[PASSED] Prohibit Private Prisons

[Greifenburg]

"nongovernmental corporation" – read the text

A governmental corporation is a corporation owned by a government. I am talking about a government owned by a corporation. The two are very different.

Not necesseraly. One of the most basic definitions of government is "the governing body of a nation, state, or community."
Which means that a corporation can be the government, and then own another corporation to run the prisons, since the operating company becomes a governmental corporation.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: So let's say a nation has private prisons and abolishes them all within two years. That's grand but there's nothing stopping them from then reestablishing them. Also any member nation which joins two years from passage of this, would have no requirement to follow.

I don't believe this is correct. It prohibits any member nation from privatized prisons after two years' time. This means that a new WA nation wouldn't be allowed to have private prisons except, if it has private prisons and then joins the WA, they must utilize section 7

OOC: The proposal doesn't say that. CD should consider amending it accordingly.

"nongovernmental corporation" – read the text

A governmental corporation is a corporation owned by a government. I am talking about a government owned by a corporation. The two are very different.

Also OOC: The definition of a private prison in the proposal which includes the phrase "nongovernmental corporations" is relevant:

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;

A government owned by a corporation is not "a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors". Any prison primarily owned and operated by it, either directly or indirectly through a subsidiary corporation, is also not "a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, nor any other private actor or actors".

[Wallenburg]

Not necesseraly. One of the most basic definitions of government is "the governing body of a nation, state, or community."

Sure, that's a basic definition. It also is not very accurate or helpful. That's why no dictionary uses it.

Which means that a corporation can be the government, and then own another corporation to run the prisons, since the operating company becomes a governmental corporation.

Except that, when a corporation fills the role of the government, it remains a non-governmental corporation.

A governmental corporation is a corporation owned by a government. I am talking about a government owned by a corporation. The two are very different.

Also OOC: The definition of a private prison in the proposal which includes the phrase "nongovernmental corporations" is relevant:

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;

A government owned by a corporation is not "a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors". Any prison primarily owned and operated by it, either directly or indirectly through a subsidiary corporation, is also not "a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, nor any other private actor or actors".

I've seen that definition already. If a private corporation serves as the government, then any prison it owns is still a private prison.

[Greifenburg]

Not necesseraly. One of the most basic definitions of government is "the governing body of a nation, state, or community."

Sure, that's a basic definition. It also is not very accurate or helpful. That's why no dictionary uses it.

On the contrary, it is very accurate. It might be broad, since it doesn't specify how the governing body has to be organized or composited, but that's not important. The fact that the corporation is the government stands.

Which means that a corporation can be the government, and then own another corporation to run the prisons, since the operating company becomes a governmental corporation.

Except that, when a corporation fills the role of the government, it remains a non-governmental corporation.

Non-governmental implies independance from and non-affiliation to the government. The government is, perse and at large, not independent from and definitely affiliated to itself, which means the corporation being the government is automatically not non-governmental as soon as it becomes the government.

Further, the subsidiary owning the prison is owned by the government, making IT automatically a governmental corporation.

[United Massachusetts]

hallelujah!!!!! For

[Aclion]

CELICE: It's a good thing that all of Aclions prisons already operate in a manner similar to halfway houses.

ADRIANE: I think that could be argued for prisons most MDLNs

"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."

This is incorrect. 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. Economic incentives do not disappear simply because the person subject to them is a public employee.

[Lexicor]

"There is nothing in this proposal that accounts for the risk incurred by WA States in... er... transferring these nefarious and criminal elements of society from a private institution. Might we suggest to allow for these existing private prisons to continue operating until all violent convicts have served out their sentences? This would go alongside a grace period to transfer non violent inmates which pose a lower risk."

[Bakhton]

"There is nothing in this proposal that accounts for the risk incurred by WA States in... er... transferring these nefarious and criminal elements of society from a private institution. Might we suggest to allow for these existing private prisons to continue operating until all violent convicts have served out their sentences? This would go alongside a grace period to transfer non violent inmates which pose a lower risk."

"For some nations where people live hundreds of years and are sentenced to life sentences? Out of the question, in my opinion."

[Lexicor]

"There is nothing in this proposal that accounts for the risk incurred by WA States in... er... transferring these nefarious and criminal elements of society from a private institution. Might we suggest to allow for these existing private prisons to continue operating until all violent convicts have served out their sentences? This would go alongside a grace period to transfer non violent inmates which pose a lower risk."

"For some nations where people live hundreds of years and are sentenced to life sentences? Out of the question, in my opinion."

"There must still be some way to mitigate the risk of transferring violent criminals out of private institutions into public ones."

[Bananaistan]

Except that, when a corporation fills the role of the government, it remains a non-governmental corporation.
<snip>
I've seen that definition already. If a private corporation serves as the government, then any prison it owns is still a private prison.

If a corporation fills the role of government, how is it non-governmental? It cannot be both the government and not be the government.

[Bears Armed]

Except that, when a corporation fills the role of the government, it remains a non-governmental corporation.
<snip>
I've seen that definition already. If a private corporation serves as the government, then any prison it owns is still a private prison.

If a corporation fills the role of government, how is it non-governmental? It cannot be both the government and not be the government.

OOC: The term "corporation", despite a common misunderstanding, is not synonymous with "big business". It refers to any organisation that has been given legal personhood -- whether by formal 'incorporation' (Latin 'corporare', = body) or by other means -- for such purposes as having employees and owning property. Under some nations' laws, governments -- at least at the "local" level -- can be counted as corporations In the RL UK, for example, that was the case for the local governments of 'boroughs' from Medieval times onwards: I'm not 100% sure whether that was also the case for county councils & the lower tiers of non-borough administration once those had been established, but suspect it to be the case.
e.g. the governing body of the 'City of London' (rather than that for 'Greater London'...) is still offically described as 'The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London'.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

CELICE: It's a good thing that all of Aclions prisons already operate in a manner similar to halfway houses.

ADRIANE: I think that could be argued for prisons most MDLNs

"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."

This is incorrect. 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. Economic incentives do not disappear simply because the person subject to them is a public employee.

"This is technically correct (the best kind, so I hear), but you're forgetting that public servants don't get stock options and bonuses for maximizing profits. They don't have incentive plans to reward them if they manage to overcrowd the cell blocks or cut basic inmate services or any of that. Private prison CEOs and managers absolutely do. So let's not pretend these companies are some kind of unfairly maligned victim class."

[Bears Armed]

"This is technically correct (the best kind, so I hear), but you're forgetting that public servants don't get stock options and bonuses for maximizing profits. They don't have incentive plans to reward them if they manage to overcrowd the cell blocks or cut basic inmate services or any of that. Private prison CEOs and managers absolutely do. So let's not pretend these companies are some kind of unfairly maligned victim class."

"In some nations, however, they might receive bonuses or be given other incentives for cutting costs... or for providing as much cheap labour as possible for 'public works' such as mining salt or the construction of long-distance canals through areas with unpleasant emvironments."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

"For some nations where people live hundreds of years and are sentenced to life sentences? Out of the question, in my opinion."

"There must still be some way to mitigate the risk of transferring violent criminals out of private institutions into public ones."

Feren interjects before anyone has a chance to begin the Imperial Statement, "Don't transfer anyone. Nationalize, or purchase, if you must, the now-prohibited institutions, there is simply no reason to let a good building go to waste."

"In any case, for once, we are looking at a draft that is eminently reasonable in every form. We have absolutely no objections to this draft, and recommend its immediate submission to the Secretariat."

[Vymar]

Plus what if nations can't afford to run these private prisons once their banned?

OOC : The state should be able to run the prisons on a non profit basis. Many prices are inflated due to companies charging twice or even three times the amount it actually costs to run/make a product (I'm sure you know this). Its why America pays so much in healthcare, but it struggles to act on the same level as European countries that pay less than half of what America does.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


IC : Its got my vote

[Bananaistan]

If a corporation fills the role of government, how is it non-governmental? It cannot be both the government and not be the government.

OOC: The term "corporation", despite a common misunderstanding, is not synonymous with "big business". It refers to any organisation that has been given legal personhood -- whether by formal 'incorporation' (Latin 'corporare', = body) or by other means -- for such purposes as having employees and owning property. Under some nations' laws, governments -- at least at the "local" level -- can be counted as corporations In the RL UK, for example, that was the case for the local governments of 'boroughs' from Medieval times onwards: I'm not 100% sure whether that was also the case for county councils & the lower tiers of non-borough administration once those had been established, but suspect it to be the case.
e.g. the governing body of the 'City of London' (rather than that for 'Greater London'...) is still offically described as 'The Mayor and Corporation of the City of London'.

OOC: While I agree (and know) that the word corporation can refer to any incorporated body such as governing body of self governing boroughs, surely in this debate it has been solely used as a synonym for joint stock companies.

Nonetheless the history of the local government term is interesting. IIRC, the term corporation was not used widely in England other than informally. Typically the body known as a corporation was officially known as something like "Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of X", EG the Dublin Corporation, was officially the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Dublin. London is a special case as its rights as a city were established prior to the Norman Conquest but the wiki page for the City of London says that its official name is "the Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London".

It is also interesting that all the cities and town formerly run by bodies known as corporations, were all granted the right to self-government by royal charters. Which is not all that different to the joint stock companies of which the earliest examples were also formed on the basis of royal charters and later by acts of parliament and links us back to the word "incorporation" which is defined as "the process of constituting a company, city, or other organization as a legal corporation".

As regards county councils, as far as I am aware, this system is based on local government arrangements predating the Norman Conquest and is outside the whole town/city charter thing. Under the Normans and the feudal system, the landed aristocracy were responsible for local government outside of the towns but eventually as the feudal system gave way, the relationship between rural dwellers and the aristocracy became that of landlord and tenant. The King appointed Sheriffs and eventually a Lord Lieutenant for each county responsible for the administration of justice but actual public administration was either done by the landowners or at parish level. County Councils as such did not arise until the Local Government Act 1888 and under that act, each council was a body corporate. It would appear that they are no longer corporations as the particular section of the Local Government Act 1888 which established them as such was subsequently repealed by the Local Government Act 1933 but there does not appear to be a copy of this act online.

Also rather interestingly, the "corporation" of the City of London is the only local authority in England which was not reformed at some stage in the 19th or 20th centuries.

[Bears Armed]

County Councils as such did not arise until the Local Government Act 1888 and under that act, each council was a body corporate. It would appear that they are no longer corporations as the particular section of the Local Government Act 1888 which established them as such was subsequently repealed by the Local Government Act 1933 but there does not appear to be a copy of this act online.

Thank you for that information. The 1888 Act was when I'd thought the status might have been introduced at that level, and it's nice to have that confirmed.

Also rather interestingly, the "corporation" of the City of London is the only local authority in England which was not reformed at some stage in the 19th or 20th centuries.

Because every time a government has suggested doing so the City's leaders have (a) pointed to a clause in Magna Carta that apparently guarantees the Crown (i.e., now, the government) won't interfere in the how the City is run, and (b) hinted -- except perhaps to Labour governments -- that campaign funding & non-executive directorships might become less available to any politicians who did meddle...
And maybe also to the fact that the City's peculiar situation nowadays, with hardly any actual residents so that almost all of the council's income comes from its share of what used to be called 'business rates', would mean such a major imbalance in power between voters & the source of those funds if a more conventional system was introduced that it would probably "kill" the city as a centre of business and thus cost the government a LOT of tax revenue...

[Imperium Anglorum]

Because every time a government has suggested doing so the City's leaders have (a) pointed to a clause in Magna Carta that apparently guarantees the Crown (i.e., now, the government) won't interfere in the how the City is run, and (b) hinted -- except perhaps to Labour governments -- that campaign funding & non-executive directorships might become less available to any politicians who did meddle...

OOC: Constitutionally, I don't think there is any difference between the government and the Crown. Technically, isn't it that all the powers afforded to the government are derived from the God-given sovereignty of the sovereign? And it would be a shame if the sovereign were an oath-breaker: 'The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water.' (English translation, British Library)

Of course, in the modern age, the latter about the City's power vis-à-vis money may be a more effective argument. Which reminds me, my nation wouldn't have done any changes to the City's voting system – especially since London won the wars for unification and the Normans were beaten back.

[Christian Democrats]

Wow, a lot of comments. Thanks for the input.

OOC: So let's say a nation has private prisons and abolishes them all within two years. That's grand but there's nothing stopping them from then reestablishing them.

I don't think that's a reasonable reading of the clause, but I am willing to rewrite it so that it's clearer.

3. Requires all member states and their political subdivisions, within two calendar years of the passage of this resolution and in perpetuity thereafter, to abolish all private prisons within their respective territories and jurisdictions.

Would the changes above satisfy your delegation?

OOC: How would this affect prisons which are owned and run by companies or corporations where the state is the majority owner but which are partially owned by private citizens or businesses? The prison-owning/running businesses would be run like privately-owned ones, with profits expected, rather than non-profit or state-run institutions.

OOC: While I agree (and know) that the word corporation can refer to any incorporated body such as governing body of self governing boroughs, surely in this debate it has been solely used as a synonym for joint stock companies.

I'll respond to these comments at the same time. I have not used "corporation" as a synonym for "joint-stock company" but, instead, have used it in its technical sense. According to Section 2 of the current draft, a private prison is:

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.

When I wrote this definition, I intended to exclude from its scope two kinds of corporations, namely municipal corporations and state-owned enterprises. The City of London Corporation is a good example of a municipal corporation, and a state-owned enterprise would be a joint-stock company where the government owns a majority of the shares. To answer Araraukar's question, a prison would be a public prison as long as private shareholders owned only a minority of the shares (less than 50%). Public-private partnerships would be allowed.

Social Justice - A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

OOC: How does this reduce income inequality?

People in prison don't have incomes; or, if they do have incomes, they're very low. Eliminating the private prison industry should reduce the number of prisoners in the long run and, therefore, should raise incomes for the disadvantaged social classes from which prisoners disproportionately come.

ARI: Well, considering we have absolutely no crime in our nation-- Wad Ahume, stop that, I can see when you roll your eyes at me. Anyway, no crime, no prisons, no criminals, except for, of course, those who are mentally ill and are kept -- erm, are rehabilitated in hospitals which may or may not be government run. So. My point is. Since a mental institution for the criminally insane may be considered a type of long-term detention center, is it your intent for this proposal to forbid private ownership of such hospitals as well?

Section 1 defines a prison as (emphasis added):

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 sentences for those crimes.

If an individual lacks the mental capacity to stand trial, then he could not have been convicted of a crime. If an individual lacks the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, then he cannot be serving a criminal sentence. Individuals who are confined for "criminal insanity" are being held for public health reasons, not for reasons of punishment.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/criminal-insanity-term.html

IC: Neville: Ambassador, would regulations on private prisons not be more reasonable and more likely to pass than an outright ban?

I don't believe they'd be more reasonable. The aims of capitalism and of penology are irreconcilably at odds. You wouldn't let an ascetic run a chain of department stores, and you shouldn't let business enterprises run the criminal justice system.

Plus what if nations can't afford to run these private prisons once their banned?

I don't believe this concern has much meat on it because, in the long run, public prisons should be cheaper than private prisons.

"What of member states whose governments are run by megacorporations?" Ogenbond shudders. "As much as that idea revolts me, you must admit that this proposal would ban privately-owned governments from keeping prisons at all."

There's no such thing as a "private government." A government, by definition, is a public thing. If a "mega-corporation" happens to be the government, it's not "a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors."

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,

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.

All prisons have at least two goals: (1) keep the "bad guys" off the streets and (2) dissuade them from committing future crimes once they're released. In turn, dissuasion can take two forms: (1) punishing prisoners sufficiently harshly so that they're deterred from committing future crimes (retributive justice; raising the "costs" of bad behavior) or (2) educating prisoners and turning them into "good guys" (rehabilitative justice; raising the "benefits" of good behavior).

If dissuasion weren't an intrinsic goal of criminal justice, we'd just execute all criminals or imprison all of them for life. "Criminals can't be deterred, and they can't be rehabilitated, so we have no choice but to kill them or put them away for life."

You are right that this isn't a problem with prisons. But it is one of private prisons for the simple reason that it is a profit-oriented organisation holding it. It is a simple fact that, in this regard, the goals of the company directly contradicts the governmental goal (reducing crime is a deep wish of most governments, whereas less crime would mean less inmates and therefore less profit for the prison), and due to that, not only the corruption of the judical system becomes more likely, but also the rehabilitation less desireable, making it a breeding ground for more crime and, eventually, even social unrest.

Yes, that is the problem. The solution is to provide incentives to pursue rehabilitation programmes rather than simply holding some persons for the duration of their sentences. The issue is in the disbursement of renumeration, not in the industry itself.

All rational governments want to reduce the number of criminals and do so at the lowest possible cost, and all rational businesses want to increase the number of consumers and their profits. These goals are fundamentally incompatible. Getting a business to behave in a fashion that is fundamentally incompatible with its nature would impose a substantial burden on the taxpayer. In fact, the burden would be so substantial that no right-thinking government, acting for the common good, would choose it.

"There is nothing in this proposal that accounts for the risk incurred by WA States in... er... transferring these nefarious and criminal elements of society from a private institution. Might we suggest to allow for these existing private prisons to continue operating until all violent convicts have served out their sentences? This would go alongside a grace period to transfer non violent inmates which pose a lower risk."

As the ambassador from Tinfect said above, the obvious solution would be to nationalize the prisons in question, transferring them from private control to public control while paying the owners fair value for the property.

[Bears Armed]

Social Justice - A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

OOC: How does this reduce income inequality?

People in prison don't have incomes; or, if they do have incomes, they're very low. Eliminating the private prison industry should reduce the number of prisoners in the long run and, therefore, should raise incomes for the disadvantaged social classes from which prisoners disproportionately come.

But it isn't the prison managements who decide who & how many to imprison, at least not in any sane nation, is it?
I do not consider this argument sufficiently convincing to justify the category.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

If an individual lacks the mental capacity to stand trial, then he could not have been convicted of a crime. If an individual lacks the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, then he cannot be serving a criminal sentence. Individuals who are confined for "criminal insanity" are being held for public health reasons, not for reasons of punishment.

ARI: Correct, but, some jurisdictions allow said individuals to stand trial, and one possible outcome is a verdict of guilty but mentally ill. Sentence is served in a mental health detention center, which fits your definition of a prison. Some of these detention centers may be state run, but they may also comprise a wing or a building of a privately run hospital or complex. Now, is there any real benefit for the state to take over mental health hospitals, or subsets thereof, that house such detainees?

[Northeast Kazakhstan]

But in my nation NOTHING IS PRIVATE!

[Wallenburg]

"What of member states whose governments are run by megacorporations?" Ogenbond shudders. "As much as that idea revolts me, you must admit that this proposal would ban privately-owned governments from keeping prisons at all."

There's no such thing as a "private government." A government, by definition, is a public thing.

Incorrect.

If a "mega-corporation" happens to be the government, it's not "a nongovernmental corporation, a private individual, or any other private actor or actors."

How is a private corporation not a "private actor or actors"?

[Excidium Planetis]

As the ambassador from Tinfect said above, the obvious solution would be to nationalize the prisons in question, transferring them from private control to public control while paying the owners fair value for the property.

"I am not aware of a World Assembly resolution legalizing nationalization," Blackbourne starts, "so if a nation, say, had prohibited nationalization of industries in its constitution, this would not be a possible course of action."

[Wallenburg]

As the ambassador from Tinfect said above, the obvious solution would be to nationalize the prisons in question, transferring them from private control to public control while paying the owners fair value for the property.

"I am not aware of a World Assembly resolution legalizing nationalization," Blackbourne starts, "so if a nation, say, had prohibited nationalization of industries in its constitution, this would not be a possible course of action."

"In that case. the member state would instead need to construct its own new prisons or purchase the private ones at market price, or reform its constitution."