[DRAFT] Improving rehabilitation of prisoners

[Widowed Land]

OOC: if everything is okay should I submit it? I want some GEN sec member to tell me beforehand that draft is legal... (I still don't really have a hope cause I am not about to make telegram campaign)

[Kenmoria]

“The ‘commands’ clause offers no exceptions to extremely violent inmates who could potentially harm or kill a psychologist, and with whom a meeting is impractical.”

[Widowed Land]

“The ‘commands’ clause offers no exceptions to extremely violent inmates who could potentially harm or kill a psychologist, and with whom a meeting is impractical.”

"I think it is unfair to restrict a detainee to enter the meeting just because they MIGHY harm the psychologist, BUT I agree that safety measures must take place, that why I added few subclauses"

[Kenmoria]

“Also, the last clause doesn’t make sense, as ‘consults’ means ‘discusses’, and is followed by the person with whom you are talking, or the topic of consultation. I think you meant ‘encourages that’ instead.”

[Bears Armed]

OOC: if everything is okay should I submit it? I want some GEN sec member to tell me beforehand that draft is legal... (I still don't really have a hope cause I am not about to make telegram campaign)

OOC
I've kept a copy of it to look at while I have to be offline this evening, and will try to get my opinion posted tomorrow.

[Widowed Land]

OOC: if everything is okay should I submit it? I want some GEN sec member to tell me beforehand that draft is legal... (I still don't really have a hope cause I am not about to make telegram campaign)

OOC
I've kept a copy of it to look at while I have to be offline this evening, and will try to get my opinion posted tomorrow.

OOC: okay, I am sure so far this is the final form of this draft, but I don't exclude the chance of adding/updating some clauses.

[Quappe]

"Whilst the intentions of this proposal are indeed commendable, one is apprehensive on the insistent use of house arrest this motion discusses. Would nations be better off using an increased level of house arrests? The cost and bureaucracy of such a measure would be notable, and in some cases house arrest may be too rehabilitative and inconsequential, particularly for new criminals and prisoners, leading potentially to more repeat offenders."

[Araraukar]

Put 'The World Assembly hereby:' between your preamble and active clauses.

OOC: No, put that at the very start of the whole thing, before preamble, so that you have something that does the observing and such. You can put just "Hereby" between preamble and the active clauses.

Which reminds me, preamble (the bits that don't actually do anything, that come before the active clauses) should have the verbs ending with -ing. So observing instead of observes, and so forth.

[Widowed Land]

"Whilst the intentions of this proposal are indeed commendable, one is apprehensive on the insistent use of house arrest this motion discusses. Would nations be better off using an increased level of house arrests? The cost and bureaucracy of such a measure would be notable, and in some cases house arrest may be too rehabilitative and inconsequential, particularly for new criminals and prisoners, leading potentially to more repeat offenders."

"Can you please specify the clause? There's two very different clauses about house arrest. "Split Sentences" law and rewarding the outstanding good behaviour"

[Quappe]

"Whilst the intentions of this proposal are indeed commendable, one is apprehensive on the insistent use of house arrest this motion discusses. Would nations be better off using an increased level of house arrests? The cost and bureaucracy of such a measure would be notable, and in some cases house arrest may be too rehabilitative and inconsequential, particularly for new criminals and prisoners, leading potentially to more repeat offenders."

"Can you please specify the clause? There's two very different clauses about house arrest. "Split Sentences" law and rewarding the outstanding good behaviour"

"I am raising concerns mainly on rewarding good behaviour; this clause could increase escapee rates without a large increase in the amount of prison guards to station the houses, which would in turn greatly increase costs and bureaucracy. Guards cannot simply be taken from prisons for three days to look after one prisoner in a potentially insecure household - a whole new body of house arrest guards would be necessary, along with a new body to make sure the houses are safe enough for temporary three day house arrests to ensure there is no violence or escape in relation to the prisoner in question. Overall, whilst this mandate is, again, well intentioned, it is increasingly difficult to carry out and different rewards for good behaviour should be considered."

[Kenmoria]

“Also, ‘demands to make annual retraining’ doesn’t make sense either. I think you meant that this must be made available, rather than simply made, and you still haven’t shown why this is necessary.”

[East Meranopirus]

I might be a bit late to the party, but I'm going to put some thoughts here.

Mandates to let the detainee out of a prison for three days after outstandingly good behavior.(For example: Cleaning kitchens, toilets, cells; Having healthy relationships with other prisoners; Having no rule broken since the arrest). Hosting family or friend(s) of detainee will take responsibility for him/her during 3 day release.
1.) Prisoner will be judged by a psychologist;
2.) During three days release, convict will be reunited with the family/close friend(s);
3.) Prisoner will be under a surveillance and will be prohibited to exit the house;
4.) Only time a detainee can leave the house is for medical reasons, with escort of police;
5.) There will be no sanctioning for criminals who were detained for a murder and terrorism;
6.) Consent from the family/close friend(s) and prisoner is needed, without consent no such actions will take place.

Bans the rejection of a candidate for an open job, based solely on their criminal background.
1.) Exceptions can be made, if ex-convict is applying for a job, which can directly be linked to his/her alleged crime. (for example: If ex-offender was detained because of child abuse, employer might deny job in Kindergarten/School)

Encourages government to fund media campaigns, which will serve purpose of spreading information that will reassure employers/population that ex-convicts are capable of holding job posts productively.

These clauses all seem a bit weird to me, one way or another.

First, letting them out for three days. It just seems kind of pointless to me - it's not really freedom since they're under constant house arrest, so what's the difference to, say, an extended visiting time from friends or family? Plus, it just seems too costly, especially when you already acknowledge there are countries that don't have adequate funding.

Second, about jobs. If two candidates have the same qualifications, same everything, except one has a criminal background and one doesn't, then the company can't do the logical thing and hire the one without criminal background? They have to go through a lotto or something? If someone's committed a crime and is convicted for it, shouldn't there be some social consequence?

And you only said "exceptions can be made", but it seems to me that it's not just an "exceptions can be made" instance, but schools should clearly ban the hiring of a convicted child-abuser.

Last, media campaigns. The first thing is it's an encouragement, so there's no obligation. Secondly, why does the government have to do this? What if employers hire and ex-con and he re-offends? The government shouldn't advertise for something they have no control over (i.e. the behaviour of ex-convicts).

[Widowed Land]

I might be a bit late to the party, but I'm going to put some thoughts here.


First, letting them out for three days. It just seems kind of pointless to me - it's not really freedom since they're under constant house arrest, so what's the difference to, say, an extended visiting time from friends or family? Plus, it just seems too costly, especially when you already acknowledge there are countries that don't have adequate funding.

This clause serves the purpose of boosting enthusiasm in prisoners to rehabilitate quicker. Nothing more, nothing less. If improvements need money, so be it.

Second, about jobs. If two candidates have the same qualifications, same everything, except one has a criminal background and one doesn't, then the company can't do the logical thing and hire the one without criminal background? They have to go through a lotto or something? If someone's committed a crime and is convicted for it, shouldn't there be some social consequence?

Point of this clause is to accept people to the jobs without concerning too much about their PAST. And this is pretty normal scenario, even if none of them were ex-convicts, company would choose only one. Same will be here, company will choose the one who they seem fit. This clause ensures that ex-prisoners cannot be denied the job they have qualification for(and there's enough vacant spots), just because of crimes they committed sometimes in the past. But it doesn't mean that this clause will shield them through the competition.

And you only said "exceptions can be made", but it seems to me that it's not just an "exceptions can be made" instance, but schools should clearly ban the hiring of a convicted child-abuser.

Yea that's the point. Child abusers can't serve in schools, bank robbers in bank and so on and on...

bLast, media campaigns. The first thing is it's an encouragement, so there's no obligation. Secondly, why does the government have to do this? What if employers hire and ex-con and he re-offends? The government shouldn't advertise for something they have no control over (i.e. the behaviour of ex-convicts).

It is not obligatory, because I don't see it to be that way. Resolutions can very well include recommendations, while this resolution has few straight-on laws, this is just an encouragement. If government will do such thing, it will relieve society that they rule over, stereotypes about prisoners. If someone will re-offend that person will go to jail. Just because someone MIGHT break the rule, it doesn't mean they necessarily will. Remember, all of us can break the rules, should we all go to jail before offending?

[Kenmoria]

I might be a bit late to the party, but I'm going to put some thoughts here.


First, letting them out for three days. It just seems kind of pointless to me - it's not really freedom since they're under constant house arrest, so what's the difference to, say, an extended visiting time from friends or family? Plus, it just seems too costly, especially when you already acknowledge there are countries that don't have adequate funding.

This clause serves the purpose of boosting enthusiasm in prisoners to rehabilitate quicker. Nothing more, nothing less. If improvements need money, so be it.

(OOC: I am not convinced by this clause. The costs for having multiple guards for a prisoner who must be paid over a period of three days are massive compared to the costs of having them in equally useful programs such as schooling within prisons or therapy.)

[Araraukar]

OOC: If someone wants good behaviour to affect something, it should be that good behaviour would be defined as partaking the educational and vocational training (and maybe making such being available a mandate for the nations) while in prison, and also doing appropriate therapy and learning how to be a good citizen, etc., and then only encouraging nations to consider shortening the sentences of such prisoners, but only if they're serving non-life sentences. Because life sentences aren't usually handed out easily, and the people who get them, are usually the kind that shouldn't ever get out for any reason.

[Widowed Land]

OOC: I am not convinced by this clause. The costs for having multiple guards for a prisoner who must be paid over a period of three days are massive compared to the costs of having them in equally useful programs such as schooling within prisons or therapy

But we already do have a therapy clause. About the expenses, I guess 3 days is too much for some economics to uphold. Then maybe I'll shorten it to 1 day? Cost wouldn't be nearly as much and purpose of the clause won't even change only the digits.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: I am not convinced by this clause. The costs for having multiple guards for a prisoner who must be paid over a period of three days are massive compared to the costs of having them in equally useful programs such as schooling within prisons or therapy

But we already do have a therapy clause. About the expenses, I guess 3 days is too much for some economics to uphold. Then maybe I'll shorten it to 1 day? Cost wouldn't be nearly as much and purpose of the clause won't even change only the digits.

OOC:Or you can simply scrap that completely

[Widowed Land]

But we already do have a therapy clause. About the expenses, I guess 3 days is too much for some economics to uphold. Then maybe I'll shorten it to 1 day? Cost wouldn't be nearly as much and purpose of the clause won't even change only the digits.

OOC:Or you can simply scrap that completely

OOC: change of flag? or something with my eyes?(Late night and waiting for GoT, anything can happen.) And no, why delete the clause which can be effective in good way. (well it works in our world)

[Widowed Land]

OOC: If someone wants good behaviour to affect something, it should be that good behaviour would be defined as partaking the educational and vocational training (and maybe making such being available a mandate for the nations) while in prison, and also doing appropriate therapy and learning how to be a good citizen, etc., and then only encouraging nations to consider shortening the sentences of such prisoners, but only if they're serving non-life sentences. Because life sentences aren't usually handed out easily, and the people who get them, are usually the kind that shouldn't ever get out for any reason.

All the educational trainings that you are talking about will be legitimized by this already existing clause:

Commands that prisoners must attend meetings with pyschologists, preparing them for future social life.

[Araraukar]

All the educational trainings that you are talking about will be legitimized by this already existing clause:

Commands that prisoners must attend meetings with pyschologists, preparing them for future social life.

OOC: Meeting with psychologists =/= vocational training. Meeting with psychologists =/= education. Meeting with psychologists =/= learning to get along with others. Meeting with psychologists =/= anything else but meeting with psychologists. You don't even require therapy to actually take place. Also you have a typo in that mandate in the draft.

OOC:Or you can simply scrap that completely

OOC: And no, why delete the clause which can be effective in good way. (well it works in our world)

Only you are saying it can be effective. Only you are saying it works. Everyone else is saying there are huge problems with it the way you want to use it. When everyone else is driving the wrong way and honking their horns at you, maybe you need to consider that maybe it's you that's driving north on southbound lane.

[Widowed Land]

All the educational trainings that you are talking about will be legitimized by this already existing clause:

Commands that prisoners must attend meetings with pyschologists, preparing them for future social life.

OOC: Meeting with psychologists =/= vocational training. Meeting with psychologists =/= education. Meeting with psychologists =/= learning to get along with others. Meeting with psychologists =/= anything else but meeting with psychologists. You don't even require therapy to actually take place. Also you have a typo in that mandate in the draft.

OOC: Now it is specified that therapy is needed. Do you want extra clause for education? Some with books?

[Quappe]

This clause serves the purpose of boosting enthusiasm in prisoners to rehabilitate quicker. Nothing more, nothing less. If improvements need money, so be it.

"This is why we cannot support this motion - the proposal is too flippant when it comes to poorer nations with smaller budgets that cannot meet such random prison standards."

[Widowed Land]

This clause serves the purpose of boosting enthusiasm in prisoners to rehabilitate quicker. Nothing more, nothing less. If improvements need money, so be it.

"This is why we cannot support this motion - the proposal is too flippant when it comes to poorer nations with smaller budgets that cannot meet such random prison standards."

"This draft can be fit for smaller budgets. Everyone seems to forget that prisoners HAVE to earn their 3 or 1 day in their homes. Clause says that only prisoners with outstanding good behavior may have access to such prerogatives. BUT, it is never specified what is good behavior... for simple reason. What is good for me, might be bad for you. Sooooo, you can set that "good behaviour" bar too high and less prisoners will have access. It means less spending. If anything, that can be even more effective as prisoners will have to act on fleak."

OOC: idk if you understand what i said there, but it has some point if you'll find it.

[Maowi]

"This draft can be fit for smaller budgets. Everyone seems to forget that prisoners HAVE to earn their 3 or 1 day in their homes. Clause says that only prisoners with outstanding good behavior may have access to such prerogatives. BUT, it is never specified what is good behavior... for simple reason. What is good for me, might be bad for you. Sooooo, you can set that "good behaviour" bar too high and less prisoners will have access. It means less spending. If anything, that can be even more effective as prisoners will have to act on fleak."

OOC: idk if you understand what i said there, but it has some point if you'll find it.

'Ambasssador, by following this line of reasoning you are rendering that clause useless. You're effectively saying that nations who want to abide by it can do so; and those who don't can set an impossibly high standard of behaviour, in essence eliminating all chances of a prisoner behaving in that way. You'd be far better off recommending nations to set rewards for good behaviour than plugging in a useless, restrictively specific mandate.'

[Widowed Land]

'Ambasssador, by following this line of reasoning you are rendering that clause useless. You're effectively saying that nations who want to abide by it can do so; and those who don't can set an impossibly high standard of behaviour, in essence eliminating all chances of a prisoner behaving in that way. You'd be far better off recommending nations to set rewards for good behaviour than plugging in a useless, restrictively specific mandate.'

"I expected this kind of response. Let me explain that nations cannot escape this clause, they HAVE to put some kind of bar of approval, but it also must be doable. Nobody will ask of prisoners to learn how to fly or something like that. Examples that are mentioned in the draft are doable requests, it is up to nations how many requests will they make to prisoners and how extended the good behavior must be for it to be rewarded."