Advertisement
by Widowed Land » Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:53 am
by Kenmoria » Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:28 am
by Widowed Land » Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:42 am
Kenmoria wrote:“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.”
by Kenmoria » Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:31 am
by Bears Armed » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:21 am
OOCWidowed Land wrote: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)
by Widowed Land » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:36 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOCWidowed Land wrote: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)
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.
by Quappe » Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:00 pm
by Araraukar » Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:59 pm
Maowi wrote:Put 'The World Assembly hereby:' between your preamble and active clauses.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Widowed Land » Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:30 pm
Quappe wrote:"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."
by Quappe » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:41 am
Widowed Land wrote:Quappe wrote:"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"
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:33 am
by East Meranopirus » Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:25 am
Widowed Land wrote: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.
by Widowed Land » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:20 pm
East Meranopirus wrote: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.
East Meranopirus wrote: 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?
East Meranopirus wrote: 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.
East Meranopirus wrote: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).
by Kenmoria » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:29 pm
(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.)Widowed Land wrote:East Meranopirus wrote: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.
by Araraukar » Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:47 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Widowed Land » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:25 pm
Kenmoria wrote: 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
by Marxist Germany » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:27 pm
Widowed Land wrote:Kenmoria wrote: 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.
by Widowed Land » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:30 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Widowed Land wrote:
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
by Widowed Land » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:31 pm
Araraukar wrote: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.
by Araraukar » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:58 pm
Widowed Land wrote: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.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Widowed Land » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:22 pm
Araraukar wrote:Widowed Land wrote: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.
by Quappe » Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:53 pm
Widowed Land wrote:This clause serves the purpose of boosting enthusiasm in prisoners to rehabilitate quicker. Nothing more, nothing less. If improvements need money, so be it.
by Widowed Land » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:14 am
Quappe wrote:Widowed Land wrote: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."
by Maowi » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:23 am
Widowed Land wrote:Quappe wrote:"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.
by Widowed Land » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:27 am
Maowi wrote: '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.'
Advertisement
Advertisement