The New California Republic wrote:If the solitary confinement is longer than a few days, extending to weeks and months then yes it arguably is torture. However, interpreting the text in the proposal as it is written, it bans all solitary confinement, even for a matter of hours or days. Short term solitary isn't torture.
The New California Republic wrote:Short term? For hours or days? Really?
OOC: Yes. Please research the subject.
Even just a cursory glance on Wikipedia shows this:
Solitary confinement is considered to be a form of psychological torture with measurable long-term physiological effects when the period of confinement is longer than a few weeks or is continued indefinitely.
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:43 am
by Tinfect
The New California Republic wrote:Even just a cursory glance on Wikipedia shows this:
Solitary confinement is considered to be a form of psychological torture with measurable long-term physiological effects when the period of confinement is longer than a few weeks or is continued indefinitely.
OOC: A cursory glance on wikipedia is not research.
The New California Republic wrote:Even just a cursory glance on Wikipedia shows this:
Solitary confinement is considered to be a form of psychological torture with measurable long-term physiological effects when the period of confinement is longer than a few weeks or is continued indefinitely.
OOC: A cursory glance on wikipedia is not research.
The New California Republic wrote:Short term? For hours or days? Really?
OOC: Yes. Please research the subject.
(OOC: I don’t think research is required. It seems obvious to me that a few hours of time in solitary confinement do not constitute torture. School isolations can consist of multiple hours without teacher presence, alone, but are clearly not a case of torture.)
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 3:50 am
by Gleo Island
I get this idea for anyone captured from another nation i would not want my people treated that way without someone from my country giving it the ok. but i feel if we catch someone of our own and believe they deserve it, we should be able to have this happen. Im against.
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 7:55 am
by Sierra Lyricalia
"For those of you losing your minds about no longer being able to toss a self-aware adult into a black pit with only their own fraying inner monologue for companionship, the proposal doesn't say no administrative punishments may be applied to prisoners. Dangerous prisoners may still be kept apart from others, and nothing herein states that a problematic inmate may not be subject to constant contraband inspections, perennial laundry duty, or other steps designed to deter bad behavior. Being upset about not having a single-serving medieval dungeon available to cow individuals into submission is rather missing the point. Waahhhhhh, we have to treat prisoners as though they're sapient individuals with rights instead of animals to be conditioned, however shall we cope with this dire invitation to chaos???"
Leo rolls his eyes and sits down.
...oh. All OOC? Of course. OK, well, for some reason I'm in the habit of doing other people's research for them...
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology wrote:In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court commented on the adverse effects of solitary confinement in prisons:
A considerable number of prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. (In re Medley, 1890)
...
With respect to short-term administrative segregation, Bonta and Gendreau (1995) noted that “solitary confinement may not be cruel and unusual punishment under the humane and time-limited conditions investigated in experimental studies or in correctional jurisdictions that have well-defined and effectively administered ethical guidelines for its use” (p. 86). Indeed, in actual practice, the environmental circumstances of solitary confinement do not resemble the safe and sanitized conditions that are typical of research studies (Zinger & Wichmann, 1999). Moreover, as Roberts and Jackson (1991) asserted, the effects of short-term incarceration may not be revealed in experimental research because of the limitations of the instruments used to measure psychological consequences.7
Vera Institute of Justice wrote:In 1997, psychologists Craig Haney and Mona Lynch reviewed dozens of studies conducted since the 1970s and concluded that there was not a single study of non-voluntary solitary confinement for more than 10 days that did not document negative psychiatric symptoms in its subjects (Haney and Lynch 1997). Two years later in Ruiz v. Johnson, a federal court in Texas ruled that conditions in that state’s administrative segregation units—“extreme deprivations which cause profound and obvious psychological pain and suffering”—violated the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. While experts believe that prolonged isolation is always harmful, they note that very short-term isolation—for less than 24 hours—can be used in extreme circumstances as a therapeutic intervention to stabilize someone who is completely out of control and to prevent harm to self or others. For isolation to fulfill a therapeutic purpose, as opposed to managing or punishing the prisoner, a trained mental health professional must be involved throughout the process...
...so between prohibiting punitive solitary confinement for longer than a few hours, under extremely strict (for the prison staff) conditions, and prohibiting it entirely, there's not that much difference - certainly not enough to justify a vote against this. Continuing to get bent out of shape is for the orcs.
edits: IC word choice; forgot a closing parenthesis; missed one obnoxious PDF line break
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:00 am
by The New California Republic
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:...oh. All OOC? Of course. OK, well, for some reason I'm in the habit of doing other people's research for them...
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology wrote:In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court commented on the adverse effects of solitary confinement in prisons:
A considerable number of prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. (In re Medley, 1890)
...
With respect to short-term administrative segregation, Bonta and Gendreau (1995) noted that “solitary confinement may not be cruel and unusual punishment under the humane and time-limited conditions investigated in experimental studies or in correctional jurisdictions that have well-defined and effectively administered ethical guidelines for its use” (p. 86). Indeed, in actual practice, the environmental circumstances of solitary confinement do not resemble the safe and sanitized conditions that are typical of research studies (Zinger & Wichmann, 1999). Moreover, as Roberts and Jackson (1991) asserted, the effects of short-term incarceration may not be revealed in experimental research because of the limitations of the instruments used to measure psychological consequences.7
Vera Institute of Justice wrote:In 1997, psychologists Craig Haney and Mona Lynch reviewed dozens of studies conducted since the 1970s and concluded that there was not a single study of non-voluntary solitary confinement for more than 10 days that did not document negative psychiatric symptoms in its subjects (Haney and Lynch 1997). Two years later in Ruiz v. Johnson, a federal court in Texas ruled that conditions in that state’s administrative segregation units—“extreme deprivations which cause profound and obvious psychological pain and suffering”—violated the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. While experts believe that prolonged isolation is always harmful, they note that very short-term isolation—for less than 24 hours—can be used in extreme circumstances as a therapeutic intervention to stabilize someone who is completely out of control and to prevent harm to self or others. For isolation to fulfill a therapeutic purpose, as opposed to managing or punishing the prisoner, a trained mental health professional must be involved throughout the process...
...so between prohibiting punitive solitary confinement for longer than a few hours, under extremely strict (for the prison staff) conditions, and prohibiting it entirely, there's not that much difference - certainly not enough to justify a vote against this. Continuing to get bent out of shape is for the orcs.
edits: IC word choice; forgot a closing parenthesis
To be fair I was busy when I made the reply, and made the reply on my phone, so I needed something quick to throw out there, rather than copying and pasting several quotes.
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 8:54 am
by The Shandmas
Miss Stalinski reads the resolution carefully while alternating between giggles and confused glances. At last, she says "so tell me, how does this effect our nation? We have neither a constitution nor a judicial system. The word of our chairman-fuehrur-emperor is usually the final say."
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:42 pm
by 21st Century Peronia
21st Century Peronia will accompany this Resolution with its favorable vote in the Assembly. The government of our glorious Nation is promoting many structural changes, whose premise is social justice. In this context, the President is carrying out a necessary prison reform, aimed at improving the inhumane conditions that prisoners had prior to their arrival to the presidency.
We understand that, accompanying this Resolution, we will take a great step in our prison reform, aimed at the humanization of institutes and the dignity of prisoners.
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 5:49 pm
by Araraukar
OOC: No IC objections, given the restrictions are now sane and align with common sense. ^_^
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:09 am
by Kenmoria
The Shandmas wrote:Miss Stalinski reads the resolution carefully while alternating between giggles and confused glances. At last, she says "so tell me, how does this effect our nation? We have neither a constitution nor a judicial system. The word of our chairman-fuehrur-emperor is usually the final say."
“Assuming that the chairman-führer-emperor constitutes the entirety of judicial sentencing within your nation, this would restrict the ability of the aforementioned individual to hand out any of the punishments prohibited by this proposal. The legislation’s mandates don’t rely on being authorised by a specific body, but apply to whomever might apply them within a member state.”
Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2020 8:28 pm
by Coconut Palm Island
The King of Coconut Palm Island emphatically supports this proposal, and has ordered our delegate to vote for this proposal, and to encourage other delegates to do the same. Our nation already complies with these guidelines. We do not use capital punishment in any circumstances. None of our inmates are ever housed in what this resolution describes as inhumane conditions, and we encourage nations to hold treatment of inmates to a much higher standard. Our nation doesn't use what the resolution describes as "severe confinement"-- the strongest punishment we give (other than a longer sentence) is confinement to one's living quarters, and even than they still may talk to counselors, visitors, and friends in the facility (albeit it may be through glass or behind bars). In addition, there is no "protective confinement," as all inmates are protected at all times. In traditional prisons, inmates basically must join gangs or be threatened-- in our nation, inmates are always supervised when around other inmates, unless all inmates consent to be alone with the others (usually, inmates will maintain a list of close inmate friends that the guards are allowed to leave them alone with).
In addition, we encourage other nations to hold their corrections systems to higher standards. In our nation, inmates are entitled to nutritious and good-tasting food, high-quality mental and physical healthcare (including all medicines and surgeries), their choice of clothing, housing in clean facilities, constant protection but the ability to have privacy in one's own quarters, access to the internet and entertainment, access to education and job training, and high-quality recreation activities (sports, clubs, etc) except when being punished. In addition, the only punishments we use are loss of privileges (less recreation time, etc) or confinement to quarters in severe cases (they still have the right to see others through glass/bars to keep them from having mental health issues).
The King emphasizes other nations to hold their correction systems to high standards. Incarceration shouldn't be a punishment, but rather a way to keep society safe from violent offenders, and to rehabilitate such offenders. The King reminds all that crime isn't an issue of "right" vs "wrong" or "good" vs "bad", but rather a response to social, mental, or financial desperation.
"We would like to offer our formal congratulations for the ambassador from Tinfect upon successfully passing his resolution. Also we want to inform you that the Parliament and the people of Picairn, in a display of commitment, has passed and ratified a Constitutional Amendment - specifically Article 83: Ban on Forced Prisoner Labor - to honor a critical part of the resolution forever."
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:10 am
