Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:53 pmSo if i'm against solitary confinement I vote for this?
Norostilors wrote:So if i'm against solitary confinement I vote for this?
Yes
NationStates
Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/
[Defeated] Restricting Solitary Confinement
Page 5 of 8
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:53 pmPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 10:55 pmYes
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:37 amNorostilors wrote:So if i'm against solitary confinement I vote for this?
(OOC: Yes, this is a proposal that restricts solitary confinement and places limits on how it may be used, without excluding the possibility of future WA legislation that completely bans the practice.
There are lots of criminal justice issues that ought to be dealt with by the WA. For example, see the resolution Prevention of Torture. This is because some matters concern human rights, which should be upheld by international law.)Vrama wrote:This is a criminal justice issue. Different nations have different mores, customs, and their own unique problems.
This is clearly an issue best decided by the individual member-states. Therefore, we vote against.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:03 amO-Broki strongly supports the enactment of this proposal. For too long has the inhumane practice of solitary confinement gone unregulated and overused. It is an objective fact that solitary confinement produces in otherwise healthy prisoners mental health problems including anxiety, panic, insomnia, paranoia, aggression, and depression. Many times these problems, exacerbated by further use of solitary confinement, will tragically lead to suicide or attempted suicide. If member nations which to keep prisoners safe with solitary confinement, then they fail across the board. A prisoner who attempts suicide is not safer than before they were in solitary confinement. As for other prisoners, they are less safe when dealing with a prisoner who now suffers from potential panic, paranoia, or aggression. It is time that the WA act in its role as a protector of human rights and pass this resolution.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:40 amThe people of Ratpiss are strongly in favor. One way or another this practice must be stopped, as any and all forms of torture, and any and all loopholes that seek to skirt around that term.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:55 amI'm a bit surprised at the early strong against reaction to this proposal. It seems both well-written and reasonable, which isn't something I take for granted in the WA. Furry Things is certainly voting for this resolution.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:00 amFurry Things wrote:I'm a bit surprised at the early strong against reaction to this proposal. It seems both well-written and reasonable, which isn't something I take for granted in the WA. Furry Things is certainly voting for this resolution.
There’s a lot of corrupt psychotic dictatorships that shouldn’t be members of WA. I believe their votes are the ones corrupting our results.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:04 amUnited States of Americanas wrote:There’s a lot of corrupt psychotic dictatorships that shouldn’t be members of WA. I believe their votes are the ones corrupting our results.
That's why good things never happen here.
We voted for it.
We like to do pointless things like that.
Say, what if we confined those psychotic dictatorships in international solitary confinement?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 8:19 amNice resolution, Maowi.
Looks like there's a large initial rejection in the votes, but that sometimes happens, and there are still a lot of large regions yet to weigh in. Lots of individual nations voting "no", likely because they don't like being told to "not be evil." Losing The North Pacific and Europe is unfortunate, but that can still be offset. Don't lose hope.
Ambassador Synnøve Nørregaard
("Panther" in South Pacific)
Looks like there's a large initial rejection in the votes, but that sometimes happens, and there are still a lot of large regions yet to weigh in. Lots of individual nations voting "no", likely because they don't like being told to "not be evil." Losing The North Pacific and Europe is unfortunate, but that can still be offset. Don't lose hope.
Ambassador Synnøve Nørregaard
("Panther" in South Pacific)
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:07 amVoting for
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:07 am“As this has reached vote, I wish to declare my vote FOR this proposal. It addresses a fundamental issue of human rights in a positive way, without overly affecting private prisons who may have their own rules.”
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:42 amVerdant Haven has voted yes, and encourages others to do so as well. The objection apparently raised by some that it may be too vague does not hold water for me. It is a step in favor of greater civil rights and the end of torture, and the concept of reasonableness does exist in multiple legal systems with understood meaning. In the end, this can not possibly hurt, and may in fact do good.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:47 amWhile we agree with the banishment of solitary confinement, this resolution is much too vague. Defining solitary confinement as "the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time" means that all prison cells must either have at least two people in them at all time, or the lights must always be on. After all, "a duration of time" is not defined to be any particular length, so confining someone in a cell and turning the lights out for a second means that that person has been involuntarily confined without the ability to see another person for a duration of time.
This resolution deserves to be voted down. Inner Mations Aststan votes no.
This resolution deserves to be voted down. Inner Mations Aststan votes no.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:50 amSolitary Confinement has proven to do more harm than good. The People's Republic of Cela gladly votes FOR this resolution and encourages all nations to do the same.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:53 amInner Mations Aststan wrote:While we agree with the banishment of solitary confinement, this resolution is much too vague. Defining solitary confinement as "the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time" means that all prison cells must either have at least two people in them at all time, or the lights must always be on. After all, "a duration of time" is not defined to be any particular length, so confining someone in a cell and turning the lights out for a second means that that person has been involuntarily confined without the ability to see another person for a duration of time.
This resolution deserves to be voted down. Inner Mations Aststan votes no.
'The vagueness stems from your omission of the crucial part of the sentence, namely that the duration of time of involuntary confinement must be "proven to cause problems in an otherwise healthy individual".
Anyway, the Nordic Union votes For.'
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 11:36 amThe New Nordic Union wrote:Inner Mations Aststan wrote:While we agree with the banishment of solitary confinement, this resolution is much too vague. Defining solitary confinement as "the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time" means that all prison cells must either have at least two people in them at all time, or the lights must always be on. After all, "a duration of time" is not defined to be any particular length, so confining someone in a cell and turning the lights out for a second means that that person has been involuntarily confined without the ability to see another person for a duration of time.
This resolution deserves to be voted down. Inner Mations Aststan votes no.
'The vagueness stems from your omission of the crucial part of the sentence, namely that the duration of time of involuntary confinement must be "proven to cause problems in an otherwise healthy individual".
Anyway, the Nordic Union votes For.'
"Precisely. There don't have to be at least two people in every cell, as long as each prisoner sees or talks to another person relatively regularly."
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:02 pm"Agune gladly votes for this proposal. We are glad to see a resolution that protects civil rights in criminal justice, and we are shocked at the initial backlash of dissenting votes."
OOC: Great job Maowi on this well written proposal. Hope it passes!
OOC: Great job Maowi on this well written proposal. Hope it passes!
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:38 pmdeleted
What?
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:39 pmPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:06 pmLooks like the WA opposes pro-terrorist resolutions. Good the WA at least has some sanity left.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:07 pmHatzisland wrote:Looks like the WA opposes pro-terrorist resolutions. Good the WA at least has some sanity left.
Since when is this pro-terrorist? That's just messed up.
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:09 pmHatzisland wrote:Looks like the WA opposes pro-terrorist resolutions. Good the WA at least has some sanity left.
"Your hyperbole is so transparent as to border on the obscene."
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:03 pmHatzisland wrote:Looks like the WA opposes pro-terrorist resolutions. Good the WA at least has some sanity left.
(OOC:
What was that meant to show about the current proposal? In what way does what you have just said have anything to do with Restricting Solitary Confinement? There’s nothing wrong with opposing a proposal, but you ought to try to make your criticism understandable to the average reader.)Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 3:59 pmPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:04 pmOOC: Only because people are voting a certain way that aligns with yours does not mean they agree with you on the reasons for the vote. Your request was by far not the only criticism, nor was it the most substantial one.