[Draft] Act of Rehabilitative Justice

[New Bremerton]

We believe that the administration of justice should ideally range between rehabilitation for minor crimes all the way to the punitive end of the spectrum, whereby the most violent, bloodletting criminals are awarded the death penalty for murder as well as any crimes that involve an element of murder such as terrorism, genocide and war crimes. Why should a religiously fanatical terrorist who has killed dozens of innocent civilians in a subway station and permanently injured hundreds more through the use of a nerve gas be offered a second chance? Rehabilitation would be absurd in that instance. This proposal would mandate the rehabilitation of such a vile criminal as a "first resort", per clause 3. For this Assembly's information, the criminal in question was executed by asphyxiation in a sealed gas chamber, using the same gas that the criminal dispensed upon his victims. The very thought of rehabilitation never crossed the minds of anyone in New Bremerton. This was more than a decade before we joined the WA.

AGAINST.

[Falcania]

We believe that the administration of justice should ideally range between rehabilitation for minor crimes all the way to the punitive end of the spectrum, whereby the most violent, bloodletting criminals are awarded the death penalty for murder as well as any crimes that involve an element of murder such as terrorism, genocide and war crimes. Why should a religiously fanatical terrorist who has killed dozens of innocent civilians in a subway station and permanently injured hundreds more through the use of a nerve gas be offered a second chance? Rehabilitation would be absurd in that instance. This proposal would mandate the rehabilitation of such a vile criminal as a "first resort", per clause 3. For this Assembly's information, the criminal in question was executed by asphyxiation in a sealed gas chamber, using the same gas that the criminal dispensed upon his victims. The very thought of rehabilitation never crossed the minds of anyone in New Bremerton. This was more than a decade before we joined the WA.

AGAINST.

Just want to straighten this logic out in my head: killing people with nerve gas is bad, unless you're the government, in which case, killing people with nerve gas is fine?

[The Discipled]

2. Punitive justice shall not be entirely erased, but rather downgraded and integrated to the rehabilitative.

I feel this draft is somewhat generic, even if I do happen to lean on this side of the argument, the proposed ideas seem rather rushed and do not explicitly state a course - merely providing sanctimonious statements as a means of justifying the title.

You won't convince people to vote for a resolution if you don't detail what exactly you plan to do, the quote is merely one to exemplify this. For example, with this alone, what does downgrading involve? Integrated to what degree? How will it be integrated, and will incarceration be subject to judicial interpretation? If so, to what length? If not, then what do the judiciary judge on? What does punitive justice involve, and to what length? What constitutes such a definition, and to what length are they downgraded or integrated? What programs will they be integrated with?

The fact that I managed to extrapolate so many questions with merely this single statement, justifies this assertion - as such this is clearly not ready for a prime vote. Detail, at great length, what exactly your resolution involves, and consolidate for questions which exist for every single proposal - this stands no chance of passing without it.

[Bears Armed]

1. Rehabilitative justice should be used as first resort so one could more easily leave the "life of crime" they once entered.
a) The State should provide services specialized for those rehabilitated to avoid relapse IF needed. As examples, Welfare programs for rehabilitated criminals in precarious situations or psychological service for people with mental health problems
b) If one passes through rehabilitative programs in excess, it proves inability or lack of interest to change, and the national judicial system should decide what to do of a person who abused from the rehabilitative system (it may be seen as an infraction)

OOC
The bit that I've underlined needs to stipulate that the national judicial system's decisions about this must be subject to any restrictions set by earlier resolutions which are still in force.

[Danera]

We believe that the administration of justice should ideally range between rehabilitation for minor crimes all the way to the punitive end of the spectrum. [...] The very thought of rehabilitation never crossed the minds of anyone in New Bremerton. This was more than a decade before we joined the WA.

AGAINST.

b) A nation may have laws that lower the penalty of someone who committed a heinous crime unless such person has already committed such crimes.

If you decide that such heinous crime as a terrorist act (that case you describe counts as mass murder, psychological torture, direct torture and so on) aren't a eligible crime for rehabilitation, so do it. With that said, I agree my phrasing was poorly made.

1. Rehabilitative justice should be used as first resort so one could more easily leave the "life of crime" they once entered.
a) The State should provide services specialized for those rehabilitated to avoid relapse IF needed. As examples, Welfare programs for rehabilitated criminals in precarious situations or psychological service for people with mental health problems
b) If one passes through rehabilitative programs in excess, it proves inability or lack of interest to change, and the national judicial system should decide what to do of a person who abused from the rehabilitative system (it may be seen as an infraction)

OOC
The bit that I've underlined needs to stipulate that the national judicial system's decisions about this must be subject to any restrictions set by earlier resolutions which are still in force.

Is that better?

[Kenmoria]

“On a general note, please put line breaks between your clauses, to reduce the wall of text feel and aid reading comprehension.”

[Danera]

Updated.

[Kenmoria]

“Also, and this should probably have been asked at the start, what is the intended category and strength of this proposal?”

[Danera]

“Also, and this should probably have been asked at the start, what is the intended category and strength of this proposal?”

I was between Mild and Significant. What do you think? Is Mild more fitting?

[Kenmoria]

“Also, and this should probably have been asked at the start, what is the intended category and strength of this proposal?”

I was between Mild and Significant. What do you think? Is Mild more fitting?

(OOC: I suggest going with a significant strength since this affects a broad policy area in a substantial way. Sentencing of criminals is key to a lot of nations, so I don’t think a mild strength would fit. What about the category?)

[Danera]

I was between Mild and Significant. What do you think? Is Mild more fitting?

(OOC: I suggest going with a significant strength since this affects a broad policy area in a substantial way. Sentencing of criminals is key to a lot of nations, so I don’t think a mild strength would fit. What about the category?)

OOC: Well, you're right. Significant would be more fitting for this proposition. For the category, it'd be Civil Rights.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What of crimes that the WA considers heinous but the nation doesn't? Can the nation let slide with just "naughty, don't do that" (and call it rehabilitation) something that would be a war crime? I'm fairly sure you can only be punished once for one crime, so other nations can't re-try them for the same offence.

EDIT: Also, "should" is just wishful thinking. That clause isn't as strong as you might think.

[Aclion]

OOC: What of crimes that the WA considers heinous but the nation doesn't? Can the nation let slide with just "naughty, don't do that" (and call it rehabilitation) something that would be a war crime? I'm fairly sure you can only be punished once for one crime, so other nations can't re-try them for the same offence.

EDIT: Also, "should" is just wishful thinking. That clause isn't as strong as you might think.

GA#198

OUTLAWS retrials except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand,

Like in real life, it's not double jeopardy if you were never in jeopardy in the first place.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What of crimes that the WA considers heinous but the nation doesn't? Can the nation let slide with just "naughty, don't do that" (and call it rehabilitation) something that would be a war crime? I'm fairly sure you can only be punished once for one crime, so other nations can't re-try them for the same offence.

EDIT: Also, "should" is just wishful thinking. That clause isn't as strong as you might think.

GA#198

OUTLAWS retrials except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand,

Like in real life, it's not double jeopardy if you were never in jeopardy in the first place.

OOC: My point being, this proposal would make that nonsense, with mandating/allowing rehabilitation if they are a first-timer.

[New Bremerton]

We believe that the administration of justice should ideally range between rehabilitation for minor crimes all the way to the punitive end of the spectrum, whereby the most violent, bloodletting criminals are awarded the death penalty for murder as well as any crimes that involve an element of murder such as terrorism, genocide and war crimes. Why should a religiously fanatical terrorist who has killed dozens of innocent civilians in a subway station and permanently injured hundreds more through the use of a nerve gas be offered a second chance? Rehabilitation would be absurd in that instance. This proposal would mandate the rehabilitation of such a vile criminal as a "first resort", per clause 3. For this Assembly's information, the criminal in question was executed by asphyxiation in a sealed gas chamber, using the same gas that the criminal dispensed upon his victims. The very thought of rehabilitation never crossed the minds of anyone in New Bremerton. This was more than a decade before we joined the WA.

AGAINST.

Just want to straighten this logic out in my head: killing people with nerve gas is bad, unless you're the government, in which case, killing people with nerve gas is fine?

That is correct, Mr./Ms. Ambassador, although we are now legally prohibited from carrying out executions pending repeal of existing WA legislation or our resignation from the WA, whichever comes first. For the most heinous and only the most heinous crimes do we adhere to the principle of an eye for an eye.

b) A nation may have laws that lower the penalty of someone who committed a heinous crime unless such person has already committed such crimes.

If you decide that such heinous crime as a terrorist act (that case you describe counts as mass murder, psychological torture, direct torture and so on) aren't a eligible crime for rehabilitation, so do it. With that said, I agree my phrasing was poorly made.

We appreciate that an exemption has now been included within the text of the draft granting us the legal right to deny the worst among us the option of rehabilitation for the most heinous crimes. In light of this, the delegation from New Bremerton hereby declares its intention to cast its vote FOR this proposal in its current form.

[Dunmoyle]

Currently, I support this, as I think the WA should encourage more rehabilitation instead of deterrence with prison, because for me, the goal of prison and criminal justice as a whole is to rehabilitate criminals so they have the ability to return to society eventually, and the current system many member states have of locking people in cages just doesn't do that well.

I think this resolution is very well written and should be presented to the WA.

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Tokiko looked at a piece of paper containing the proposal. She looked up. Then down. Then up again. ”First there’s the proposal about poison addicts, now this nonsense? Kyoki Chudoku maintains a policy of punishment appropriate to the crime. Traitors who commit crimes, even less heinous ones, deserve equivalent suffering to that which they casused. It’s the basis of our judicial system. And yes, we do value punishment of crime. It is called crime for a reason. As such, we have no choice but to reject this proposition. I know I’m gonna get a lot of arguments over it, but that’s our stance.”

[Marxist Germany]

First draft of my proposal on Incarceration & Punitive Justice. Thoughts?
Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant
CONCERNED by the state of prisons and other incarceration-directed institutions that are created in essentia for the punishment of those who do not abide by a country's law

See GA#166

BELIEVING that the State and Government should take in account the reasons behind a minor crime as they can be justifiable

A crime is still a crime no matter why it was committed

RECOGNIZING the fact that the poor are more prone to resorting to a life of crime than those who are privileged by the system

AWARE of the fact that truly dangerous members of the society may cause further issues in the future after being released

Fair enough

HEREBY ESTABLISHES that every nation-member must abide to these laws:
1. Rehabilitative justice must be used as first resort so one could more easily leave the "life of crime" they once entered.
a) The State must provide services specialized for those rehabilitated to avoid relapse IF needed. As examples, Welfare programs for rehabilitated criminals in precarious situations or psychological service for people with mental health problems

GA#140

2. Punitive justice shall not be erased from a nation's system unless it is the wish of such nation's internal system. Imprisonment, it being at private-owned or public-owned prisons, shall not be created with the objective of being a punition, nor degrade an imprisoned to the point of psychological damage.

Seems OK to me

3. Rehabilitative justice may not be used only for those who committed minor crimes, but for all criminals unless the government decides that certains heinous crimes make one not eligible for rehabilitation.

You should define a heinous crime in the start of the resolution not in clause 4

a) People with criminal desires shall be able to request the state for a mental health professional and/or a preemptive rehabilitative system
c) For those with aggravations (that extends but is not limited mass murder, public murder and etc), the rehabilitative programs shan't be offered.

B is missing

a) A heinous crime is here defined by anything that hurts the right to life or body autonomy that one or a group posseses as a sentient being, and that extends but is not limited to Mental or Physical Abuse, Torture, Murder and so on.

Define this in a separate clause in the start, it really helps

b) A nation can, if it chooses to, have laws that lower the penalty of someone who committed a heinous crime and requested for rehabilitation unless such person has already committed such crimes, that is to say, if they have criminal records.

So a nation cannot lower the punishment of a person with a criminal record even if it wants to?

5. Rehabilitation shall be obligatory for one after they committed a crime and if refused by the lawbreaker, a nation should follow the article 1b instructions.

Unnecessary repetition

a) Rehabilitation should be priority for those with aextended list of criminal records.

Grammar error: an not a

b) This does not apply for heinous crimes a nation chooses to offer no rehabilitative program for.

Uneeded repetition

c) A nation can choose to offer rehabilitative programs only for those with extended criminal records.

This either contradicts clause 1 or you worded it in a way that does

6. If a person who hasn't committed any crime but entered the rehabilitative program by their own will wishes to stop the program, the right shall be granted

Irrelevant to the topic of the resolution


This has many mistakes and the writer should consider fixing them before submitting