[DRAFT] Improving rehabilitation of prisoners

[Separatist Peoples]

"I am very confused as to why your delegation believes that people who harm society should be allowed to decide how that society functions"

"The reason is simple. We believe that humans should have influence on their future. Elections in nations and referendums have direct and indirect influence on lives of the population. And WA delegations frequently confuse our clause, which mandates to grant voting right to detainees with light felony. Of course terrorists, serial killers, massive robbers and traitors aren't meant in that clause"

"The term 'light felony' is utterly meaningless."

[Widowed Land]

"If someone is detained for a light felony, one may safely assume that their sentence should be short"

"That's true, but what if their sentence will be on exact date of election/referendum. And according to SP delegation, if person is once detained, he/she must be forever stripped of right to vote. So we cannot afford on luck that all the light felons will be freed in short term so they might still have a chance to vote, cause that won't happen"

[Marxist Germany]

"If someone is detained for a light felony, one may safely assume that their sentence should be short"

"That's true, but what if their sentence will be on exact date of election/referendum. And according to SP delegation, if person is once detained, he/she must be forever stripped of right to vote. So we cannot afford on luck that all the light felons will be freed in short term so they might still have a chance to vote, cause that won't happen"

"One word, parole"

[BlackLight Covenant]

Well, just because these low standards of prisons doesn't apply to all of the nations, it doesn't mean that all WA members have perfect standards. Some have good ration of food, some have qualified staff and etc. The point is to make a standard... A prison standard and Prisoner's rights isn't quite the title, I only choice it because the voting thing. Why voting you ask... Well when I agree that detained people with vile felonies shouldn't have such rights, why should we strip someone of voting because they, idk... robbed a house or pickpocketed someone. They are lawbreakers, but certainly they are not villains, and I see i have to specify that. And question: what is an operative clause?

Oh, I'm not arguing that it's not worth discussing, I'm arguing that in the original version, the wording made it seem as if all prisons within the borders of member states were absolutely terrible. I see that you've changed the wording of that whole part, however, so that's good.

As for the voting rights, perhaps you have a point. Perhaps. However, if a criminal losing the right to vote is part of national law, then said criminal could've and should've known beforehand that, should they get caught and sentenced to in this case jail, it would lead to their right to vote being revoked. It serves as a deterrent, even if it's probably not the primary concern of most criminals when sentenced to jail. If someone still decides to nevertheless take that risk by committing a crime, resulting in their arrest, trial, and receiving a prison sentence, then that is their own choice and their own problem. Whether said revoke should be permanent or not is something I think should be left to each individual member state to decide for themselves.

I'm not necessarily opposed to guaranteeing a certain base level standard mostly if they make everything more efficient, but I can assure you that I won't ever vote for a proposal that wants to give detained criminals the right to vote. Said criminals gambled and lost, and this is part of the price they pay for it.

[Liberimery]

"What does the Ambassador proposing this Resolution suggest is the proper punishment for an enfranchised citizen who is found guilty of voter fraud by a court of law?"

[Morover]

"Reading through this discussion has legitimately made me consider resigning from my job. This is dreadful. I believe the part that truly completes this is your absolute refusal to admit that you are wrong. I will try to put this as simply as I can: autocracies are equally as legitimate as democracies. I can tell you that from experience -- Morover is an autocracy."

"I am very confused as to why your delegation believes that people who harm society should be allowed to decide how that society functions"

"The reason is simple. We believe that humans should have influence on their future. Elections in nations and referendums have direct and indirect influence on lives of the population. And WA delegations frequently confuse our clause, which mandates to grant voting right to detainees with light felony. Of course terrorists, serial killers, massive robbers and traitors aren't meant in that clause"

"What defines a light felony? Correct me if I'm wrong, but felonies almost always are more serious charges. 'Massive robbers,' as you put it, would fall under a 'light felony,' under my interpretation of it. In my humble opinion, a 'light felony' could range anywhere from domestic abuse to murder, depending on how one interprets it."

"Now, now Ambassador resorting to name calling is unbecoming of any member of this body. Again as I have stated and many others have made clear, most of us do not consider the rights of prisoners to be within the realm of an international body; if your government decides that it wants to guarantee the right of voting for prisoners, among other things, it is certainly its prerogative, but don't come here and seek to establish your point of view on the issue onto the rest of us lest the precedent becomes established and exploited by members less savory."

"We have WA to internationally implement laws, that majority of the delegates deem fit. I came with this proposal, because my delegation sees it as worthy to be discussed and even implemented internationally. Don't flat our reject something, before discussing it"

"Is it not preferable to discard, quite honestly, terrible proposals, especially when the author refuses to listen to reason.

"Initially, I was intrigued by a proposal handling the rights of convicts, specifically what you would do by going beyond GAR#194. I must say, I was disappointed."

[Widowed Land]

Okay I surrender to will of the people. God, some people are unnegotiatable. I have a new clause and what to discuss the old ones too, so maybe stop talking about voting?

[The New Nordic Union]

All OOC:

Others may implement law of "split sentences".

Is this supposed to be an active clause? If so, it is illegal for optionality.

Mandating, to let the detainee out of a prison for three days after good behavior.

Detainee or prisoner? As others have mentioned, there is a huge difference between being detained and being imprisoned. Also, 'for three days after good behaviour': Do these three days count towards the sentence? How long has the good behaviour to last? Would it be possible, say, to exert good behaviour for an hour, get out of prison for three days, get back in, show another hour of good behaivoiur and get out again? This is really unclearly worded and could make effective prison sentences unobtainable.

[Grays Harbor]

Mandating, to let the detainee out of a prison for three days after good behavior.

“Good behavior” for how long? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? During lunch? Vagueness is not acceptable. Also, the inmate is in prison for committing crimes. They are not in a holiday resort.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Mandating, to let the detainee out of a prison for three days after good behavior.

“Good behavior” for how long? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? During lunch? Vagueness is not acceptable. Also, the inmate is in prison for committing crimes. They are not in a holiday resort.

"I'd be in favour of about 20 minutes. I will say it again, ladies and gentlemen. Prisons. Are. Barbaric. The Haven will not support anything that furthers the agenda of so-called 'public safety' or 'law enforcement.' Embrace freedom, and no bad will come of it."

[Grays Harbor]

“Good behavior” for how long? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? During lunch? Vagueness is not acceptable. Also, the inmate is in prison for committing crimes. They are not in a holiday resort.

"I'd be in favour of about 20 minutes. I will say it again, ladies and gentlemen. Prisons. Are. Barbaric. The Haven will not support anything that furthers the agenda of so-called 'public safety' or 'law enforcement.' Embrace freedom, and no bad will come of it."

Barbaric? Just how clueless is your government? Freedom to commit crimes is not a Good Plan.

[BlackLight Covenant]

“Good behavior” for how long? 10 years? 5 years? 1 year? During lunch? Vagueness is not acceptable. Also, the inmate is in prison for committing crimes. They are not in a holiday resort.

"I'd be in favour of about 20 minutes. I will say it again, ladies and gentlemen. Prisons. Are. Barbaric. The Haven will not support anything that furthers the agenda of so-called 'public safety' or 'law enforcement.' Embrace freedom, and no bad will come of it."

"So if I understand you correctly, murderers, crime bosses and other such riffraff are allowed to just run free within your borders? Because if so, lord do I feel sorry for your population, and that comes from someone who usually doesn't care too much about foreign citizens within their respective nations."

[Kenmoria]

“Your ‘mandating’ clause is, in my eyes, too much of a limitation on national sovereignty. Rapists, thieves, treasoners, assaulters, hackers, should they be let out of prison after just three days? And what happens if the convict has no fixed home, for example if they were homeless before incarceration?”

[Widowed Land]

"The point of this clause is that inmates will be more enthusiastic to complete rehabilitation with hope that they might have a peek out of their horrible cell for three days or one day, it doesn't matter. As I see this new clause is bit more acceptable than voting for everyone"

OOC: I think this 3 days off of prison law is in Turkey... i might be wrong tho, but it kinda serves it's purpose.

[Widowed Land]

All OOC:

Others may implement law of "split sentences".

Is this supposed to be an active clause? If so, it is illegal for optionality.

Mandating, to let the detainee out of a prison for three days after good behavior.

Detainee or prisoner? As others have mentioned, there is a huge difference between being detained and being imprisoned. Also, 'for three days after good behaviour': Do these three days count towards the sentence? How long has the good behaviour to last? Would it be possible, say, to exert good behaviour for an hour, get out of prison for three days, get back in, show another hour of good behaivoiur and get out again? This is really unclearly worded and could make effective prison sentences unobtainable.

Let's see, if I said after 5 years of good behavior and approval of a psychologist, inmate can leave the prison for 3 days under surveillance. Is this clear enough? (Not a cynical question, rather honest one)

[Araraukar]

OOC: Please learn to edit your posts rather than double or triple posting all the time.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"I'd be in favour of about 20 minutes. I will say it again, ladies and gentlemen. Prisons. Are. Barbaric. The Haven will not support anything that furthers the agenda of so-called 'public safety' or 'law enforcement.' Embrace freedom, and no bad will come of it."

Barbaric? Just how clueless is your government? Freedom to commit crimes is not a Good Plan.

"Monitored house arrest is a far cry from 'freedom to commit crimes,' and allows the government to punish criminals without depriving them of a family life and the ability to do productive remote work."

[Widowed Land]

"Monitored house arrest is a far cry from 'freedom to commit crimes,' and allows the government to punish criminals without depriving them of a family life and the ability to do productive remote work."

"My delegation appreciates your high concern for prisoners' rights, ambassador"

[Kenmoria]

All OOC:

Is this supposed to be an active clause? If so, it is illegal for optionality.


Detainee or prisoner? As others have mentioned, there is a huge difference between being detained and being imprisoned. Also, 'for three days after good behaviour': Do these three days count towards the sentence? How long has the good behaviour to last? Would it be possible, say, to exert good behaviour for an hour, get out of prison for three days, get back in, show another hour of good behaivoiur and get out again? This is really unclearly worded and could make effective prison sentences unobtainable.

Let's see, if I said after 5 years of good behavior and approval of a psychologist, inmate can leave the prison for 3 days under surveillance. Is this clear enough? (Not a cynical question, rather honest one)

(OOC: I would still like to see this having to pass through at least some kind of judicial process. It is not impossible that a prisoner, if they are determined enough, could act good for five years solely to go out and commit more crime. This also doesn’t fit in with non-standard judicial models. For example, open prisons and supermax prisons both wouldn’t fit this very well, for opposite reasons.)

[Separatist Peoples]

"Surveillance of prisoners for temporary release sounds prohibitively expensive unless we trust prisoners to obey parole requirements. But they have no reason to do so, since, unlike parolees, good behavior will not prevent their return to incarceration. This is a terrible, terrible idea, and should be condemned to a shredder."

[Widowed Land]

"Surveillance of prisoners for temporary release sounds prohibitively expensive unless we trust prisoners to obey parole requirements. But they have no reason to do so, since, unlike parolees, good behavior will not prevent their return to incarceration. This is a terrible, terrible idea, and should be condemned to a shredder."

"I am certainly sure that your delegation will like nothing that even remotely improves prisoners' lives. As you said before, your nation doesn't even let ex-convicts to vote, even though we have GAR specifically about it, ambassador"

[Marxist Germany]

"Surveillance of prisoners for temporary release sounds prohibitively expensive unless we trust prisoners to obey parole requirements. But they have no reason to do so, since, unlike parolees, good behavior will not prevent their return to incarceration. This is a terrible, terrible idea, and should be condemned to a shredder."

"I am certainly sure that your delegation will like nothing that even remotely improves prisoners' lives. As you said before, your nation doesn't even let ex-convicts to vote, even though we have GAR specifically about it, ambassador"

"Which resolution"

[Sterkistan]

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.

Angered, that some workers of the prisons might be unqualified. These unqualified workers often overwhelm their authority and start discrimination against prisoners.

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

"In general, the assumption that a nations prisons are of low standards will not go over well, the low modality does not help and serves to further alienate these nations. A more effective approach would be to set standards for hygiene, health and welfare, however, these are prisons not 5-star hotels. The point of a prison is to deprive the convicted of the joys of freedom to prevent re-offending. Various other policies can be enacted as a way to improve the success of this method, but you have failed to list anything that could actually help."

Consulting, that governments should fund the infrastructure in jails.

"Perhaps find a better word for this clause than consulting and provide more detail. Currently, all the resolution says is; 'spend money on prisons'. You have not specified an amount, as such, I could throw a dollar to a prison warden and say, 'spend it on infrastructure' and it would fall in the bounds of this resolution."

Observing, that some nations can afford building new prisons to avoid overpopulation. Others may implement law of "split sentences", which proved to be effective in solving overpopulation in penitentiary establishments. In such cases, detained person will serve half of his sentence in jail, other half in house arrest.
1.) "Split sentences" will not be used on convicts, whose crimes ended up with a lethal incident.

"This clause is completely detached from the rest of the proposal and is not needed, you state that some nations can afford to build prisons, but you then proceed to throw the nations that can't under the bus by forcing them to keep a vast majority of the incarcerated in a prison system you seek to de-populate."

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

"Once again, you are assuming that a high-risk system, whether privately or publicly funded, is hiring workers who are not skilled. This is insulting to the nations who put precious time and vital resources into sourcing professional workers."

Mandating, to let the detainee out of a prison for three days after good behavior.
1.) Prisoner will be judged by a psychologist;
2.) During three days of freedom, convict will be reunited with the family;
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.

"There is so much wrong with this clause that it needs vital reworking or complete scrapping. Firstly, good behaviour in prison should not be rewarded, it is expected. Those who break the rules face punishment, prison is not somewhere you can come and go because 'you've been really good this month'. You are sent to prison as punishment for committing a crime, no matter the severity."

"You also assume that the family of the incarcerated wish to see the individual in question, what if the convict is incarcerated on a Domestic Violence charge? By stating this in your resolution you are not giving a choice to the family of the incarcerated."

"What if the prisoner has no home to go back to? And by keeping them under surveillance it seems more beneficial to keep them in prison where they can apply for parole."

"Police have more important things to do than babysit criminals they have already caught and imprisoned. Once again, this problem is solved by simply keeping them in a prison where they have access to medical facilities."

"Why only murderers and terrorists? What of cyber-criminals and rapists? You seem to judge the severity of a crime based upon whether lives were lost rather than the psychological, physical or economic state of the victims or the concept of a law being broken. You have repeatedly stated that people who pickpocket or rob houses are not 'villains'. But you fail to think about how the actions of the criminal affect the victim. How do you think the victim of a robbery, or even rape, would feel if they learned that the person was permitted to leave prison because they had been good?"

"If it weren't apparent, I vehemently OPPOSE this resolution. Not only is it insulting to every nation with a prison system through it's baseless slander, it also fails to address the problem it seems to have created specifically for this proposal."

[Wallenburg]

"Dear Ambassador, I know beforehand that you wouldn't care about my opinion but let me speak out. I ask you why are you in WA? as it seems that you only care about the policies your own nation implement. I might be wrong or not. So far you declared that you don't care anyone's views on this matter"

"Separatist Peoples is definitely not in a state of noncompliance with any resolution."

Ogenbond chokes on a glass of water. He coughs, waving his hand dismissively. "Oh yes, very compliant."

[Kenmoria]

"I am certainly sure that your delegation will like nothing that even remotely improves prisoners' lives. As you said before, your nation doesn't even let ex-convicts to vote, even though we have GAR specifically about it, ambassador"

"Which resolution"

“That would be GA #419, Voting Equality for Freed Inmates. On the topic of this proposal, how exactly would a convict benefit from being let out of prison. Also, what happens if they wish to stay, either for safety or because they are unused to life outside of prison?”