NationStates

This resolution is way to vague.

United States of Americanas wrote:Though the ethical solution would be to enact a minimum standards of national civil rights and political freedoms to be a member of the WA.

OOC: That would require game coding changes so it'd be a Game Mechanics violation, and it would be trying to affect player behaviour and involve the gameside account's stats, so also Metagaming violation. And there's a rule against ideological bans in proposals, so all in all, not something the GA can do. If you meant it less literally, check out the passed resolutions, I'm sure you'll be surprised.

I would say my biggest concern is the wide depth of this proposal. It fails to coherently address enough of the issue related to solitary confinement and fails to properly define what solitary truly is. It does not make mention of what would fully constitute solitary in regards to a time frame. It mentions that a time frame is to be used to justify whether it is Solitary or not, however fails to lay anything further. No guidelines are provided for alternatives. Because of this, and because it mentions studies but fails to provide citations to those studies, We must vote no. We do believe that solitary confinement is to be considered in very certain circumstances, such as an offender who voluntarily wants to be alone. These situations are not mentioned. In the way the law is written here, a patient even being in a private room in hospital would be against this law. There is far too much open endedness. Once this law is polished further, it will be good to go. But as it stands, it needs lots of work. The good thing is that it opens up international talks to hopefully get to a point where a law that covers all that is needed can come to light.

The Canadian Republic Colonies wrote:I would say my biggest concern is the wide depth of this proposal. It fails to coherently address enough of the issue related to solitary confinement and fails to properly define what solitary truly is. It does not make mention of what would fully constitute solitary in regards to a time frame. It mentions that a time frame is to be used to justify whether it is Solitary or not, however fails to lay anything further. No guidelines are provided for alternatives. Because of this, and because it mentions studies but fails to provide citations to those studies, We must vote no. We do believe that solitary confinement is to be considered in very certain circumstances, such as an offender who voluntarily wants to be alone. These situations are not mentioned. In the way the law is written here, a patient even being in a private room in hospital would be against this law. There is far too much open endedness. Once this law is polished further, it will be good to go. But as it stands, it needs lots of work. The good thing is that it opens up international talks to hopefully get to a point where a law that covers all that is needed can come to light.

I thought it better to not define a strict time frame for the definition of solitary given the enormous range of sapient species present in the NS multiverse. For one, being in solitary for 6 days could be harmful; for another, 5 hours might drive them crazy.

Regarding the studies, it would be a RL reference to include citations of studies from RL proving the adverse health effects of solitary, but I can provide them here. This is just one example:

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326

And about your last clause, putting a willing prisoner in solitary would not, regarding this proposal, be considered solitary confinement, as solitary is defined as the involuntary confinement ... etc.

Maowi wrote:

The Canadian Republic Colonies wrote:I would say my biggest concern is the wide depth of this proposal. It fails to coherently address enough of the issue related to solitary confinement and fails to properly define what solitary truly is. It does not make mention of what would fully constitute solitary in regards to a time frame. It mentions that a time frame is to be used to justify whether it is Solitary or not, however fails to lay anything further. No guidelines are provided for alternatives. Because of this, and because it mentions studies but fails to provide citations to those studies, We must vote no. We do believe that solitary confinement is to be considered in very certain circumstances, such as an offender who voluntarily wants to be alone. These situations are not mentioned. In the way the law is written here, a patient even being in a private room in hospital would be against this law. There is far too much open endedness. Once this law is polished further, it will be good to go. But as it stands, it needs lots of work. The good thing is that it opens up international talks to hopefully get to a point where a law that covers all that is needed can come to light.

I thought it better to not define a strict time frame for the definition of solitary given the enormous range of sapient species present in the NS multiverse. For one, being in solitary for 6 days could be harmful; for another, 5 hours might drive them crazy.

Regarding the studies, it would be a RL reference to include citations of studies from RL proving the adverse health effects of solitary, but I can provide them here. This is just one example:

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326

And about your last clause, putting a willing prisoner in solitary would not, regarding this proposal, be considered solitary confinement, as solitary is defined as the involuntary confinement ... etc.

Why would anyone willingly go there?

Marxist Germany wrote:

Maowi wrote:
I thought it better to not define a strict time frame for the definition of solitary given the enormous range of sapient species present in the NS multiverse. For one, being in solitary for 6 days could be harmful; for another, 5 hours might drive them crazy.

Regarding the studies, it would be a RL reference to include citations of studies from RL proving the adverse health effects of solitary, but I can provide them here. This is just one example:

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326

And about your last clause, putting a willing prisoner in solitary would not, regarding this proposal, be considered solitary confinement, as solitary is defined as the involuntary confinement ... etc.

Why would anyone willingly go there?

(OOC: A prisoner might feel unsafe around the general prison populace, or could have religious needs that require isolation.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:Why would anyone willingly go there?

(OOC: A prisoner might feel unsafe around the general prison populace, or could have religious needs that require isolation.)

Oh ok

Soviet Confederacy wrote:This resolution is way to vague.

(OOC: How? I can’t see anything that is ambiguous to the point of harming the proposal’s aims, and the vagueness in some places is intended to allow room for sensible leeway.)

RIP resolution

Salcanceacy wrote:RIP resolution

OOC: Completely unnecessary and mean of you. You could have at the very least posted this:

"Restricting Solitary Confinement" was defeated 11,224 votes to 4,373.

To author: I hope you try again (though remember you need to make a new thread as this one will be archived), because it looks like the biggest failing was people not understanding you're not actually banning solitary confinement, but merely restricting it. Do you know what was in the campaign TG?

Araraukar wrote:To author: I hope you try again (though remember you need to make a new thread as this one will be archived), because it looks like the biggest failing was people not understanding you're not actually banning solitary confinement, but merely restricting it. Do you know what was in the campaign TG?

I think the campaign TG could probably have been more explicit on that, if I am recalling its contents correctly. But I think right now Tinfect has made a draft on something similar which includes solitary confinement (although the thread hasn't been active recently, so I don't know what her plans are with that) but if that is going forward, I'll see how it goes - I seem to remember that I liked it when I looked over it - and I'll try again if that fails.

OOC: The reason I'm encouraging you to continue with this, is that I like yours better than Tinfect's. At least as currently written.