[PASSED] Protecting Imprisoned Youths

[Ardiveds]

The fuck? What does this mean? What does it do? This entire thread is about some protective confinement clause that was scrapped and I don't see a single justification for allowing parents to force their kids to hang out with adult prisoners.

Does seem the child's consent should be required as well. I would presume the "adult prisoners" a child's guardians might approve time with to be either parents or trustworthy role models. But yeah, the sentence is a badly constructed run-on and definitely deserves some clarification.

OOC: I think it was changed because there's another resolution that prohibits minors from providing consent. If this were to allow minors to provide consent, it would be im violation of contradiction rule.

[Kurdish Peoples]

We are thankful that at last this topic is brought up. The troubled youth should not be kept in prison. While we're at it we should ban solitary confinement for youths. Unless they are a active danger to other children or staff. Even then the mentally ill children that are a threat should be put in more psychiatric hospitals if possible.

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "After a brief consultation with Her Majesty Queen Demi Maria, Daarwyrth moves to a vote 'for' this resolution proposal.

Imprisoned youth should be protected as the text of this resolution stipulates, and should be sheltered from potentially corrupting influences. We are glad this proposal has reached the voting floor and seems to be enjoying major support from the member nations."

[Jedinsto]

Bans the holding of imprisoned youths with imprisoned adults for any purpose unless informed consent is given by all legal guardians of the minor, without any form of coercion, for them to meet with one or more imprisoned adults for a short period in a manner heavily supervised by prison staff,

The fuck? What does this mean? What does it do? This entire thread is about some protective confinement clause that was scrapped and I don't see a single justification for allowing parents to force their kids to hang out with adult prisoners.

Ever heard of beyond scared straight? That's basically what the clause allows. It also requires that it's heavily supervised, so the youths are safe.

[Typica]

Does seem the child's consent should be required as well. I would presume the "adult prisoners" a child's guardians might approve time with to be either parents or trustworthy role models. But yeah, the sentence is a badly constructed run-on and definitely deserves some clarification.

OOC: I think it was changed because there's another resolution that prohibits minors from providing consent. If this were to allow minors to provide consent, it would be im violation of contradiction rule.

With respect, that's messed up. How can such a consent law not be considered child abuse when it strips such basic autonomy? When and how are prison supervisors expected to intervene when they must coerce and compel youths into the presence of adults they find traumatizing? This is unacceptable.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: I think it was changed because there's another resolution that prohibits minors from providing consent. If this were to allow minors to provide consent, it would be im violation of contradiction rule.

With respect, that's messed up. How can such a consent law not be considered child abuse when it strips such basic autonomy? When and how are prison supervisors expected to intervene when they must coerce and compel youths into the presence of adults they find traumatizing? This is unacceptable.

They are expected to intervene because they are required to be present during these meetings. The parents must provide informed consent for the child to be in this situation. Informed consent requires accurate knowledge of what kind of situation the child will be in.

[Typica]

With respect, that's messed up. How can such a consent law not be considered child abuse when it strips such basic autonomy? When and how are prison supervisors expected to intervene when they must coerce and compel youths into the presence of adults they find traumatizing? This is unacceptable.

They are expected to intervene because they are required to be present during these meetings. The parents must provide informed consent for the child to be in this situation. Informed consent requires accurate knowledge of what kind of situation the child will be in.

How and when though?

[Jedinsto]

They are expected to intervene because they are required to be present during these meetings. The parents must provide informed consent for the child to be in this situation. Informed consent requires accurate knowledge of what kind of situation the child will be in.

How and when though?

How- they stop any of the imprisoned adults from attacking the youths, by restraining them. When- as soon as they see shit happening. Was this not obvious?

[Typica]

How and when though?

How- they stop any of the imprisoned adults from attacking the youths, by restraining them. When- as soon as they see shit happening. Was this not obvious?

By restraint you imply attacks only constitute immediate physical assault.
And it's unfortunate the only remedy is constraint. Why not end the session?
Why should attacks not include verbal threats of physical intimidation?
Yes these things are not obvious.

[Jedinsto]

How- they stop any of the imprisoned adults from attacking the youths, by restraining them. When- as soon as they see shit happening. Was this not obvious?

By restraint you imply attacks only constitute immediate physical assault.
And it's unfortunate the only remedy is constraint. Why not end the session?
Why should attacks not include verbal threats of physical intimidation?
Yes these things are not obvious.

I was giving an example. There are obviously different situations in which staff would have to intervene. If the parents are informed of the risks and the staff is there to help, how they deal with these situations is now legally not my problem.

[Elwher]

We see two flaws in the legislation as written that force us to vote nay, despite the obvious good intentions of the legislation.

First, any nation wishing to avoid the intent could simply reduce the age of majority for criminal actions to whatever age they want, thereby making the youths otherwise covered legal adults.

Second, and this is a much more minor point, requiring the consent of all legal guardians has the potential problem of allowing one guardian to prevent such contact just to spite the other one.

[New Horissnia]

New Horissnia simply cannot afford the expenses attached with the bill's demands to "improve conditions" for underage convicts. We are voting NO.

[Jedinsto]

New Horissnia simply cannot afford the expenses attached with the bill's demands to "improve conditions" for underage convicts. We are voting NO.

That clause doesn't require anything. It's a recommendation.

First, any nation wishing to avoid the intent could simply reduce the age of majority for criminal actions to whatever age they want, thereby making the youths otherwise covered legal adults.

Second, and this is a much more minor point, requiring the consent of all legal guardians has the potential problem of allowing one guardian to prevent such contact just to spite the other one.

For the first thing- there are past resolutions to prevent that. I'll get some numbers for ya if necessary.

Second- I realized that during drafting, but I prefer that happening over one parent sending them into a program the other doesn't want the youth to be in for whatever reason.

[Greater Cesnica]

We see two flaws in the legislation as written that force us to vote nay, despite the obvious good intentions of the legislation.

First, any nation wishing to avoid the intent could simply reduce the age of majority for criminal actions to whatever age they want, thereby making the youths otherwise covered legal adults.

"Ambassador, I would advise that you familiarize yourself with reasonable nation theory."

[New Horissnia]

New Horissnia simply cannot afford the expenses attached with the bill's demands to "improve conditions" for underage convicts. We are voting NO.

That clause doesn't require anything. It's a recommendation.

I should have specified, clause 3A is still too costly.

[Jedinsto]

We see two flaws in the legislation as written that force us to vote nay, despite the obvious good intentions of the legislation.

First, any nation wishing to avoid the intent could simply reduce the age of majority for criminal actions to whatever age they want, thereby making the youths otherwise covered legal adults.

"Ambassador, I would advise that you familiarize yourself with reasonable nation theory."

"Thank you Ambassador McCooley. I was not aware of those precedents, either."

OOC: I remember the whole "Circumvention does not occur where circumvention would be detrimental to the circumventor" thingy but yeah I didn't know age of majority had its own thing.

[Jedinsto]

That clause doesn't require anything. It's a recommendation.

I should have specified, clause 3A is still too costly.

"If your nation does not have enough money to provide public healthcare or education, or even enough money to give imprisoned youths access to private healthcare and education, maybe you should reconsider holding youths in prison in the first place."

[Elwher]

We see two flaws in the legislation as written that force us to vote nay, despite the obvious good intentions of the legislation.

First, any nation wishing to avoid the intent could simply reduce the age of majority for criminal actions to whatever age they want, thereby making the youths otherwise covered legal adults.

"Ambassador, I would advise that you familiarize yourself with reasonable nation theory."

Many governmental entities already have a separate age of majority for criminal actions, and it is this distinction we were concerned could be exploited. For example, 16-year-olds can often be charged as adults despite their not having reached the age of majority in other areas of law.

[New Horissnia]

I should have specified, clause 3A is still too costly.

"If your nation does not have enough money to provide public healthcare or education, or even enough money to give imprisoned youths access to private healthcare and education, maybe you should reconsider holding youths in prison in the first place."

Assuming this dastardly attempt at legislation passes, in compliance with the clause, juvenile detainment facilities in New Horissnia will be privatized. The operating budget of the church alone cannot sustain education or "public healthcare" for these crooks, so those costs too will be delegated to private enterprise. Mind you, we will ensure that these services are provided.

[Jedinsto]

OOC: Again, nothing says you have to provide a public education or healthcare. Just putting that out there.

[Junitaki-cho]

The fuck? What does this mean? What does it do? This entire thread is about some protective confinement clause that was scrapped and I don't see a single justification for allowing parents to force their kids to hang out with adult prisoners.

Ever heard of beyond scared straight? That's basically what the clause allows. It also requires that it's heavily supervised, so the youths are safe.

I thought those old "scared straight" programs involved taking non-prisoner kids in to scare the shit out of them, not abusing someone who's already been imprisoned.

[Jedinsto]

Ever heard of beyond scared straight? That's basically what the clause allows. It also requires that it's heavily supervised, so the youths are safe.

I thought those old "scared straight" programs involved taking non-prisoner kids in to scare the shit out of them, not abusing someone who's already been imprisoned.

They were. It was so they would learn to avoid prison. And I fail to understand why somebody would consent (informedly and without coercion) to having their child "abused" in prison. Even if they did, it would likely violate other international law, or at least the prison would be in violation. And I never specified what these meetings can be. They can be reform programs, beyond scared straight but with kids who are already in prison, or anything, really.

[Bananaistan]

"Ambassador, I would advise that you familiarize yourself with reasonable nation theory."

Many governmental entities already have a separate age of majority for criminal actions, and it is this distinction we were concerned could be exploited. For example, 16-year-olds can often be charged as adults despite their not having reached the age of majority in other areas of law.

"See GAR#299 which sets out the right of member states to set their own age of criminal responsibility. No point in criticising this for not contradicting existing legislation."

[Vikanias]

HAHAHA children in prison? Misconduct? What i’ve learned is that you abandon the kids in a forest and check back when their sentence is over. If they die. Meh, if you can’t beat up a polar bear with cuteness they are better off dead.

[Ardiveds]

HAHAHA children in prison? Misconduct? What i’ve learned is that you abandon the kids in a forest and check back when their sentence is over. If they die. Meh, if you can’t beat up a polar bear with cuteness they are better off dead.

OOC: This is kinda off-topic but that flag is adorable