[PASSED] Prohibit Private Prisons

[Excidium Planetis]

Sending a person to prison is not commerce, and prisoners are not articles of commerce.

I would think renting room in a prison is, however, I will defer to someone who studies law. SP, want to comment on this?

Also, this proposal would allow private participation in a public criminal justice system (sections 2, 5, and 6); and it contains an exception for compelling reasons (section 7).

That's not the same as allowing private prisons to operate as prisons. How would they continue to operate as prisons legally when the state cannot use them to house criminals and, as far as I am aware, there is no such thing as a non-state criminal.

QHS and this proposal are virtually identical. They both nationalize an industry (health/prisons), they both permit private participation in the nationalized system, and they both contain exceptions for compelling reasons. In fact, the legality of this proposal is stronger than the legality of QHS because the provision of healthcare is clearly commerce; the trade of persons held against their will is not.

Again, QHS does not create a "nationalized" system. "Nationalize" specifically means to transfer from private ownership to state ownership, and QHS does not mandate that nations transfer any health insurance from private insurance to public health insurance. In fact, given that QHS explicitly states that nations may choose to only provide insurance for those that cannot afford it, the new public health insurance mandated by QHS could be covering only those who were not even under private insurance to begin with. Potentially, health insurance companies face zero loss of customers. In complete contrast, private prisons face 100% loss of customers (sole customer being the state).

[Christian Democrats]

Sending a person to prison is not commerce, and prisoners are not articles of commerce.

I would think renting room in a prison is, however

Sure, rentals are commerce, but it's the incarceration itself that Section 3 would regulate:

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. (emphasis added)

Incarceration is not a commercial activity any more than policing or judging is a commercial activity. If national governments, all of a sudden, started outsourcing the police and the courts to private companies, the General Assembly could intervene. Certainly, a resolution blocking international regulations of commerce does not block international regulations of governmental conduct toward citizens.

Also, this proposal would allow private participation in a public criminal justice system (sections 2, 5, and 6); and it contains an exception for compelling reasons (section 7).

That's not the same as allowing private prisons to operate as prisons. How would they continue to operate as prisons legally when the state cannot use them to house criminals and, as far as I am aware, there is no such thing as a non-state criminal.

They would try to obtain criminals from non-member states. I acknowledge that there would be contradiction problems with regulating private prisons directly, so this proposal would regulate member states' treatment of convicts instead.

QHS and this proposal are virtually identical. They both nationalize an industry (health/prisons), they both permit private participation in the nationalized system, and they both contain exceptions for compelling reasons. In fact, the legality of this proposal is stronger than the legality of QHS because the provision of healthcare is clearly commerce; the trade of persons held against their will is not.

Again, QHS does not create a "nationalized" system.

Health systems providing "[f]ull health services coverage" and funded by the government are nationalized systems.

"Nationalize" specifically means to transfer from private ownership to state ownership, and QHS does not mandate that nations transfer any health insurance from private insurance to public health insurance.

This proposal recommends but does not mandate that member states transfer private prisons to state control.

In fact, given that QHS explicitly states that nations may choose to only provide insurance for those that cannot afford it, the new public health insurance mandated by QHS could be covering only those who were not even under private insurance to begin with. Potentially, health insurance companies face zero loss of customers. In complete contrast, private prisons face 100% loss of customers (sole customer being the state).

QHS allows member states to limit national healthcare to low-income residents only "if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt." This proposal would allow member states to use private prisons "on a temporary basis, but only when it is necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners." The standards are equivalently stringent.

---

Before I submit this proposal "for real," I'll probably do a "test run" with it to force a ruling on the legality concerns:

1. Is incarceration a species of commerce covered by National Economic Freedoms' blocker clause?
2. If so, are the "hazards" of incarceration sufficiently "extreme" to warrant international legislation?
3. Is Social Justice (Mild) the appropriate category for a proposal on private prisons?

With respect to the third question, it is important to note that Issue #159, "Think Tank Proposes Privatised Prisons," affects the stats on economic freedom, income equality, employment, crime, human development, civil rights, taxation, and safety. The effects of the different proposal categories, we've been told in the past, are supposed to mirror, to some extent, issues effects. By and large, Issue #159 impacts the stats that are associated with Social Justice in the GA's category system, so Social Justice (Mild) should be the best category.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Before I submit this proposal "for real," I'll probably do a "test run" with it to force a ruling on the legality concerns

Is it not the case that the Secretariat has declined to hear queries involving resolutions which do not have a good chance to make it to vote? Otherwise, I should submit Ocean Noise Reduction now to force a ruling on the legality concerns.

[Christian Democrats]

Before I submit this proposal "for real," I'll probably do a "test run" with it to force a ruling on the legality concerns

Is it not the case that the Secretariat has declined to hear queries involving resolutions which do not have a good chance to make it to vote?

When I campaign for this proposal, it will reach quorum. I just won't campaign on the first try.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Is it not the case that the Secretariat has declined to hear queries involving resolutions which do not have a good chance to make it to vote?

When I campaign for this proposal, it will reach quorum. I just won't campaign on the first try.

Yes. Doing a test run would be that first time. At that first time, you say you want to 'force a ruling on the legality concerns'. Since that proposal will be unlikely to make it to vote, because each submission receives its own ID and therefore, is a different proposal (even if it is identical), would it fall into the fact that the Secretariat has declined to hear queries involving resolutions which do not have a good chance to make it to vote?

If the policy of declining to hear queries is true, then is it that (1) you want special treatment for your proposal, (2) a proposal submitted in earnest with good chances of a future quorum campaign will be heard, or (3) any proposal submitted will be heard?

[Christian Democrats]

When I campaign for this proposal, it will reach quorum. I just won't campaign on the first try.

Yes. Doing a test run would be that first time. At that first time, you say you want to 'force a ruling on the legality concerns'. Since that proposal will be unlikely to make it to vote, because each submission receives its own ID and therefore, is a different proposal (even if it is identical), would it fall into the fact that the Secretariat has declined to hear queries involving resolutions which do not have a good chance to make it to vote?

I have precedent on my side: viewtopic.php?p=30530251#p30530251

[Imperium Anglorum]

I have precedent on my side: viewtopic.php?p=30530251#p30530251

Yea, yea, everyone quotes that one. I've quoted it. Wally's quoted it. EP's quoted it. It's also a precedent that hasn't been used in some months. And a week is a long time in politics. People have tons of proposals, from Auralia's repeal of something or another that was challenged for some reason, my End of X proposals, etc. Why is it that you believe the Secretariat should hear this proposal without it being first brought to a vote?

EDIT: Also, isn't it the case that you yourself believe that you wouldn't be able to force a legality challenge on this proposal without procuring outside assistance, since you yourself wrote some drivel about standing, which I don't think makes any sense because nobody is directly harmed by submission of a rules-violating proposal, in your proposal opinion and how accepting it would be a bad precedent?

[Christian Democrats]

I have precedent on my side: viewtopic.php?p=30530251#p30530251

Yea, yea, everyone quotes that one. I've quoted it. Wally's quoted it. EP's quoted it. It's also a precedent that hasn't been used in some months. And a week is a long time in politics. People have tons of proposals, from Auralia's repeal of something or another that was challenged for some reason, my End of X proposals, etc. Why is it that you believe the Secretariat should hear this proposal without it being first brought to a vote?

As the internal discussion reveals, my colleagues thought that GenSec should accept all legality challenges, provided (1) the proposal stands a good chance of reaching quorum if the author submits it and campaigns for it and (2) the proposal presents legality concerns that are weighty enough and controversial enough to warrant more than a short statement on its legality.

EDIT: Also, isn't it the case that you yourself believe that you wouldn't be able to force a legality challenge on this proposal without procuring outside assistance, since you yourself wrote some drivel about standing, which I don't think makes any sense because nobody is directly harmed by submission of a rules-violating proposal, in your proposal and how accepting it would be a bad precedent?

Bad precedent is still precedent.

[Excidium Planetis]

Incarceration is not a commercial activity any more than policing or judging is a commercial activity. If national governments, all of a sudden, started outsourcing the police and the courts to private companies, the General Assembly could intervene. Certainly, a resolution blocking international regulations of commerce does not block international regulations of governmental conduct toward citizens.

If the proposal only prevents the government from incarcerating criminals in private prisons, and not from using private prisons or hiring private companies for prison work, what stops nations from paying private companies to construct public prisons, staff those public prisons entirely, and watch after prisoners confined to those public prisons? Nations could even pay companies for "looking after" the public prisons and sell the public prisons off to private companies when they are no longer needed. And the whole time, no private prisons are being used to hold inmates. Heck, private companies could have a 49.99% share of the public prison too.

Health systems providing "[f]ull health services coverage" and funded by the government are nationalized systems.

No. That's not what the word "nationalized" means.

Also, the health services being funded by the government does not mean the government is the sole provider of health coverage. Or even the provider of any of it, they could just fund it.

QHS allows member states to limit national healthcare to low-income residents only "if compelling practical purposes for such a policy can be proven beyond any doubt." This proposal would allow member states to use private prisons "on a temporary basis, but only when it is necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners." The standards are equivalently stringent.

"Not spending millions we do not have to spend to ensure full health coverage because people can afford private health coverage already" sounds like a pretty compelling practical purpose.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So basically, Option 2.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Health systems providing "[f]ull health services coverage" and funded by the government are nationalized systems.

No. That's not what the word "nationalized" means.

Though this is a common saying, it is not their official motto definition. Nationalisation requires public ownership of whatever it is. Public funding would not necessarily require public ownership or, I guess, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, BAE, Thales, Dassault, etc. would all be owned by the government.

[Christian Democrats]

Incarceration is not a commercial activity any more than policing or judging is a commercial activity. If national governments, all of a sudden, started outsourcing the police and the courts to private companies, the General Assembly could intervene. Certainly, a resolution blocking international regulations of commerce does not block international regulations of governmental conduct toward citizens.

If the proposal only prevents the government from incarcerating criminals in private prisons, and not from using private prisons or hiring private companies for prison work, what stops nations from paying private companies to construct public prisons, staff those public prisons entirely, and watch after prisoners confined to those public prisons? Nations could even pay companies for "looking after" the public prisons and sell the public prisons off to private companies when they are no longer needed. And the whole time, no private prisons are being used to hold inmates. Heck, private companies could have a 49.99% share of the public prison too.

So basically, Option 2.

Indeed. I did not see your edit.

No. That's not what the word "nationalized" means.

Though this is a common saying, it is not their official motto definition. Nationalisation requires public ownership of whatever it is. Public funding would not necessarily require public ownership or, I guess, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, BAE, Thales, Dassault, etc. would all be owned by the government.

If X is fully funded by the government, I think it's fair to call it "nationalized."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalized (see the "examples of nationalize in a sentence")

Besides, this proposal would not even require member states to exercise their power of eminent domain.

[Aclion]

snip

This. Once again EP puts ideas into better words then I ever could.

Before I submit this proposal "for real," I'll probably do a "test run" with it to force a ruling on the legality concerns

Is it not the case that the Secretariat has declined to hear queries involving resolutions which do not have a good chance to make it to vote? Otherwise, I should submit Ocean Noise Reduction now to force a ruling on the legality concerns.

It is. CD himself has acknowledged that gen-sec has discretion in choosing to hear challenges. In the last challenge I raised as a matter of fact.

Furthermore authors do not get to pick and choose which challenges their proposals will be subject to.

Before I submit this proposal "for real," I'll probably do a "test run" with it to force a ruling on the legality concerns:

1. Is incarceration a species of commerce covered by National Economic Freedoms' blocker clause?
2. If so, are the "hazards" of incarceration sufficiently "extreme" to warrant international legislation?
3. Is Social Justice (Mild) the appropriate category for a proposal on private prisons?

Authors do not get to pick and choose which challenges their proposals will be subject to.

With respect to the third question, it is important to note that Issue #159, "Think Tank Proposes Privatised Prisons," affects the stats on economic freedom, income equality, employment, crime, human development, civil rights, taxation, and safety. The effects of the different proposal categories, we've been told in the past, are supposed to mirror, to some extent, issues effects. By and large, Issue #159 impacts the stats that are associated with Social Justice in the GA's category system, so Social Justice (Mild) should be the best category.

Do you really want to make the claim that your proposal is comparable to a issue about whether or not to allow a private prison industry, but also does not restrict commerce?

[Araraukar]

they both permit private participation in the nationalized system

OOC: Except you don't. You explicitly ban privately-owned prisons.

[Excidium Planetis]

they both permit private participation in the nationalized system

OOC: Except you don't. You explicitly ban privately-owned prisons.

Except maybe it doesn't. It seems to me now that as long as the government is given some form of ownership over the prison buildings themselves, it doesn't matter if private companies staff the prisons and make all the money from the prisons and receive ownership over the buildings/land when the government no longer needs them. Nations wishing to keep their private prisons can basically just temporarily borrow (for the duration of their use) the deeds to the prisons and now they are "public" prisons.

I'm not really sure how this helps anyone at all, it just seems like a bunch of useless legal hoops to jump through to comply with unnecessary WA legislation.

snip

This. Once again EP puts ideas into better words then I ever could.

Not sure what part you snipped or what time before I made some great statement, but thanks anyways.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Except you don't. You explicitly ban privately-owned prisons.

Except maybe it doesn't.[/quote]
OOC: It does ban 100% privately-owned prisons. Unlike the one he quoted about healthcare. That resolution doesn't care if you have privately-owned hospitals operating in privately-owned buildings, as long as they offer your citizens health services.

Does this thing allow some co-op business deal between private companies and government? Yes, but that wasn't the point. And, like you said, to be legal about this by granting the nation 1% ownership of the company or something like that sounds a stupid requirement to jump through the hoops just to be compliant.

[Aclion]

Adrinne; say I've noticed a loophole
Celic: HUUUUUSH

OOC: Except you don't. You explicitly ban privately-owned prisons.

Except maybe it doesn't.
OOC: It does ban 100% privately-owned prisons. Unlike the one he quoted about healthcare. That resolution doesn't care if you have privately-owned hospitals operating in privately-owned buildings, as long as they offer your citizens health services.

Does this thing allow some co-op business deal between private companies and government? Yes, but that wasn't the point. And, like you said, to be legal about this by granting the nation 1% ownership of the company or something like that sounds a stupid requirement to jump through the hoops just to be compliant.

That wouldn't be legal either;

2. Further defines a "private prison" as a prison that is entirely owned and operated or primarily owned and operated by a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors;

[Araraukar]

2. Further defines a "private prison" as a prison that is entirely owned and operated or primarily owned and operated by a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors;

OOC: Just makes my point even more pointy then.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
If the previous owners of the private prisons are properly compensated for the nationalization then they can invest that compensation in alternative businesses and probably suffer little, if any, diminution in income.
Legal systems are quite capable of sending as many poor people to state-owned prisons (if the capacity now exists) as they would to the privately-owned ones.
Therefore, I still don't see enough reduction in income inequality to justify the 'Social Justice' category at even a 'Mild' level.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC
If the previous owners of the private prisons are properly compensated for the nationalization then they can invest that compensation in alternative businesses and probably suffer little, if any, diminution in income.
Legal systems are quite capable of sending as many poor people to state-owned prisons (if the capacity now exists) as they would to the privately-owned ones.
Therefore, I still don't see enough reduction in income inequality to justify the 'Social Justice' category at even a 'Mild' level.

OOC:
I'm not yet sure whether I agree with this, but it's plausible. I have a possible alternative, however.

Outlawing private prisons means that the carceral industry, to whatever extent it even survives afterward, will not have either the incentive or the resources to engage in political speech, lobbying, campaign contributions, bribes, "fact-finding trips," advertisements, film funding, et cetera.

This means that a significant chunk of that part of society which calls for continuing increases in the length of prison sentences, for the expansion of what constitutes a crime or a felony, and for the constant banging of drums about how society at large is under horrifying siege from a boundless army of criminals, thugs, gangs, and other ne'er-do-wells - as well as pushing the repressive idea that convicted felons shouldn't have the right to vote, even after they've served their sentences - will simply vanish.

In other words, this resolution would excise from politics a large faction which is constantly engaged in trying to reduce the rights of both criminals and otherwise law-abiding citizens.

Therefore you might consider filing this under Furtherment of Democracy.

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

About the Proposal "Prohibit Private Prisons" - 26/07/17

The Second Roman Empire has always had a long history of public-private support in various service sectors, and we believe that capitalism is not as bad as its private ownership, which helps the better functioning of the public machine, a higher generation of jobs and the end of congestion and overcrowding in public chains, so the Roman delegation from WA will deny the proposal and continue to advocate a mixed public-private service, with strict regulations, but does not advocate its extinction.

This proposal would also be against the principle of choice among nations, including article 1 of Resolution #2 "Rights And Duties Of WA States" which reads as follows:

"Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

This would affect not only local laws among member states but also even the constitution as is the case with several other nations including Rome. Therefore, repeating our decision, we will choose to be against the proposal, and if it is approved, we will appeal it.

Giulia Maccini
Representative of the Second Roman Empire

[Europe and Oceania]

We support this.

[Excidium Planetis]

This proposal would also be against the principle of choice among nations, including article 1 of Resolution #2 "Rights And Duties Of WA States" which reads as follows:

"Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

This would affect not only local laws among member states but also even the constitution as is the case with several other nations including Rome.

"The World Assembly is not a NationState, Ambassador Maccini, and therefore is exempt from Article One."

[Thyerata]

This proposal would also be against the principle of choice among nations, including article 1 of Resolution #2 "Rights And Duties Of WA States" which reads as follows:

"Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government."

This would affect not only local laws among member states but also even the constitution as is the case with several other nations including Rome.

"The World Assembly is not a NationState, Ambassador Maccini, and therefore is exempt from Article One."

I agree with Ambassador Maccri's point, and would paraphrase it thusly. Her view is that this legislation would essentially prohibit national systems of government that have private involvement. It violates article 1 because, through the mechanism of the WA, Christian Democrats is trying to dictate how members should operate their penal systems.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: The author is not here to entertain the idea that every resolution ever passed contradicts GA #2. Anyway, looking at Clause One, it seems to define a prison as a prison. Are we to assume that prisons are to be treated as debris?