NationStates

Astrobolt wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:4. Empowers member nations to decide for themselves, through their normal legislative process, whether to permit prisoners therein to work voluntarily during the period of their incarceration, and

OOC: Apologies for the lateness of this comment. I was wondering why this resolution allows member nations to prevent prisoners from voluntarily working during incarceration. Shouldn't all prisoners have the ability to work if they choose to do so?

OOC: There's a certain bit of controversy about permitting them to work voluntarily: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23781988

At the end of the day I'm trying to satisfy everyone here. Preventing prisoners from working isn't exactly abusive.

Astrobolt wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:4. Empowers member nations to decide for themselves, through their normal legislative process, whether to permit prisoners therein to work voluntarily during the period of their incarceration, and

OOC: Apologies for the lateness of this comment. I was wondering why this resolution allows member nations to prevent prisoners from voluntarily working during incarceration. Shouldn't all prisoners have the ability to work if they choose to do so?

At a second look I've decided to reverse that. Member states can no longer deny prisoners the opportunity to voluntary, paid labor.

Aaand Clause 4 has been deleted.

Thoughts as I'm going through the current draft:

- "Resolved" is an awkward tense for the opening line when the next one is active.
- The original text made a point of defining protective confinement as "severe" isolation, which was distinct from punitive confinement's "total" isolation. Why did you choose to combine these in your definition?
- The wording of the definition is a bit busy too, and because of that it carries the unfortunate implication that a prisoner may be isolated from inmates if prison staff pose a threat to them. You can see how this would really easily lead to abuses. If you're going to keep this form for the definition, consider lengthening it to distinguish between threats to and toward the isolated prisoner to eliminate loopholes.
- That said, I think the handling of confinement as written is pretty messy and inconsistent. The definition in clause 1 includes causes for their being confined, but 2(d) lists different criteria. For the sake of legibility, these really have to be made consistent. If it were me, I might cut down clause 1 to just read "Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates," make slight adjustments to 2(d) as necessary in this light, and modify 2(e) to read "Placing a prisoner in protective confinement [etc.]" so as to consistently use your established definition.
- I didn't like 2(a)'s benchmark being PoWs at first, but after looking over GAR#18, I do feel better about the baseline protections and living standards it offers.
- In the interest of honesty, I was critical of an earlier draft for not addressing forced labour without realizing it was already covered by GAR#23. That said, I do think your provisions on this are solid and provide useful developments. My only concern would be whether the inclusion of "activity" in 2(b) could overly restrict prisons' ability to wrangle inmates when necessary.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with how this resolution has developed, and am prepared to make a positive recommendation if the above concerns are addressed.

Junitaki-cho wrote:- "Resolved" is an awkward tense for the opening line when the next one is active.

Changed that to "believing".

Junitaki-cho wrote:- The original text made a point of defining protective confinement as "severe" isolation, which was distinct from punitive confinement's "total" isolation. Why did you choose to combine these in your definition?

I found that there was a lack of consistency in ICP's definition when it came to the characterizations of these types of imprisonment as "severe" and total". Combining them broadens the scope of prohibited abusive conditions.

Junitaki-cho wrote:- The wording of the definition is a bit busy too, and because of that it carries the unfortunate implication that a prisoner may be isolated from inmates if prison staff pose a threat to them. You can see how this would really easily lead to abuses. If you're going to keep this form for the definition, consider lengthening it to distinguish between threats to and toward the isolated prisoner to eliminate loopholes.
- That said, I think the handling of confinement as written is pretty messy and inconsistent. The definition in clause 1 includes causes for their being confined, but 2(d) lists different criteria. For the sake of legibility, these really have to be made consistent. If it were me, I might cut down clause 1 to just read "Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates," make slight adjustments to 2(d) as necessary in this light, and modify 2(e) to read "Placing a prisoner in protective confinement [etc.]" so as to consistently use your established definition.

I've made the recommended changes to clause 1 and 2(d). I also find now that 2(e) was redundant because of 2(d), so I have replaced it with 2(f); which is now 2(e).

Junitaki-cho wrote:- I didn't like 2(a)'s benchmark being PoWs at first, but after looking over GAR#18, I do feel better about the baseline protections and living standards it offers.

I'm glad we are in agreement.

Junitaki-cho wrote:- In the interest of honesty, I was critical of an earlier draft for not addressing forced labour without realizing it was already covered by GAR#23. That said, I do think your provisions on this are solid and provide useful developments. My only concern would be whether the inclusion of "activity" in 2(b) could overly restrict prisons' ability to wrangle inmates when necessary.

Right, I've reworded that bit to "perform labor or a service" to narrow it a bit.

Junitaki-cho wrote:Overall, I'm quite pleased with how this resolution has developed, and am prepared to make a positive recommendation if the above concerns are addressed.

Well, what do you think of these changes

"We are in support of this replacement attempt."

OOC:

Greater Cesnica wrote:1. Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates due to a significant risk posed to or from them, by or to those inmates or prison staff,

If read literally, this would include the near to total isolation of a prisoner but not the actual total isolation of a prisoner. It might be that interpreting it this way would be in bad faith - I'm not sure - but I don't think you'd lose anything by clarifying that this is "total or near to total isolation".

2. Prohibits:
[list=a][*]Subjecting a prisoner to treatment inferior to those legally permissible for prisoners of war,

Grammatically, "those" should be "that".

[*]Compelling a prisoner via force, threats of force, or other forms of coercion to carry out a service or activity as a punitive measure; or as a means to generate profit for a prison facility and/or associated third parties,

This semicolon should be a comma.

[*]All available measures are taken to permit the reinstatement of a prisoner into the general prison population, provided that it is deemed safe for them to be able to do so,

I'd personally edit the phrasing of this to "All available measures are taken to reinstate a prisoner into the general prison population, as soon as it is safe to do so" - otherwise I think the "provided that it is deemed safe" could leave undesirable wiggle room in terms of who is doing the "deeming".

[*]Member states ensure that prisoners have access to investigative resources and legal recourse in the event that they lodge a complaint about abuses inflicted upon them,

You could consider adding that prisons can't retaliate against prisoners for lodging complaints?

Edit: apologies if any of the wording I quoted is slightly different now - I didn't catch your post about new edits before hitting send on this one.

Maowi wrote:"We are in support of this replacement attempt."

OOC:

Greater Cesnica wrote:1. Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates due to a significant risk posed to or from them, by or to those inmates or prison staff,

If read literally, this would include the near to total isolation of a prisoner but not the actual total isolation of a prisoner. It might be that interpreting it this way would be in bad faith - I'm not sure - but I don't think you'd lose anything by clarifying that this is "total or near to total isolation".

2. Prohibits:
[list=a][*]Subjecting a prisoner to treatment inferior to those legally permissible for prisoners of war,

Grammatically, "those" should be "that".

[*]Compelling a prisoner via force, threats of force, or other forms of coercion to carry out a service or activity as a punitive measure; or as a means to generate profit for a prison facility and/or associated third parties,

This semicolon should be a comma.

[*]All available measures are taken to permit the reinstatement of a prisoner into the general prison population, provided that it is deemed safe for them to be able to do so,

I'd personally edit the phrasing of this to "All available measures are taken to reinstate a prisoner into the general prison population, as soon as it is safe to do so" - otherwise I think the "provided that it is deemed safe" could leave undesirable wiggle room in terms of who is doing the "deeming".

[*]Member states ensure that prisoners have access to investigative resources and legal recourse in the event that they lodge a complaint about abuses inflicted upon them,

You could consider adding that prisons can't retaliate against prisoners for lodging complaints?

Edit: apologies if any of the wording I quoted is slightly different now - I didn't catch your post about new edits before hitting send on this one.

I have made the changes you recommended save for the recommendation for clause 1, which I had fixed earlier. Also, no worries, everyone get's ninja'd!

Greater Cesnica wrote:Well, what do you think of these changes

Good calls. Barring any oversights, I'm a fan of this proposal.

Although one other clarification came to mind. ICP included a provision to confine individuals who are "legally unable to [offer informed consent]." In hindsight, this implementation isn't great, but does there need to be something in there to allow the separation of a prisoner who's incapacitated? Is a sick bay with no other prisoners present technically protective confinement under this definition?

Junitaki-cho wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Well, what do you think of these changes

Is a sick bay with no other prisoners present technically protective confinement under this definition?

I wouldn't say so. A sick bay exists to provide treatment and facilitate the recovery of a prisoner, not to protect them or others from threats posed to or from a prisoner.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Junitaki-cho wrote:Is a sick bay with no other prisoners present technically protective confinement under this definition?

I wouldn't say so. A sick bay exists to provide treatment and facilitate the recovery of a prisoner, not to protect them or others from threats posed to or from a prisoner.

I'm just not sure intent is legally important here. If the only criteria for protective confinement is that it's isolated from the general population, the circumstances of that isolation don't seem to matter.

Junitaki-cho wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:I wouldn't say so. A sick bay exists to provide treatment and facilitate the recovery of a prisoner, not to protect them or others from threats posed to or from a prisoner.

I'm just not sure intent is legally important here. If the only criteria for protective confinement is that it's isolated from the general population, the circumstances of that isolation don't seem to matter.

Alright, I've added a provision covering medical incapacitation.

Seeing as Tinfect has once again submitted their flawed resolution, I will be submitting now.

Final Draft (Draft Fourteen]:

The General Assembly,

Believing that the abuse of the imprisoned is an intolerable state of affairs,

Aiming to reform the criminal justice system to prevent these abuses from occurring,

Hereby,

1. Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with severe or total isolation from other inmates,

2. Prohibits:

1. Subjecting a prisoner to treatment inferior to that legally permissible for prisoners of war,
2. Compelling a prisoner via force, threats of force, or other forms of coercion to perform labor or a service as a punitive measure, or as a means to generate profit for a prison facility and/or associated third parties,
3. The sale or leasing of any prisoner by the government or any private prison to any private corporation or institution,
4. Placing a prisoner in protective confinement, unless:
   
   1. The informed consent of the prisoner is present,
   2. Doing so is the only means available to mitigate risks posed by the prisoner to the general prison population, or
   3. The prisoner is medically incapacitated, and
5. Barring prisoners from the opportunity to voluntarily carry out a service or activity as a form of paid labor,

3. Requires that:

1. Those who have had protective confinement imposed on them have regular access to the services of psychiatric staff; and that they have access to visitations from guests in accordance with standard prison policy,
2. All available measures are taken to reinstate a prisoner into the general prison population, as soon as it is safe to do so,
3. Member states ensure that prisoners have access to investigative resources and legal recourse in the event that they lodge a complaint about abuses inflicted upon them, and that no reprisals are carried out against those who lodge these complaints,
4. Prisoners who voluntarily carry out a service or activity as a form of labor during the period of their incarceration receive a wage commensurate to the extent of their work, which shall be equivalent to the wage a free worker employed in the same trade would receive for doing the same quantity and quality of work, and that
5. All workplace health and safety regulations, past and future, on the national and international level, apply to prisoners working voluntarily during the period of their incarceration.

Co-authored by Barfleur.

I'd let this be a resolution if I actually had endorsements.

Neymarland wrote:I'd let this be a resolution if I actually had endorsements.

I thank you for your support regardless!

On recommendation from my WAA Councillor and my own reading of the replacement draft and thread, I've approved. I think that, combined with IA's Death Penalty Ban, this is quite good. Barring any major points that come up in our regional discussion that I haven't considered, I plan on voting for, should this reach quorum.

Consider my concerns addressed to you over discord the other day addressed and calmed ^-^

Sylh Alanor wrote:On recommendation from my WAA Councillor and my own reading of the replacement draft and thread, I've approved. I think that, combined with IA's Death Penalty Ban, this is quite good. Barring any major points that come up in our regional discussion that I haven't considered, I plan on voting for, should this reach quorum.

Consider my concerns addressed to you over discord the other day addressed and calmed ^-^

Thank you!

I'm not opposed to this proposal, but it could have addressed the rights and protections of prisoners during hunger strikes.

In terms of approvals, we’re proceeding nicely. 31 down, 26 more to go. When it reaches quorum, the full author and I will go all in on campaigning.

Barfleur wrote:In terms of approvals, we’re proceeding nicely. 31 down, 26 more to go. When it reaches quorum, the full author and I will go all in on campaigning.

Looking forward to it

Proposal has hit quorum.

Congrats. I have voted For.

Neymarland wrote:Congrats. I have voted For.

Fair treatment of prisoners, among those nations which use a traditional prison system, is absolutely essential to a successful recovery. While we do not believe in the top-down authority of a state to confine its citizens in such a way, we do believe this legislation can be a stepping stone to a more just and equal society for more traditional nations.

With the consent of the assembly of ARM's civilian leaders, we are voting to approve this legislation.

Anarchist Republic of Melodia wrote:Fair treatment of prisoners, among those nations which use a traditional prison system, is absolutely essential to a successful recovery. While we do not believe in the top-down authority of a state to confine its citizens in such a way, we do believe this legislation can be a stepping stone to a more just and equal society for more traditional nations.

With the consent of the assembly of ARM's civilian leaders, we are voting to approve this legislation.

IC: "We greatly appreciate your support, Ambassador."

"I have had the honor of casting Barfleur's vote in favor of the proposal at vote. We appreciate the support of all the delegates who approved it and all the nations who have voted--and who plan on voting--for it."

Hmm. Little surprised 2(a)(ii) doesn't go the other way around too- protecting a prisoner from other convicts who wish to harm them.