikian WA Mission would stipulate--like it does with all Human Rights resolutions that it applies to only humans, none of which actually live in the MWAM."

[Connopolis]

Adequate: enough, necessary.

You can use a definiton like that to your advantage. Enough, or necessary is a very malleable word.

Except that by using it to deny healthcare to prisoners, a nation holds the rest of its medical facilities to the same standards. Besides:

Not necessarily; one can say that criteria of adequate hospital healthcare and the criteria of adequate prison healthcare might be different for a plethora of reason. For example, those who attend hospitals contribute to society, while those in prison don't; that's in infalliable argument, as it's irrational to think everyone who is not in prison contributes to society, while everyone in prison does not. You have your every day beggar, who isn't in prison, but isn't anything but a nuisance to society, while you may have corporate executives in prison, that may have created millions of jobs prior to their imprisonment. You may also argue that those in prison have forfeit their rights upon committing crimes, but again, you may have guilty citizens roaming the streets, or you might have innocent prisoners occupying prison cells. Either way, there will always be excuses for broad resolutions; not to say that QiHS wasn't written well, it's probably one of the most important healthcare resolutions.

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;
b) Community participation;
c) Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves.

I point out QiHS's Section 1, Bullet a.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus

Description: RECOGNIZING health is a duty of every nation, aiming at universal & equal access to health services (promotion, protection & recovery);

FURTHER RECOGNIZING health services rank among the ones which have the highest public relevance;

AFFIRMING it is necessary, under the law, to have government regulation & supervision, to be carried out directly or through third parties, and the duty of the World Health Authority (WHA) in assisting such actions if, and only if, so asked by any nation;

IT IS THEREFORE ESTABLISHED:

1) The health services shall constitute separate systems in each & every nation, organized according to the following guidelines:

a) Full health services coverage;
b) Community participation;
c) Cooperation between nations that are not at a declared state of war amongst themselves.

2) The health system shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources. The WHA may also fund at the request of any nation, but never before a thorough audit of the health system, ensuring transparency & honesty. The WHA shall deny funding to any nation if there is:

a) Reasonable suspicion of occurrence of deliberate diversion of money from the health budget towards other uses; the WHA shall never cover deliberate budgetary shortages;
b) Reasonable evidence a nation’s economy is strong enough as to not actually need external help.

3) World Assembly members are strongly urged to provide voluntary health personnel & donated medical supplies to nations that ask for such help, due to issues such as, but not limited to, extreme poverty or disasters;

4) Nations, or any assigned political divisions, shall:

a) Provide health personnel & supplies to health services at least once every budget cycle, aiming at the gradual reduction of internal health disparities;
b) Establish the standards of review, evaluation & control of allocation of health personnel & supplies;
c) The WHA shall assist the shaping of said standards if, and only if, so asked by any nation.

5) Nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a) Allow or not, partial to full participation of private enterprise in their health systems;
b) Provide assistance only to those who cannot afford to pay for their own care, if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt.

6) The health system of a nation, or any assigned political divisions, is responsible for:

a) Helping the training of health personnel;
b) Participating in the effort of eradication of endemic diseases;
c) Participating in policy formulation & implementation of basic sanitation projects.

...aiming at universal & equal access...

Full health service coverage is not offered to everyone in this proposal; each nation creates its own seperate system, but as long as they follow the 3 guidelines under that clause, they are not violating the proposal. Therefore, the preamble of that resolution states that all nations should aim to provice universal and equal access to medical care, but no where in the resolution is there an operative clause that does so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Connopolis]

a) Employs at least two full time psychiatrists and two full time physicians. At least one qualified psychiatrist and one qualified physician must be present in the medical ward at all times.

"Better, but still highly micromanaging. It makes me wonder if nations are completely incapable of providing health care on their own without the WA mandating they do. Never mind the fact that nearly all nations of MT status have some sort of health care provision.

b) Employs orderlies at a one to three ratio to ensure that prisoners are ensured medical attention at all times. At least one orderly for every three prisoners must be present in the medical ward at all times.

"So basically there needs to be one orderly for every three prisoners. You do realize that some nations have very high prison populations. For example Penal Colony 128 in the Vega system in Monkiah houses over 100,000 prisoners which means that we would require 33,000 orderlies. Perhaps your nations health care system is so poor that you would need that many, but in Monkiah this is not the case. We do just fine with 5,000 orderlies on Penal Colony 128. And 250 physicians and psychologists combined.

"Mandating any number of orderlies internationally is severe micromanagement.

c) Allows immediate access to anesthesia, analgesics, and other such drugs to all prisoners when medically necessary.

"Fine, but I don't see a need for the WA to ensure that these drugs are made available. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if that hasn't already been covered by previous legislation.

d) Provides and adequate number of sleeping quarters; enough to accommodate 35% of the correctional facility's residents.

"Do you expect 35% of any penal institution to be hospitalized at any given time? Unless a nation is prone to epidemics--I would highly doubt that this is necessary. In fact it is an unnecessary expense.

REQUIRING that each Correctional Facility offer rehabilitation courses for each of its residents to further ensure that they abstain from crime in general. These rehabilitation courses include, but are not limited to:

a) Substance abuse
b) Poverty management
c) Anger management
d) Hormonal irregularities
e) Poor parental relations.

"Well first off substance abuse is a medical issue and should be dealt with in a medical fashion. Monkiah has legalized all intoxicants and offers addiction treatment as part of our national health service. Poverty is an economic problem which cannot be readily addressed medically. Poor parental relations--can be dealt with in the case of minors by placing them in more appropriated surroundings and in adults not much can be done. If an adult has a problem with her parents--she can ignore their existence.

"Over all what I'm seeing is a micromanaging, expensive piece of tripe which addresses a national issue. DO NOT WANT!"

---

It is a Human Rights issue. However, all the stuff about employing x people should go.

"Aram, the author has not made the case that this is an international issue regardless of whether or not it is a case of Sapient Rights. Of course if this ever passed as a Human Rights resolution, the Monikian WA Mission would stipulate--like it does with all Human Rights resolutions that it applies to only humans, none of which actually live in the MWAM."

Right, so the orderly clause will be deleted, because that does border obssessive micromanagement. 10% as opposed to 35% should be more reasonable. And, despite the fact that the issue may be a human rights issue, it covers prisoners, not humanprisoners. Oh, and if your nation already offers substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation, then it doesn't affect you. just clarifying things.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"I believe that you are missing the point. International Human Rights legislation from the standpoint of Monikian law only covers Humans. Other sapient species are covered under our laws. Even so mandating any amount of orderlies or any amount of sleeping quarters for the purposes of a prison clinic is micromanagement. Not to mention not an international issue. Once you get around the NOT AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE hurtle, then we'll consider voting for the legislation. Until that time we must oppose."