NationStates

Kenmoria wrote:“Are you going to take my feedback into account? If you are, it should be ‘for’, not ‘from’, in your last clause, and it probably shouldn’t apply to those sentenced to capital punishment either.”

Widowed Land wrote:

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: You should be getting the idea that mandatory furlough for all prisoners who can manage to keep their noses clean just long enough to get a shot at escaping is just not going to fly. It's 100% a non-starter.

OOC: I took in account what you've proposed and added corresponding clause. I hope it is what you have meant

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:
OOC: I took in account what you've proposed and added corresponding clause. I hope it is what you have meant

OOC: Well, you added a thing. Preambulatory and not detailed, and so not that useful. But mainly you ignored the very first thing I wrote. My suggestion is that you scrap the mandatory good behavior release entirely and focus on encouraging nations to find ways to help reduce recidivism and post-prison unemployment.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:
OOC: I took in account what you've proposed and added corresponding clause. I hope it is what you have meant

OOC: Well, you added a thing. Preambulatory and not detailed, and so not that useful. But mainly you ignored the very first thing I wrote. My suggestion is that you scrap the mandatory good behavior release entirely and focus on encouraging nations to find ways to help reduce recidivism and post-prison unemployment.

Widowed Land wrote:OOC: My only concern is, will it not be out of theme to talk about post-incarceration when resolution is supposedly talk about Prisoners rights... tho I'll try to make that kind of clause

Widowed Land wrote:I don't know how far have I went with that "banning" clause, but it all can be fixed. I hope you like the new turn of this draft.

Maowi wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:I don't know how far have I went with that "banning" clause, but it all can be fixed. I hope you like the new turn of this draft.

OOC: I'm not sure if you've realised this and are determined to keep it for some reason, or you just haven't clocked it yet, but the problem is the mandatory good behaviour release clause. It causes way more problems than it's worth, and it's a bit one-size-fits-nobody.

Widowed Land wrote:Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild


Disturbed, that in penitentiary establishments, in certain nations, there is a low level of infrastructure, which causes unsanitary conditions for life.

Observing, that in some nations, there's overpopulation in prisons, that usually causes mass riots, underfed, unsanitary and low control over detained people.

Acknowledges, that there's some chances of unqualified people might work in prisons. These unqualified workers could overwhelm their authority and start discrimination against prisoners.

Reminds, that some prisoners may rehabilitate faster than the others, and government should sanction good behavior.

Tells, that penitentiary establishments should help convicts prepare themselves for future life out of the detainment.

Concerned, that ex-offenders are less likely to get a job. This problem might cause massive unemployment, further a due, it arbitrarily violets individual's right to have a job.


Consulting, that governments should fund the infrastructure in jails.

Observing, that nations that can afford to build new prisons, should act so to avoid overpopulation.

Mandating, that nations which cannot afford new jails, may implement law of "split sentences", which proved to be effective in solving overpopulation in penitentiary establishments. In such cases, detained person will serve part of his/her sentence in jail, other part in house arrest.
1.) "Split sentences" will not be used on convicts, whose crimes ended up with a lethal incident.
2.) Sentence time in jail/house arrest will be decided by the judge according to the criminal case.
3.) Time ratio between jail sentence and house arrest can be reconsidered after 2 years in jail. Final verdict will be chosen by the judge.

Demanding, to make annual retraining of workers in prisons, to make sure only qualified candidates work there,

Mandating, 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.

Commanding, that penitentiary establishments must have lessons/meetings with psychologists/experts who will prepare them for future inevitable socialization.
1.) This clause does not concern neither convicts with lifelong detainment, nor who are sentenced to capital punishment.

Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background.

Asking, governments should 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.

Widowed Land wrote:OOC: I am still thinking about it, don't worry, I'll take your words into the consideration. But if you quoted my words about the new clause maybe tell me your thoughts on it.

Commanding, that penitentiary establishments must have lessons/meetings with psychologists/experts who will prepare them for future inevitable socialization.
1.) This clause does not concern neither convicts with lifelong detainment, nor who are sentenced to capital punishment.

Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background.

Asking, governments should 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.

2.) Sentence time in jail/house arrest will be decided by the judge according to the criminal case.
3.) Time ratio between jail sentence and house arrest can be reconsidered after 2 years in jail. Final verdict will be chosen by the judge.

6.) Consent from the family/close friend(s) and prisoner is needed, without consent no such actions will take place.

Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background.

Coconut Palm Island wrote:As a nation with a very humane, rehabilitative justice system ourselves, we support the spirit and intent of this legislation. However, we have some issues with it.

2.) Sentence time in jail/house arrest will be decided by the judge according to the criminal case.
3.) Time ratio between jail sentence and house arrest can be reconsidered after 2 years in jail. Final verdict will be chosen by the judge.

This section puts too much power in the hands of a judge, and part 3 eliminates the possibility of an appeal in this matter. Further, many in our nation feel that wide utilization of home detention will just sweep the problem of over-incarceration under the rug. If too many people are in prison, than the obvious solution is to stop locking people up for non-violent offenses!

6.) Consent from the family/close friend(s) and prisoner is needed, without consent no such actions will take place.

So, if a prisoner's friend or distant relative says that they don't want them to get out, the prisoner is stuck for the remainder of his or her term? Maybe modify this to only apply to the people explicitly taking responsibility for the prisoner.

Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background.

This is unacceptable. Of course this should be the case in most circumstances, but can we not reject a person's application to be a kindergarten teacher based solely on the fact that they were convicted of child molestation? We agree with this protection, but it needs to be limited so that dangerous individuals are not put in positions to hurt or take advantage of others.

We agree with the spirit and intent of this legislation. However, we think that these areas should be fixed. Also, why not include specific protections for those detained, such as the right to uninterrupted medication (people arrested are often denied medical treatment), or better housing conditions? Also, our nation firmly maintains that no one should be locked up, except for behavior so damaging to another person or the community that there is no other way to remedy the situation.

The King is split on this resolution. Should this come to a vote, our nation is not quite sure how we would vote-- it would depend heavily on the wording of the bill. We thank you for considering our feedback.

Widowed Land wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Are you going to take my feedback into account? If you are, it should be ‘for’, not ‘from’, in your last clause, and it probably shouldn’t apply to those sentenced to capital punishment either.”

Thank you, if you have any additional problem with new clause, please tell me... But I assume you don't like the draft overall

Kenmoria wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:
Thank you, if you have any additional problem with new clause, please tell me... But I assume you don't like the draft overall

(OOC: The clause should have ‘either’ not ‘neither’ as having the latter is a double negative. Also, it shouldn’t begin with a comma after the opening verb, as I have mentioned previously twice. The concept itself isn’t particularly bad, but you don’t seem to be taking feedback into account.)

Widowed Land wrote:About feedback i do take it in account

Maowi wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:OOC: I am still thinking about it, don't worry, I'll take your words into the consideration. But if you quoted my words about the new clause maybe tell me your thoughts on it.

OOC: Ok then...

Commanding, that penitentiary establishments must have lessons/meetings with psychologists/experts who will prepare them for future inevitable socialization.
1.) This clause does not concern neither convicts with lifelong detainment, nor who are sentenced to capital punishment.

This clause currently reads as though you want your 'psychologists/experts' to walk up to the prison and have a good old chat with the wall. This isn't Dragon's Den. I think what you mean is 'Mandates that prisoners have meetings with pyschologists preparing them for future re-integration into society'. Or something along those lines.

Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background.

So this would ban a hedge fund company from hiring someone who was convicted for the diversion of funds?

Asking, governments should 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.

Very reassuring, I'm sure.

Overall, you should tidy up the formatting to make it easier to read, clean up the grammar and make sure that your mandates are actual verbs, not participles, e.g. 'Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background' --> 'Bans the rejection of a candidate for an open job based solely on their criminal background', or something like that.

1. Get rid of all those commas after the italicised words; they're grammatically incorrect.
   
2. Change all the italicised words from -ing to -s (e.g. banning to bans, mandating to mandates).
   
3. Get rid of the whole bit about mandating this good behaviour reward.
   
4. Get rid of all bolding and italicising (although that's just my personal preference) and make good use of the list code.
   
5. Put 'The World Assembly hereby:' between your preamble and active clauses.
   
6. Get rid of, or elaborate on, this clause: 'Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background'.

Maowi wrote:OOC:

1. Get rid of all those commas after the italicised words; they're grammatically incorrect.
   
2. Change all the italicised words from -ing to -s (e.g. banning to bans, mandating to mandates).
   
3. Get rid of the whole bit about mandating this good behaviour reward.
   
4. Get rid of all bolding and italicising (although that's just my personal preference) and make good use of the list code. I don't get what do you mean here
   
5. Put 'The World Assembly hereby:' between your preamble and active clauses.
   
6. Get rid of, or elaborate on, this clause: 'Banning, rejection of a candidate for open job vacancy, for sole reason of criminal background'.

That's my advice. Take it or leave it.

Widowed Land wrote:OOC: I took some of your advices, others are took into a consideration.

Consults that governments should fund the infrastructure in jails.

Maowi wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:OOC: I took some of your advices, others are took into a consideration.

OOC: OK, fair enough.

Consults that governments should fund the infrastructure in jails.

Is this intentionally optional? If not, I'd recommend strengthening it to something like 'Commands governments to fund the infrastructure in jails' to make it binding.

Widowed Land wrote:

Maowi wrote:
OOC: OK, fair enough.


Is this intentionally optional? If not, I'd recommend strengthening it to something like 'Commands governments to fund the infrastructure in jails' to make it binding.

OOC: Done. Oh, I wanted to ask: Should this draft's strength stay as "mild" or make should I change it to Significant?

Commands that governments should fund the infrastructure in jails.

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

Exceptions can be made, if ex-convict is applying for a job, which can directly be linked to his/her alleged crime.