[PASSED] Repeal "Prohibit Private Prisons"

[Astrobolt]

OOC: I just realized something, I am not sure this argument is entirely accurate. The resolution Prohibit Private Prisons demands that member states stop using private prisons for the incarceration of people 'convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences'. This resolution does not specify that this only applies to individuals convicted of crimes in the aforementioned member state. Therefore I would argue that anyone convicted of a crime would not be able to be an inmate in a private prison of a WA member state.

(OOC: The quote specifically mentions ‘their use’ of private prisons for incarcerating individuals. If a private prison were to house criminals from other countries, then it would be those other nations who would be using the facilities, rather than the member state in question. It’s very much a case of creative compliance, but is supported by a legalistic reading of the legislation.)

OOC: Under that logic though, a foreign government housing inmates in a private prison in another country would be 'using' those facilities thus falling under the 'their use' clause. Therefore, if this foreign government were a member of the WA they would be barred from doing so, as per Prohibit Private Prisons. If they were a not a member of the WA, they wouldn't have to house criminals in another country as they would have no restrictions on the operations of private prisons at all. Therefore, this objection does not seem valid to me.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The quote specifically mentions ‘their use’ of private prisons for incarcerating individuals. If a private prison were to house criminals from other countries, then it would be those other nations who would be using the facilities, rather than the member state in question. It’s very much a case of creative compliance, but is supported by a legalistic reading of the legislation.)

OOC: Under that logic though, a foreign government housing inmates in a private prison in another country would be 'using' those facilities thus falling under the 'their use' clause. Therefore, if this foreign government were a member of the WA they would be barred from doing so, as per Prohibit Private Prisons. If they were a not a member of the WA, they wouldn't have to house criminals in another country as they would have no restrictions on the operations of private prisons at all. Therefore, this objection does not seem valid to me.

(OOC: A good point has been raised. Perhaps, MG, you could explain further?)

[Youssath]

"Opposed. The idea behind GAR #468 is to ensure that there is a decent standard of living provided upon by all convicts and inmates whilst serving their time, and that it cannot be ascertained that private prisons are able to match that of public prisons given their motive for profits along with limited access to resources unlike governments. Unless we are trying to capitalize on those who are already providing us prison labour, I see no reason to exploit these people further and to allow them to take their time to correct their former mistakes."

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Under that logic though, a foreign government housing inmates in a private prison in another country would be 'using' those facilities thus falling under the 'their use' clause. Therefore, if this foreign government were a member of the WA they would be barred from doing so, as per Prohibit Private Prisons. If they were a not a member of the WA, they wouldn't have to house criminals in another country as they would have no restrictions on the operations of private prisons at all. Therefore, this objection does not seem valid to me.

OOC:There could be a nation that gets bribes from foreign private prisons and thus sends it's prisoners to private prisons in member states.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Just read the target again and noticed that it only applies to "individuals convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences", so you could easily have private prisons that house people who have been arrested and are waiting for their trial. The whole issue CD raised as a reasoning - private prison owners lobbying for more people arrested (or convicted) - still applies there, so it's a curious oversight.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Just read the target again and noticed that it only applies to "individuals convicted of crimes and serving criminal sentences", so you could easily have private prisons that house people who have been arrested and are waiting for their trial. The whole issue CD raised as a reasoning - private prison owners lobbying for more people arrested (or convicted) - still applies there, so it's a curious oversight.

OOC:I'll add that to the repeal, thanks!

[Araraukar]

OOC: Also add a link to the target to the first post (not the proposal itself).

[Mockia]

I support, since there are still private prisons due to Mockia's constant use of loopholes.

[Mockia]

OOC: Technically, the resolution gives two years to comply from passage so he is within compliance at time of writing.

(OOC: I forgot about that, though there is no way of knowing what timescale his or her nation is running. This could be a potential repeal argument: the fact that different nation's planets perambulate around their suns at different rates, causing different years.)

OOC: Mockia somehow has transcended the years system (due to the nature of the YTrojanverse, where Mockia goes back and forward in time commonly.), and is willing to pay any fines. This has created national debt, which makes America's national debt look microscopic by comparison.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I shall be submitting this on Friday, feedback is more than welcome.

[Gregouria]

Opposed, for now.

[Kenmoria]

Opposed, for now.

(OOC: It’s generally a good idea to say why you are opposed to a piece of legislation. That way, the author can edit the proposal so that it is improved and, possibly, more to your tastes.)

[American Pere Housh]

Jonathan steps up to the podium, " I'm here to announce that I will be absent for all WA GA & SC meetings for the foreseeable future as my nation is in the midst of a civil war." Jonathan walks away and out of the WA building.

[Wallenburg]

Further Quoting clause 3 which states "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";

Observing that the aforementioned clause does not ban private prisons in member states but instead, allows them to operate as long as they receive criminals convicted in foreign non-member countries;

This...isn't true.

[Kenmoria]

Further Quoting clause 3 which states "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";

Observing that the aforementioned clause does not ban private prisons in member states but instead, allows them to operate as long as they receive criminals convicted in foreign non-member countries;

This...isn't true.

(OOC: It depends how one defines ‘their use’ with regards to the ‘quoting’ clause. If it is read such that member nations can’t imprison just their own citizens, then MG’s point is correct. The argument is quite pedantic but is a conceivable thing for a player to do.)

[Marxist Germany]

Further Quoting clause 3 which states "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";

Observing that the aforementioned clause does not ban private prisons in member states but instead, allows them to operate as long as they receive criminals convicted in foreign non-member countries;

This...isn't true.

OOC: As Kenmoria said, "Requires all member states... discontinue their use of private prisons". Since non member states cannot be affected, this statement remains true.

[Wallenburg]

Interesting. I suppose it is conceivable, although realistically no nation-state is going to hand over its prisoners to private foreign-operated entities.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Interesting. I suppose it is conceivable, although realistically no nation-state is going to hand over its prisoners to private foreign-operated entities.

OOC: Considering there is a Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, a number of bilateral treaties, and so forth, I think you might be surprised. Australia already sends its immigrant detainees to what amount to prisons operated by a private company in a different country, and has no issue transferring prisoners to New Zealand or the UK (both of which utilize private prisons at a rate higher than the US, and over 10% of all inmates in said countries), I am not certain there is not some country, somewhere, which would have no problem with this

[Wallenburg]

Interesting. I suppose it is conceivable, although realistically no nation-state is going to hand over its prisoners to private foreign-operated entities.

OOC: Considering there is a Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, a number of bilateral treaties, and so forth, I think you might be surprised. Australia already sends its immigrant detainees to what amount to prisons operated by a private company in a different country, and has no issue transferring prisoners to New Zealand or the UK (both of which utilize private prisons at a rate higher than the US, and over 10% of all inmates in said countries), I am not certain there is not some country, somewhere, which would have no problem with this

Disregarding the major issues I have with immigration detention and private prisons:
1) Australia's immigration prisons, even when operated offshore, are run by Australian companies. So that's the Australian government sending immigrants arrested in Australia to prisons operated by an Australian company. Not exactly the same thing as this repeal hypothesizes.
2) Prisoner transfers out of Australia require the unanimous consent of the Australian government, the foreign government to which the prisoner is to be transferred, and the prisoner. Unless I am missing details there, that doesn't sound like an opportunity to shunt a bunch of Australian prisoners into foreign private prisons.

[Maowi]

'Ambassador, you're not gonna see any support from me. You churn out empty words about "repeal and replace" and yet you expressly state that you will not be drafting a replacement with tighter regulations. That reeks of deceit and intentional misleading of voters. The current resolution is far better than nothing, so with no replacement draft at least taking shape, I'm not voting for any repeal.'

[Barbariax]

Barbariax opposed Resolution #468 and therefore supports this repeal attempt.

[WayNeacTia]

"Opposed

Wayne"

[Kenmoria]

“Due to the massive popularity of the private prison business within Kenmoria, I will of course be voting FOR this proposal.”

[A Great and Free Spain]

We vote FOR.

Finally some common sense.

[Marxist Germany]

Klaus enters the voting chamber to cast his vote, he picks up a ballot and ticks the FOR box, and casts the ballot. He moves to the debate chambers to state hisbopinion and reply to questions."I do not believe private prisons should be prohibited, despite Germany rarely using them, other nations rely solely on them, and regulation of private prisons is a better way to go forwards; furthermore, the target has many objective flaws within it." he looks around the room and is confronted by the Maowese ambassador,

'Ambassador, you're not gonna see any support from me. You churn out empty words about "repeal and replace" and yet you expressly state that you will not be drafting a replacement with tighter regulations. That reeks of deceit and intentional misleading of voters. The current resolution is far better than nothing, so with no replacement draft at least taking shape, I'm not voting for any repeal.'

"I cannot, in good-faith write a replacement that fully prohibits private prisons, perhaps other ambassadors can try their luck at it." He thanks the ambassadors who support the proposal, and steps down from the podium to await other notes and opinions.