[PASSED] Prohibit Private Prisons

[Havalland]

Honestly I think it's stupid and the wa is trying to overstep their boundaries, but nobody will actually listen to this law if they don't want to.

[Grenartia]

Honestly I think it's stupid and the wa is trying to overstep their boundaries,

Every tinpot dictator says that about EVERY proposal. By that logic, the WA shouldn't even exist. If you don't want your nation to be bound by WA law, ambassador, the simplest thing to do is not be part of it.

but nobody will actually listen to this law if they don't want to.

Except for the costs of non-compliance, which increase to the point of being incredibly detrimental to the national economies of non-compliant states. And the ability for compliant states to embargo non-compliant, non-paying states, among other things.

[The Srovsk State]

The Srovsk State votes against this proposal as it undermines the reformation of our Tax Codes.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

"The Confederation of Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia hereby votes FOR this resolution, mainly because it finally addresses an serious but often obscure issue of profiteering by privatized prisons and their callous inability to actually reform their inmates, thus forcing their "customers" to keep returning and filling up their coffers ad nauseam.

The Region that we are a part of, The Communist Bloc, has also voted in favour of this legislation, represented by Delegate Kethania. May we finally eliminate the scourge of private prisons, their profit-driven mission to exploit rather than reform, and their perversion of the concept of justice itself. "

[Havalland]

Honestly I think it's stupid and the wa is trying to overstep their boundaries,

Every tinpot dictator says that about EVERY proposal. By that logic, the WA shouldn't even exist. If you don't want your nation to be bound by WA law, ambassador, the simplest thing to do is not be part of it.

but nobody will actually listen to this law if they don't want to.

Except for the costs of non-compliance, which increase to the point of being incredibly detrimental to the national economies of non-compliant states. And the ability for compliant states to embargo non-compliant, non-paying states, among other things.

1. TWI requires me to be in the WA to prove I'm legitimate
2. TWI is an RP region and WA doesn't really apply to us because we are a role play region with our own assembly

It's still fun to hop in on something sometimes.

[Araraukar]

And private prison owners will never have any incentive to rehabilitate prisoners, because recidivism is good for their business.

OOC: Unless they are fined for every reoffender, with the fine being large enough to serve as a proper incentive.

EDIT: Do the big regions still have the "will automatically vote against whatever side is supported by a WA-wie campaign TG" thing? Because I at least got one of those suggesting to vote against.

[Grater Tovakia]

And private prison owners will never have any incentive to rehabilitate prisoners, because recidivism is good for their business.

OOC: Unless they are fined for every reoffender, with the fine being large enough to serve as a proper incentive.

EDIT: Do the big regions still have the "will automatically vote against whatever side is supported by a WA-wie campaign TG" thing? Because I at least got one of those suggesting to vote against.

I have never once heard that was a thing but what do I know.

[Grenartia]

And private prison owners will never have any incentive to rehabilitate prisoners, because recidivism is good for their business.

OOC: Unless they are fined for every reoffender, with the fine being large enough to serve as a proper incentive.

Which would effectively be the same thing as prohibiting private prisons outright, since any fine big enough to incentivize reducing recidivism would likely make any instance of it ruin the corporation's profit margins. Which would make any such endeavor too risky to undertake. It would be like running an insurance company in a jurisdiction with no laws against insurance fraud.

[Araraukar]

Which would effectively be the same thing as prohibiting private prisons outright, since any fine big enough to incentivize reducing recidivism would likely make any instance of it ruin the corporation's profit margins.

OOC: Yeah, but when the "because profit" is used as a reason why private prisons can never be good as they want people to reoffend so that get more moneys, that would be a proper incentive to avoid that.

I'm on the side of private prisons = bad, ICly, but OOCly I'm more ambivalent, given that for-profit is still acceptable by a lot of people for various other important services like utilities and healthcare and such.

[Bears Armed]

<snip>

OOC: If complete hypotheticals are fair,

OOC
Bureaucratic empire-building has been shown to occur on multiple occasions in RL (re 'Parkinson's Law'): Suggesting that it might apply like this in the case of prison management is perhaps a bit cynical, but in my opinion not excessively more cynical that assuming the managers of all private prisons in all nations will automatically sabotage rehabilitation programs in order to maximize numbers of inmates and thus (ignoring the possibility that governments might actually think of making payment dependent on meeting officially-set standards for the rehabilitation programs) to maximize profits.
Staff at state-run prisons belonging to the same unions as other state employees in other fields is a situation that has occurred in RL.
Union members fighting correctly-applied disciplinary measures by persuading their branches' or unions' leaders that those measures were incorrect & unjust, so that the union takes action (possibly escalating to the level of strikes, especially if union leadership is already looking for an excuse to "take on" the government for political reasons anyway...) also has RL precedents.
Union action spreading from one field of government work to other fields as well, because the same union has members in multiple fields, has occurred in RL.
So, where is the "complete hypothetical" there?

so is a citation to RL. I don't know how a country in the RL U.S.'s situation would salvage private prisons as an institution while still treating prisoners humanely (which, incidentally, is strongly tied to recidivism rates). And under several political systems including liberal democracy, the companies that run them have the right to political action, which always carries the danger of regulatory capture. A ban on the industry is a reasonable response to these concerns taken as a whole.

OOC; but not all nations are necessarily in the RL U.S.'s situation, especially in NS given the diversity of nations here... so why legislate here as if they are?

________________________________________________________________________________

And yet, as this legislation very correctly points out, by making a profit off of imprisoning people, one creates a perverse incentive to lock up as many people as possible. This will ultimately lead to an erosion of personal and political freedoms in many nations, if left unchecked.

OOC: But in most nations it isn't the prisons' management who decide who many people to lock up, it's the [usually] state-run courts.
... And there's no guarantee that state-owned prisons would automatically be any better at rehabilitation than privately-owned ones, anyway, given possible constraints imposed by official ideology or public financing priorities or just general ineffectiveness.
Setting standards for all prisons, no matter their ownership, would make more sense.

[Quartia and Polyonia]

And private prison owners will never have any incentive to rehabilitate prisoners, because recidivism is good for their business.

OOC: Unless they are fined for every reoffender, with the fine being large enough to serve as a proper incentive.

EDIT: Do the big regions still have the "will automatically vote against whatever side is supported by a WA-wie campaign TG" thing? Because I at least got one of those suggesting to vote against.

The thing is, however you pay a private prison, they will find a way to cheat the system.

[Alterrum]

As others have stated several times already, this is simply WA overreach. There is more than one way to realign bad incentives, and it should be up to each state to decide what approach is best in their particular condition. A private prison may very well be more humane in certain cases. That a nation which calls itself Catholic is ignoring a basic tenet of Catholic social teaching -- the subsidiarity principle -- is a tad baffling to us; of course, it is not so surprising that the sin of pride, in getting one's own nation's name into the annals of WA history, continues to be committed by humans, regardless of their professed creed.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Unless they are fined for every reoffender, with the fine being large enough to serve as a proper incentive.

Which would effectively be the same thing as prohibiting private prisons outright, since any fine big enough to incentivize reducing recidivism would likely make any instance of it ruin the corporation's profit margins. Which would make any such endeavor too risky to undertake. It would be like running an insurance company in a jurisdiction with no laws against insurance fraud.

(OOC: Alternatively, just pay private prisons based on how much the prisoners are rehabilitated and live normal lives, instead of basing it on how many are stored. I should point out that I oppose private prisons OOC, though I don’t think a ban is warranted, but the IC Kenmoria loves them.)

[Alterrum]

OOC: Unless they are fined for every reoffender, with the fine being large enough to serve as a proper incentive.

EDIT: Do the big regions still have the "will automatically vote against whatever side is supported by a WA-wie campaign TG" thing? Because I at least got one of those suggesting to vote against.

The thing is, however you pay a private prison, they will find a way to cheat the system.

Yes, corruption never exists in government and is only a feature of the private sector.

[Christian Democrats]

As others have stated several times already, this is simply WA overreach. There is more than one way to realign bad incentives, and it should be up to each state to decide what approach is best in their particular condition. A private prison may very well be more humane in certain cases. That a nation which calls itself Catholic is ignoring a basic tenet of Catholic social teaching -- the subsidiarity principle -- is a tad baffling to us; of course, it is not so surprising that the sin of pride, in getting one's own nation's name into the annals of WA history, continues to be committed by humans, regardless of their professed creed.

The subsidiarity principle holds that the lowest community competent to perform a social function should perform that social function without interference from higher communities. This proposal does not violate the subsidiarity principle. It contends that private companies are not competent to hold citizens against their wills; and it does not rule out a system of incarceration where political subdivisions -- provinces, states, municipalities, etc. -- control their own prisons, free from interference from the national government.

Imprisonment is quintessentially a government function. It should be performed by the government, no less than the functions of legislation, police, and criminal adjudication. No just nation would outsource legislation, police, and criminal adjudication to private companies, controlled by shareholders rather than the body politic. The prison system is no different.

EDIT: 10,000th post!

[Dirty Americans]

I have decided to vote no to this resolution. In general I believe that prisons should be under the regulation of government but they don't have to be under the direct ownership of government. In one sense the arguments are similar to the question of charter schools. The notion that a private institution would gravitate towards a goal of overcrowding is not obvious; it's not impossible but it's not obvious. Actually I can see the counter argument, private institutions would want the "best" criminals because bad working conditions also impacts employee morale and that makes it harder to find people to do the jobs. Repeat offenders tend to be very unwilling criminals in the prison system and only cause trouble among the other inmates.

Prison reform and management is a critical issue, but simply outlawing "private" ones doesn't address the fundamental problems of prisons.

[Risastorstein]

Finally a rather important and interesting resolution, after the stupid last one.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

"We are normally pro-capitalist, but due to the known problems with private prisons, we will vote for this resolution."

[Prydania]

The free market has a place in a healthy, robust economic ecosystem. Prison, however, should not be under the purview of private business. We vote FOR the resolution. Criminal rehabilitation and punishment ought to be the domain of the government.

[The Kingdom of Lyrica]

The free market has a place in a healthy, robust economic ecosystem. Prison, however, should not be under the purview of private business. We vote FOR the resolution. Criminal rehabilitation and punishment ought to be the domain of the government.

What if the private industry does it better.
Lyrican private jails get 50% of their payment if the criminal dosent revisit within three years, and we have super low re visitation rates because of that.

[Skadice Freavi]

I've categorized this proposal as Social Justice because it would reduce economic freedom in the interest of the basic welfare of society. In other words, this proposal is Social Justice, not Civil Rights, because it would primarily impact economic rights, not civil rights. The proposal is Mild because private imprisonment (I hope) is a small industry in the World Assembly and because prisoners (I hope) are only a small portion of member state populations. I look forward to your comments and suggestions.

(Image)

(Image)(Image)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
Prohibit Private Prisons
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: (Image) Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Persuaded that prisons should aim to reduce recidivism rates and to perform their functions at the lowest possible costs to the public that are consistent with the dignity of inmates,

Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits,

Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,

1. Defines a "prison" as a prison, penitentiary, jail, jailhouse, or other correctional or detention center that holds and houses, on a permanent or long-term basis, individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences;

2. Further defines a "private prison" as a prison that is entirely owned and operated or primarily owned and operated by a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors;

3. Requires all member states and their political subdivisions, within two calendar years of this resolution's passage and in perpetuity thereafter, to discontinue their use of private prisons for the incarceration of individuals convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences;

4. Recommends that member states and political subdivisions, lacking a sufficient number of public prisons, implement Section 3 of this resolution by using the power of eminent domain to transfer prisons from private hands to public ownership (i.e., nationalization);

5. Clarifies that this resolution shall not be construed to extend to home detention, private probation, supervised release, halfway houses, and other similar practices, making use of private properties or private actors, in the criminal justice system;

6. Further clarifies that this resolution shall not be construed to prohibit member states and their political subdivisions from contracting with private actors for the provision to prisons of goods and services, such as public utilities, foodstuffs, and health services, that are incidental to prison ownership and operation; and

7. Declares that member states and their political subdivisions, notwithstanding Section 3 of this resolution, may use private facilities and private actors for imprisonment on a temporary basis, but only when it is necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners -- e.g., an emergency evacuation before a hurricane requires a prison warden to relocate his prison population to a private facility that is located inland.

Skadice Feravi votes strongly no against this legislation and it's strongly likely they'll be a referendum to leave the WA if it's passed, We're quite centralist but wether you think this bill is good or not it should be up to each member state and NOT the WA.

Our Right wing Conservative party has already dedicated to campaigning fully in the next election to leave the WA and repeal this and a majority of other WA policies we were forced in against our will.

The Labour Party is quite weak right now and we're looking at Skadice Feravi going much further to the right to more populist and nationalist if this and other over-stepping laws are passed by this or other regional organizations. Going further right to more capitalist as well and for the record we're about 60% to 40% private prison to government prisons

[Drystar]

After speaking with the author of the resolution, the Dominion sees no issues with this. I believe my fellow nations are reading to much into this issue. No one is requiring your nation to actually own the prison infrastructure, just for the government to operate the prison, or so it’s been explained to me. You’ll be able to lock in long term low rate leases, with maintenance being handled by the owners. If it’s not kept up, you can then find another location or purchase the current one with eminent domain.

[Barbariax]

After speaking with the author of the resolution, the Dominion sees no issues with this. I believe my fellow nations are reading to much into this issue. No one is requiring your nation to actually own the prison infrastructure, just for the government to operate the prison, or so it’s been explained to me. You’ll be able to lock in long term low rate leases, with maintenance being handled by the owners. If it’s not kept up, you can then find another location or purchase the current one with eminent domain.

How can government "operate the prison" while it is simultaneously maintained "by the owners"? There are some semantic shenanigans going on there. Not to mention, if a prison is 49% owned by a private company, it is still acceptable to this resolution, per a rather obvious loophole upon further review. This alone brings the whole effectiveness of the resolution into question, and again it should be voted against.

[Drystar]

After speaking with the author of the resolution, the Dominion sees no issues with this. I believe my fellow nations are reading to much into this issue. No one is requiring your nation to actually own the prison infrastructure, just for the government to operate the prison, or so it’s been explained to me. You’ll be able to lock in long term low rate leases, with maintenance being handled by the owners. If it’s not kept up, you can then find another location or purchase the current one with eminent domain.

How can government "operate the prison" while it is simultaneously maintained "by the owners"? There are some semantic shenanigans going on there. Not to mention, if a prison is 49% owned by a private company, it is still acceptable to this resolution, per a rather obvious loophole upon further review. This alone brings the whole effectiveness of the resolution into question, and again it should be voted against.

Operations and maintenance are not the same thing. A business can lease a facility for manufacturing without owning the building or having to maintain it, correct? Does the owner of the lease building get to tell the leasing company when it can operate or how? Now it would be the same for the prison, as it’s been explained to me. A business can build a state of the art detention center, then a government can lease it from them, running the day to day operations of holding incarcerated people until they’re released. All the private company has to do is maintain the actual physical infrastructure as any landlord would do and would have no part in the actual operations of the prison. So the private company gets paid, the government gets to use a prison without all the overhead, and the prisoners will get some chance at decency. Seems a fairly even trade.

[Barbariax]

How can government "operate the prison" while it is simultaneously maintained "by the owners"? There are some semantic shenanigans going on there. Not to mention, if a prison is 49% owned by a private company, it is still acceptable to this resolution, per a rather obvious loophole upon further review. This alone brings the whole effectiveness of the resolution into question, and again it should be voted against.

Operations and maintenance are not the same thing. A business can lease a facility for manufacturing without owning the building or having to maintain it, correct? Does the owner of the lease building get to tell the leasing company when it can operate or how? Now it would be the same for the prison, as it’s been explained to me. A business can build a state of the art detention center, then a government can lease it from them, running the day to day operations of holding incarcerated people until they’re released. All the private company has to do is maintain the actual physical infrastructure as any landlord would do and would have no part in the actual operations of the prison. So the private company gets paid, the government gets to use a prison without all the overhead, and the prisoners will get some chance at decency. Seems a fairly even trade.

The author of the resolution showed you a loophole to get your vote. What "operate" and "maintain" mean is a semantic debate, you are correct that there can be a separation of functions, but essentially this is a private-public prison partnership. What it seems like to me is opening up to Russian-style cronyism, where prisons are still big business, with no competition and government sanctioning. There is nothing in the resolution to prevent this, rather it encourages it.