[PASSED] Prohibit Private Prisons

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

"That would be a gross misreading of GA#2, which, if accepted as the valid interpretation, would prohibit all forms of World Assembly legislation." Blackbourne points out. "All World Assembly resolutions dictate how nations should run their governments. To ascertain what Article 1 means, one must examine the context in which it is written:

It is therefore vital to clearly delineate what constitutes sovereign law versus international law passed by this World Assembly.

"Here the preamble clearly makes a distinction between national laws and international laws. Article 1 clearly refers to national laws and not international ones.

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.

"Article 1 is thematically similar to the following two Articles, all of which are grouped in Section I, the Principles of National Sovereignty.

Article 2 § Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3 § Every WA Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

"Note that a nation's sovereignty is subject to the immunities recognized by international law. GA#2 makes it clear that international law overrides the right of nations to determine their own economic, political, religious, and social affairs.

"Indeed, the fact that the World Assembly specifically can override national law is spelled out in GA#2 as well:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

...

Article 11 § Every WA Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each WA Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

"It is quite clear from the context that nations have no control over their own laws when international laws are involved."

[Secundus Imperium Romanum]

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."

Gulia Maccini: She may be exempt from this article, but the nations that compose them do not. Soon one nation can not expose its authority over another nation, no matter what medium it may be.

[Attempted Socialism]

You made the case that prisons have a perverse incentive to increase recidivism rates which could be interpreted as an extreme hazard; but as I've pointed out earlier;

Recidivism is in the interest of any prison which is funded based on the number of inmates it holds, regardless of whether it is a private or public institution. Perverse incentives do not disappear simply because the person subject to them is a public employee.

OOC: A quick aside: There's a big difference between a motive for budget maximising or some equivalent or related concept (Which some, not all, Public Administration theories have, and even those who have, have more and conflicting motives) and a motive for profit maximising, which is the goal of any for-profit corporation.
Perverse incentives for recidivism are vastly different for a public and private prison even if they both operate under a paid-per-unit principles.

Furthermore, budget maximising behaviour could also incentivise rehabilitation, if e.g. consistent rehabilitation would secure funding from politicians seeing crime rates drop or if rehabilitation efforts would tie into political agendas.

And, of course, perverse incentives do sometimes disappear in the public sector - that's why studies of public service/sector motivation are exciting.

[Bakhton]

"Full support ambassador, ra ra ra!" yells Ambassador Qzu as Jeffrey waves his pompoms unenthusiastically.

[Attempted Socialism]

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

Gulia Maccini: She may be exempt from this article, but the nations that compose them do not. Soon one nation can not expose its authority over another nation, no matter what medium it may be.

"The Ambassador is trying to argue against four hundred and two resolutions of precedent of the WA having authority do just that. Sorry to be blunt, but that is in no way a breach of GAR number 2.

As for the proposal, we will support it as written."

[Excidium Planetis]

Gulia Maccini: She may be exempt from this article, but the nations that compose them do not. Soon one nation can not expose its authority over another nation, no matter what medium it may be.

"The nations of the World Assembly must comply with World Assembly legislation, Ambassador. Whether you like it or not, the World Assembly has the authority to override your laws and constitution for any reason."

[Fauxia]

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

Gulia Maccini: She may be exempt from this article, but the nations that compose them do not. Soon one nation can not expose its authority over another nation, no matter what medium it may be.

"Many nations may submit one to their will though. You know what you signed up for. And, I'm afraid Secretary-General Catherine Gratwick has rather... convincing ways of making sure members comply." He grins maniacally.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gulia Maccini: She may be exempt from this article, but the nations that compose them do not. Soon one nation can not expose its authority over another nation, no matter what medium it may be.

Peachby: Perhaps that's why resolutions are not enacted with such language 'Imperium Anglorum commands of the other member nations', but rather, 'The World Assembly mandates that member nations'. Furthermore, if we are to take such a tenuous interpretation, let me say that when I invade your country and subjugate your people, I will refrain from doing so via dictating my will to be typed by a secretary. Instead, I will either simply give the orders or type them myself.

[Araraukar]

OOC: So, ok, it's obvious this thing was spawned out of USA's penal system. Great, lobby for it to be changed in Real Life, but please don't assume that all WA nations are that incompetent in regulating private industry, whether it's to do with keeping people in one place or not.

I honestly don't see the point of this proposal, if we forget about the RL USA. If a nation's prisons are private businesses, but the private businesses do not get a say in how many people are sent there, then what the hell does it make as a difference that they're private?

Or, a nation could run its prisons as government-owned businesses and abuse the prisoners for slave labour like USA does, anyway, in which case this thing wouldn't do anything.

If you want to prevent private prison businesses from getting a say on how many people are incarcerated in them, then bloody well write your proposal about that, don't go off on a weird tangents about private always being worse than governmental. And I say this as a person who both in IC and OOC believes that something as important as the prison system should always be national rather than private.

[Thyerata]

OOC: So, ok, it's obvious this thing was spawned out of USA's penal system. Great, lobby for it to be changed in Real Life, but please don't assume that all WA nations are that incompetent in regulating private industry, whether it's to do with keeping people in one place or not.

I honestly don't see the point of this proposal, if we forget about the RL USA. If a nation's prisons are private businesses, but the private businesses do not get a say in how many people are sent there, then what the hell does it make as a difference that they're private?

Or, a nation could run its prisons as government-owned businesses and abuse the prisoners for slave labour like USA does, anyway (ignoring for a moment that slave labour has been banned by WA already), in which case this thing wouldn't do anything.

If you want to prevent private prison businesses from getting a say on how many people are incarcerated in them, then bloody well write your proposal about that, don't go off on a weird tangents about private always being worse than governmental. And I say this as a person who both in IC and OOC believes that something as important as the prison system should always be national rather than private.

OOC: if we are drawing comparisons to RL, as Ara seems to be suggesting, then I am proud to say that here in the UK, privately-run prisons are, for the most part, nonexistent. Opposed, thank you very much for asking.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Or, a nation could run its prisons as government-owned businesses and abuse the prisoners for slave labour like USA does, anyway (ignoring for a moment that slave labour has been banned by WA already), in which case this thing wouldn't do anything.

OOC: Penal labour is currently exempted from WA legislation on slavery at this moment in time, though there are efforts to change that.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

OOC: Edited.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm reopening this discussion for about two weeks. Then, I plan to submit this proposal.

[Inhorto]

I support, though I have certain reservations.

Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase prison expenditures (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,

This is a nitpick, and I may be reading the sentence wrong, but I do not know how increasing expenditures leads to greater profit maximation. Expenditures are the money dispensed on facilities, clothes, personnel, etc., within the prison. How does increasing those expenditures lead to profit maximization?

Defines a "prison" as a prison, penitentiary, jail, jailhouse, or other correctional or detention center that holds and houses, on a permanent or long-term basis, individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences;

What about those who have been remanded to a correctional facility or otherwise could not post bail? Your definition defines prisons as holding those who have been convicted of crimes. I would suggest widening it to include all those held pre-trial. If I understand your seventh clause, pre-trial detainment does not apply if the inmate's safety, health, or welfare are not jeopardized.

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;

Once again, a loophole could conceivably appear wherein private correctional facilities could be used solely to house persons remanded to prison awaiting trial. Countries could conceivably take advantage of this loophole in order to alleviate the stress placed upon government-operated prisons.

[Kenmoria]

1. Defines a "prison" as a prison........-snip-

(OOC: Although I know there is more to the clause than this, it seems odd as a way to begin a definition with the word itself. You could remove the word ‘prison’ and stick with just the other three examples and it would still be just as correct.)

[East Meranopirus]

1. Defines a "prison" as a prison........-snip-

(OOC: Although I know there is more to the clause than this, it seems odd as a way to begin a definition with the word itself. You could remove the word ‘prison’ and stick with just the other three examples and it would still be just as correct.)

I would argue definitions should try not to include synonyms (in this case penitentiary, jail, etc.) when possible. This is the definition I used for a prison-related proposal:

a "prison" as a secure facility where criminals and suspected criminals are kept either before and during their trial, or after their trial when serving a prison sentence;

You may have noticed this definition includes before, during and after trial/conviction. As Inhorto stated before me, not including before and during trial would create a loophole, and also, it wouldn't be a correct definition of a prison, since prisons do house criminals before and during trial.

[United Massachusetts]

Full and complete support.

[Grays Harbor]

Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase prison expenditures (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,

I have never been enamored of “Somebody might maybe possibly do something we don’t like, so Ban It” as an argument, particularly when it is the sole reason given, and inevitably followed by myriad new mandates on governments. Is corruption in government run facilities somehow better than in privately run facilities? Is it higher quality corruption?

Wanting to minimize corruption in the penal system is one thing, and overall a good aspiration. But targeting one specific form of incarceration because of “maybe” seems a rather backhanded way to go about it.

Oh, and has been mentioned, expenditures =/= profits. They take away from profits. They are a necessity, but do not add to the bottom line.

[Kenmoria]

Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase prison expenditures (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,

I have never been enamored of “Somebody might maybe possibly do something we don’t like, so Ban It” as an argument, particularly when it is the sole reason given, and inevitably followed by myriad new mandates on governments. Is corruption in government run facilities somehow better than in privately run facilities? Is it higher quality corruption?

Wanting to minimize corruption in the penal system is one thing, and overall a good aspiration. But targeting one specific form of incarceration because of “maybe” seems a rather backhanded way to go about it.

Oh, and has been mentioned, expenditures =/= profits. They take away from profits. They are a necessity, but do not add to the bottom line.

(OOC: Perhaps CD ought to mention some way in which corruption in private prisons is more likely or often is worse than in governmental prisons, and therefore requires special legislation. I agree that, at the moment, the proposal ignores the wider view of prison corruption, without really explaining why.)

[Wallenburg]

Full support.

[Christian Democrats]

I support, though I have certain reservations.

Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase prison expenditures (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,

This is a nitpick, and I may be reading the sentence wrong, but I do not know how increasing expenditures leads to greater profit maximation. Expenditures are the money dispensed on facilities, clothes, personnel, etc., within the prison. How does increasing those expenditures lead to profit maximization?

It's poor wording on my part. I've now edited the current draft so that it reads "increase public expenditures on prisons." Is that more cogent? Private prisons lobby for increased public spending on prisons in order to increase their profits (i.e., rent-seeking behavior).

Defines a "prison" as a prison, penitentiary, jail, jailhouse, or other correctional or detention center that holds and houses, on a permanent or long-term basis, individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences;

What about those who have been remanded to a correctional facility or otherwise could not post bail? Your definition defines prisons as holding those who have been convicted of crimes. I would suggest widening it to include all those held pre-trial. If I understand your seventh clause, pre-trial detainment does not apply if the inmate's safety, health, or welfare are not jeopardized.

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;

Once again, a loophole could conceivably appear wherein private correctional facilities could be used solely to house persons remanded to prison awaiting trial. Countries could conceivably take advantage of this loophole in order to alleviate the stress placed upon government-operated prisons.

I've thought about this issue some, and here's my current train of thought:

• Pre-trial detention might be considered a separate issue, better handled in its own resolution.
• Pre-trial detention is temporary in nature and thus different in kind from imprisonment.
• A presumption of innocence protects pre-trial detainees from the kinds of maltreatment that convicts might experience.
• For convenience, law enforcement might reasonably hold pre-trial detainees in makeshift facilities -- e.g., "drunk tanks" that hold drunkards for several hours before they are discharged with a warning or an order to appear in court.

I'm open to changing my mind why this proposal should address pre-trial detention. I'd need to be persuaded.

1. Defines a "prison" as a prison........-snip-

(OOC: Although I know there is more to the clause than this, it seems odd as a way to begin a definition with the word itself. You could remove the word ‘prison’ and stick with just the other three examples and it would still be just as correct.)

I suppose. My intent is to define the word prison in a broad, all-inclusive way -- how the common person uses that word.

If someone wanted to nitpick, a prison is a facility that houses felons, whereas a jailhouse is a facility that houses individuals guilty of misdemeanors. I don't want nations, however, to attempt to evade this law on technicalities, so I decided to throw in a list of the most commonly used terms for facilities that hold criminals. In short, include all the synonyms, and it should be fine.

(OOC: Although I know there is more to the clause than this, it seems odd as a way to begin a definition with the word itself. You could remove the word ‘prison’ and stick with just the other three examples and it would still be just as correct.)

I would argue definitions should try not to include synonyms (in this case penitentiary, jail, etc.) when possible. This is the definition I used for a prison-related proposal:

a "prison" as a secure facility where criminals and suspected criminals are kept either before and during their trial, or after their trial when serving a prison sentence;

You may have noticed this definition includes before, during and after trial/conviction. As Inhorto stated before me, not including before and during trial would create a loophole, and also, it wouldn't be a correct definition of a prison, since prisons do house criminals before and during trial.

(Same as above.)

So, what is this goal of which you speak? I don't know about you but our goal is to get folks doing bad and/or illegal things off the street and away from folks not doing bad and/or illegal things.

And, just how do "private" prisons increase recidivism? "OK, Junior, you done your time, you can go. And here's your free CrimeKit^TM. Tell your next judge you want to come back here 'cause of how good we treated ya!

This whole thing smacks of "Only the Gummint can do this right, y'all, 'cause thy are always kind and beneficient!"

"It is, of course, in the interest of private prisons to encourage recidivism. That may mean that they deliberately fail to implement rehabilitative services or create conditions that incite further violent behavior. It's less an issue of loving government and more an economic issue of failing to align incentives and interests."

In response to Grays Harbor, I'll simply quote the above.

[Radimostan]

4. Recommends that member states and political subdivisions, lacking a sufficient number of public prisons, implement Section 3 of this resolution by using the power of eminent domain to transfer prisons from private hands to public ownership (i.e., nationalization)

What if a state doesn't have the power of eminent domain?

[Grays Harbor]

"It is, of course, in the interest of private prisons to encourage recidivism. That may mean that they deliberately fail to implement rehabilitative services or create conditions that incite further violent behavior. It's less an issue of loving government and more an economic issue of failing to align incentives and interests."

In response to Grays Harbor, I'll simply quote the above.

And that is still deciding guilt before evidence. Tarring an entire industry because of the potential for misdeeds is morally wrong. If a prison, private or otherwise, does something wrong, correct it. Prosecute it. Hell, burn it down as an example to others. Whatever. But to just declare all are guilty, regardless of evidence or facts? Wrong, simply wrong.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I agree with GH here, the problem of incentives not aligning can be resolved by... aligning incentives. The economic solution to externalities is to internalise them, banning something altogether does not do that.

[Wallenburg]

I agree with GH here, the problem of incentives not aligning can be resolved by... aligning incentives. The economic solution to externalities is to internalise them, banning something altogether does not do that.

Except in this case, it does. Public prisons are run by the government, which has an interest in reducing crime. Private prisons are run by businesses solely interested in holding as many prisoners as possible for as much money as possible with as little expense as possible. You might be able to deal with maltreatment of prisoners through regulations, but how are you going to regulate away failure to reduce recidivism?