NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:“I see a problem in the second and third prohibitory clauses. Namely, you don’t exclude ‘protective Custody’ from the definition of ‘solitary confinement’, so they contradict each other.”

"I must apologize, I rather fail to understand this reading, what, again, is the contradiction?"

The use of capital punishment for any crime that did not result in unlawful death, cruel or unusual treatment such as torture or rape, or an exceptional betrayal of national security,

"This wording is not tolerable. We preferred Sierra Lyricalia's:

"...that capital punishment never be administered for any offense not defined as a war crime, crime against humanity, or 'affront to civilization' by World Assembly legislation..."

United Massachusetts wrote:

The use of capital punishment for any crime that did not result in unlawful death, cruel or unusual treatment such as torture or rape, or an exceptional betrayal of national security,

"This wording is not tolerable. We preferred Sierra Lyricalia's:

"...that capital punishment never be administered for any offense not defined as a war crime, crime against humanity, or 'affront to civilization' by World Assembly legislation..."

"Does your government have reasons to prefer the protection of child molesters, Ambassador?"

Tinfect wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:
"This wording is not tolerable. We preferred Sierra Lyricalia's:

"...that capital punishment never be administered for any offense not defined as a war crime, crime against humanity, or 'affront to civilization' by World Assembly legislation..."

"Does your government have reasons to prefer the protection of child molesters, Ambassador?"

"Life in prison is protection now? Interesting development."

Tinfect wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“I see a problem in the second and third prohibitory clauses. Namely, you don’t exclude ‘protective Custody’ from the definition of ‘solitary confinement’, so they contradict each other.”

"I must apologize, I rather fail to understand this reading, what, again, is the contradiction?"

“When you define ‘solitary confinement’, you don’t exclude from it the definition of ‘protective custody’. Thus making protective custody a subset of solitary confinement. The prohibition in clause 1 clearly bans all forms of solitary confinement, logically including that which the WA has deemed protective, whereas the prohibition in causes 3 allows one form of solitary confinement - that which is of a protective nature - with informed consent. This seems to me to be internal contradiction.”

(OOC: Did that make sense? I recognise that was quite a meandering paragraph and, to avoid taking up the thread, I’ll TG you if there’s still confusion.)

United Massachusetts wrote:

Tinfect wrote:"Does your government have reasons to prefer the protection of child molesters, Ambassador?"

"Life in prison is protection now? Interesting development."

The Araraukarian seat is currently occupied by a young woman, who might as well have "intern" tattooed on her forehead. "For anyone that the general public would want dead, yes, prison is a protective environment. You being one of the people wanting to ban death penalty should be aware of how such a ban will not appease many people''s sense of justice, when it comes to extremely heinous crimes, such as kidnapping, raping and murdering a child. You being one of the people wanting to ban the lawful execution of such criminals means that you must want to protect them, even from lawful government actions."

The general concept of judicial or prosecutorial independence is often cited as a justification to minimize the need for oversight of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”).1 However, keeping an international court accountable is necessary in order to maximize the performance, productivity, and efficiency of the court. To achieve this objective, effective oversight of an international body such as the ICC requires the performance of four primary functions: 1) financial and budgetary supervision, 2) administrative management, 3) oversight of misconduct of elected officials, staff members, and contractors, and 4) recommendations to the Assembly of States Parties (“ASP”) for improvements to the Court. This paper will lay out the need for each of these functions for the ICC and then discuss whether and to what extent the Independent Oversight Mechanism (“IOM”) established by the ASP is needed to facilitate and perform these functions.




Tutuapp 9apps Showbox

Nateboussad wrote:The general concept of judicial or prosecutorial independence is often cited as a justification to minimize the need for oversight of the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”).1 However, keeping an international court accountable is necessary in order to maximize the performance, productivity, and efficiency of the court. To achieve this objective, effective oversight of an international body such as the ICC requires the performance of four primary functions: 1) financial and budgetary supervision, 2) administrative management, 3) oversight of misconduct of elected officials, staff members, and contractors, and 4) recommendations to the Assembly of States Parties (“ASP”) for improvements to the Court. This paper will lay out the need for each of these functions for the ICC and then discuss whether and to what extent the Independent Oversight Mechanism (“IOM”) established by the ASP is needed to facilitate and perform these functions.

OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! One of the underlying assumptions of the game is that WA committees are overseen sufficiently by the World Assembly itself that these concerns are moot - otherwise every author would have to spend valuable real estate out of the constant and rigid 5,000 character limit trying to police misconduct, which would quickly become tiresome. It can be safely assumed that members of the Court who do not adequately fulfill their obligations, in whatever way, will be quickly drummed out of their positions, and compensation rendered if necessary, without having to articulate it in the creating resolution.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Welcome to the World Assembly! One of the underlying assumptions of the game is that WA committees are overseen sufficiently by the World Assembly itself that these concerns are moot - otherwise every author would have to spend valuable real estate out of the constant and rigid 5,000 character limit trying to police misconduct, which would quickly become tiresome.

OOC
Especially as they would have to do so without using any previous resolution's author's wording on the matter, unless they could obtain that earlier author's consent, due to the way that the rule against Plagiarism works here...

Tinfect wrote:

International Criminal Protocol

Category: Civil Rights || Strength: Strong

(Image)

Origin: Imperium of Tinfect,

Author: Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy

Imperial Division of Foreign Policy and Diplomatic Action

Counsel: Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative

Counsel: Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative

---

The World Assembly,

Annoyed by the insistence regarding passing yet another pointless non-compromise that will merely facilitate legal abuses and result in infinitely worse legislation being passed,

Acknowledging prior attempts to ensure that the criminal justice systems of Member-States operate in a just and ethical manner,

Dismayed by their failure to adequately provide protections from legal abuse and to provide closure and restitution to victims,

Seeking to immediately prevent any further abuses of criminal justice systems,

Hereby;

Defines:

1. Capital punishment as the execution of a criminal convicted of a crime as sentence for said crime,
2. Solitary confinement as the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and/or prison staff,
3. Protective confinement as the severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates due to clear and present danger(s) to their life in the general prison population,
4. Inhumane conditions as the refusal or withholding of necessary and healthy sustenance, medically or mentally necessary healthcare, severely confined or crowded conditions, or conditions inferior to those mandated for prisoners of war,

Prohibits:

1. In all cases, the practice of solitary confinement,
2. The holding of any prisoners in inhumane conditions,
3. The holding of any prisoner in protective confinement without the informed consent of the prisoner,
4. The use of capital punishment for any crime that did not result in unlawful death, cruel or unusual treatment such as torture or rape, or an exceptional betrayal of national security,

Mandates:

1. That Member-States provide to prisoners accessible legal recourse for the investigation of any undue violence or abuse by prison staff,
2. That Member-States provide to prisoners accessible legal counsel and support for any prisoner sentenced to Capital Punishment, including access to appeals and stays of execution,
3. The use of the highest reasonable standards of evidence be used when considering the use of capital punishment,
4. That all executions be held at a reasonable date past sentencing, to be no shorter than a period of thirty days, alongside any processing time for legal requests or inquiries,
5. That protective solitary confinement be be utilized only when there exists a clear and present danger to holding the prisoner within the general prison area,
6. That prisoners subject to protective confinement be allowed regular contact with psychiatric staff and access to visitation as regularly allowed to prisoners,
7. That, once a prisoner has been subjected to protective confinement, all practical measures must be taken to allow their safe return to general prison populations as soon as possible,

"Yes, yes, the Imperium is well-aware that Preventing the Execution of Innocents still stands; consider this a... gesture of good faith."

OOC:
Let's not pretend this is anything else but a replacement for Preventing the Execution of Innocents. My repeal for said resolution may be found here. I'm out of practice at this, so if it's an abomination... just, like, tell me why.

I do have a request though; if anyone can think of a way to prevent executions for minor crimes, that'd be great, because the only idea I've got is to explicitly restrict Execution to a handful of crimes, and, quite frankly, I do not believe that I could write that list alone. So, if you have a better way, or, a list, that'd great.

1. Added a limited exception for protective confinement, and various requirements regarding it.
2. Added Sierra Lyricalia's first suggestion, and substantially cleaned up the draft.

The guilty assasins sexual attackers and serial killers will not have right and your proposition is unfair and not moral, the proven guilty of murderingor serial killing should not have any rights, they should be kept of in solitary confinement the rest of his life with fair cruelty. A person which kills an innocent without a reason or for pleasure should not have any right death is to much good for them they deserve solitary confinement and suffer all the damage they caused

OOC:
Right, moving on from that incoherent rant, let's get back to work, people.

Is there a specific reason that capital punishment is considered more humane than solitary confinement?

hippity hoppity abolish sovereignty

IC: The young woman with the air of an intern about her, speaks up, reading from a barely legible handwritten note: "We cannot endorse the proposal as long as the ridiculous requirement of needing consent from a prisoner to place them under protective confinement. If a prisoner whom the vast majority of prison population wants dead, wishes to commit suicide, they should not be allowed to make another inmate into a murderer, but should seek euthanasia via legal channels. The Grand Nation of Araraukar does not withhold euthanasia from prisoners, but cannot allow someone's personal morals, while not allowing suicide, to encourage another person to unlawfully kill them. Further, the complete ban on solitary confinement unfairly restricts punitive measures, or the ability to put an unruly prisoner into "cooldown", before letting them back among the other inmates." She then checks the backside of the note and adds, "Oh and the second mandate of being required to let prisoners keep appealing the death sentence seems to allow that process to continue ad infinitum, which is just stupid. Also, why multiple appeals and stays?"

OOC: Point being, "suicide by fellow inmate" shouldn't be allowed just because someone's morals or personal opinions are opposed to legal and painless euthanasia.

Falcania wrote:Is there a specific reason that capital punishment is considered more humane than solitary confinement?

OOC: Most nations can be expected to have a population of social species, like humans. Complete isolation - the way it's defined in the proposal - from others is mental torture to most individuals of social species. Capital punishment ends any capacity for an individual to suffer afterwards.

Heads of WA member nations should be able to have the freedom of criminal protocol.

Araraukar wrote:

Falcania wrote:Is there a specific reason that capital punishment is considered more humane than solitary confinement?

OOC: Most nations can be expected to have a population of social species, like humans. Complete isolation - the way it's defined in the proposal - from others is mental torture to most individuals of social species. Capital punishment ends any capacity for an individual to suffer afterwards.

OOC: I know that in real life, obviously, I just want to have an argument on the point in character

Falcania wrote:OOC: I know that in real life, obviously, I just want to have an argument on the point in character

OOC:
You know what, that's fair. Sorry for the delay.
IC:

Falcania wrote:Is there a specific reason that capital punishment is considered more humane than solitary confinement?

"It comes down to a simple question, Ambassador, is it more human to simply end a life quickly and painlessly, or to engage in horrific torture that serves merely to extend suffering?"

Tinfect wrote:

Falcania wrote:
OOC:
You know what, that's fair. Sorry for the delay.
IC:

"It comes down to a simple question, Ambassador, is it more human to simply end a life quickly and painlessly, or to engage in horrific torture that serves merely to extend suffering?"

Is it more just to condemn someone to irreversible oblivion, or a temporary unpleasantness?

Falcania wrote:

Tinfect wrote:
"It comes down to a simple question, Ambassador, is it more human to simply end a life quickly and painlessly, or to engage in horrific torture that serves merely to extend suffering?"

Is it more just to condemn someone to irreversible oblivion, or a temporary unpleasantness?

Solitary confinement is more than just "temporary unpleasantness". It is demonstrably a form of torture, and has been shown to drive inmates into psychosis.

Tinfect wrote:Acknowledging prior attempts to ensure that the criminal justice systems of Member-States operate in a just and ethical manner,

....

1. That Member-States provide to prisoners accessible legal recourse for the investigation of any undue violence or abuse by prison staff,
2. That Member-States provide to prisoners accessible legal counsel and support for any prisoner sentenced to Capital Punishment, including access to appeals and stays of execution,

"Member-States" should be "member states" and "Capital Punishment" should be "capital punishment".

"One possibility that has not been considered, is to do what we do in the Haven and end the practise of imprisonment."

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:"One possibility that has not been considered, is to do what we do in the Haven and end the practise of imprisonment."

"Ambassador, I fear for the safety of your citizens."

Wallenburg wrote:Solitary confinement is more than just "temporary unpleasantness". It is demonstrably a form of torture, and has been shown to drive inmates into psychosis.

OOC: Not when you're put in time-out to calm down. Spending a couple of hours alone won't drive sane people into psychosis. If they're psychotic to begin with, they likely should be alone in a room.

That (and a horror movie I saw today) reminds me that how would this proposal apply to "mental hospital for criminally insane" or whatever the non-horror movie wording is? The truly dangerous, violent and psychotic people who can't be persuaded to take their medication or who can't be sedated for one reason or another (allergies and other physical health issues are a thing even among psychopath serial killers), can they be kept in single rooms (obviously regularly checked on by staff), or do you have to let them be a danger to everyone around them?

Isolation isn't fun, but sometimes it's the only solution. Banning it entirely can't be done without providing working alternatives. Unfortunately in many cases the alternatives (medicating people without their consent/using physical restraints/etc.) are even more problematic.

Araraukar wrote:That (and a horror movie I saw today) reminds me that how would this proposal apply to "mental hospital for criminally insane" or whatever the non-horror movie wording is? The truly dangerous, violent and psychotic people who can't be persuaded to take their medication or who can't be sedated for one reason or another (allergies and other physical health issues are a thing even among psychopath serial killers), can they be kept in single rooms (obviously regularly checked on by staff), or do you have to let them be a danger to everyone around them?

OOC:
This is a good point, admittedly. Should be able to do some fiddling with definitions to put that back on the table.

Araraukar wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Solitary confinement is more than just "temporary unpleasantness". It is demonstrably a form of torture, and has been shown to drive inmates into psychosis.

OOC: Not when you're put in time-out to calm down. Spending a couple of hours alone won't drive sane people into psychosis.

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

If they're psychotic to begin with, they likely should be alone in a room.

We should treat mentally ill people by locking them up and throwing away the key? Really?

Isolation isn't fun, but sometimes it's the only solution. Banning it entirely can't be done without providing working alternatives. Unfortunately in many cases the alternatives (medicating people without their consent/using physical restraints/etc.) are even more problematic.

Name me one circumstance in which total isolation for an extended period of time is necessary to contain an inmate.