Repeal "For the Detained and Convicted"!
THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,
FULLY ACKNOWLEDGING “For the Detained and Convicted” has a humanitarian spirit and that the majority of the Ambassadors and Delegates who voted for "For the Detained and Convicted" did so for humanitarian reasons;
ACKNOWLEDGING that when an “individual is convicted, they [sic] are entitled to some rights”;
BUT NEVERTHELESS APPALLED “For the Detained and Convicted” does absolutely nothing to protect the rights of the “Detained and Convicted” and SHOCKED that it enables even worse violations of rights;
SADLY NOTING Resolution #62 says, in relevant part (emphasis added):
1. That the detained:
[…]
d. (i) if held for more than 6 hours per day (or equivalent) shall be fed an adequate meal;
(ii) shall be fed at minimum two adequate meals per day;
2. That the convicted:
a. (i) if sentenced to prison, be given accommodations of a reasonable comfort level;
(ii) shall be placed in an area of adequate security level for the offense;
b. shall be fed at minimum two adequate meals per day;
c. shall have visitation rights;
[…]
g. (i) if misbehaved, may be punished and temporarily lose rights listed as (c) and (g) for an adequate time as given by a prison board or equivalent;
(ii) shall have more time added to their sentence if misconduct is a felony or of a serious nature.
APPALLED & ENRAGED by the lack of definitions, letting them open to atrocious interpretations:
Nowhere there is a definition of “adequate meals”. This can lead to situations where a person is fed meals which are social or religious taboos, such as cockroaches or other various insects, observant Catholics being fed meat on Easter, or Jews and Muslims being fed pork, on grounds those are nutritiously adequate meals. On extreme situations, this can effectively be a death sentence by starvation;
Nowhere there is a definition of “reasonable comfort level”. This can lead to “experiments on optimal comfort”, leading to situations where a person is left on extreme temperatures, or without simple comfort items, like a mattress;
Nowhere there is a definition of “visitation rights”. This can lead prison personnel to define it as “once a year”, or even longer periods. Also nowhere the degrees of privacy allowed/prohibited are defined;
Nowhere there is a definition of “misconduct […] of a serious nature”. This can lead to the creation of arbitrary, impossible rules, which combined with the fact that there are no limits to the time that can be added to a sentence, effectively gives prison personnel the power to arbitrarily incarcerate people for life by breaking frivolous rules;
THEREFORE, THE WORLD ASSEMBLY REPEALS Resolution #62.
