[SUBMIT'D] Limiting Private Involvement in the Prison System

[Kenmoria]

OOC: You will need to mention CD (raised by Request 1, optional) as co-author, myself (since I am now collaborating with you in this proposal) and Kenmoria (contributor to this proposal, as stated in LPP) at the end of your resolution. Basically something like this:

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath
Contributions by Kenmoria

(OOC: I’ve recently checked, and it seems not to be allowed to place other nations in the text as anything other than co-authors. In other words, you can’t have differing levels of coauthor and contributor without making it illegal for branding; everybody needs to be mentioned as having co-authored. Since I’ve contributed relatively little, I’m happy to be unlisted on the proposal.)

[Youssath]

(OOC: I’ve recently checked, and it seems not to be allowed to place other nations in the text as anything other than co-authors. In other words, you can’t have differing levels of coauthor and contributor without making it illegal for branding; everybody needs to be mentioned as having co-authored. Since I’ve contributed relatively little, I’m happy to be unlisted on the proposal.)

OOC: Or if you like, you can contribute "more than enough" to be part of the co-authors in this resolution. There are two sides to a coin.

[Free Santa Rosa]

Limiting Private Involvement in the Prison System
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,

Concerned, however, that the extreme harm caused by profit-driven recidivism raised in GA#468 are left unaddressed due to the repeal,

Quoting in particular, "Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits," and "Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,"

Hereby,

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a "prison" as any correctional or detention center that holds or houses, on a permanent or long term basis individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences,
2. "private enterprise" as any individual or group not affiliated with the state, who owns or stakes part-ownership of any business, industry, service, or activity which directly affects the economy and is run for profit,
3. a "private prison" as a prison that is owned or partly-owned by a private enterprise, or a prison primarily or wholly owned by the state but is leased to a private enterprise for profit,

2. Requires all WA member states and their political subdivisions, at the date of this resolution's effectivity, to establish a national plan that will:

1. Terminate the construction of any new private prisons,
2. End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise,
3. Ensure that any existing private prisons no longer confer profit to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, transforming the nature of the private prison into a non-profit organization, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by the WA member state,
4. Ensure that the general well-being, recidivism rates and performance of any existing private prisons must be better or match the average standards of a public prison with a deviation of no more than 25%,

3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:

1. Allowing private enterprises to earn profit by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison,
2. Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship,

4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:

1. Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made,
2. Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs,
3. Staffing and manpower services auxiliary staff not necessary to the continued operation of the prison, such as janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and so on,
4. Consultation and research,

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath
Contributions by Kenmoria

Here's the current draft. I hope this satisfies all parties while keeping the strength of the original resolution. I've elected to retain the strength after all; the way I see it, our purpose in re-legislating policy is precisely not fall into the same pitfalls and weaknesses that MG pointed out in the repeal. We are therefore strengthening the previous legislation and making it more robust, in keeping with the points raised in the repeal.

[Youssath]

-snip-

This is the new updated draft for your appraisal. I have made minor edits and additions into the draft for your own reference. Once we have agreed upon this new draft, I will ask MG to see if he has any further critic to this proposal before submission.

Limiting Private Involvement in the Prison System

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Free Santa Rosa

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,

Optimistic that the ratification of this improved resolution can at least promote a minimum standard of living of inmates to ensure proper rehabilitation and reconciliation for their crimes, (Kinda feel like we should include this to the preamble, although I will leave it up to your choice.)

Concerned, however, that the extreme harm caused by profit-driven recidivism raised in GA#468 are left unaddressed due to the repeal,

Quoting in particular, "Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits," and "Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,"

Hereby,
1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a "prison" as any correctional or detention center that holds or houses, on a permanent or long term basis individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences,
2. "private enterprise" as any individual or group not affiliated with the state, who owns or stakes part-ownership of any business, industry, service, or activity which directly affects the economy and is run for profit,
3. a "private prison" as a prison that is owned or partly-owned by a private enterprise, or a prison primarily or wholly owned by the state but is leased to a private enterprise for profit,

2. Requires all WA member states and their political subdivisions, at the date of this resolution's effectivity, to establish a national plan that will:

1. Terminate the construction of any new private prisons;
2. End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise;
3. Ensure that any existing private prisons no longer confer profit to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, transforming the nature of the private prison into a non-profit organization, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by the WA member states; and (This part here is unneeded, since the virtue of nationalization is implied to be the transfer from private hands to public ownership.)
4. Ensure that the general well-being, recidivism rates and performance of any existing private prisons must be better or match the average standards of a public prison with a deviation of no more than 10% either within the political constituencies, provinces or by nationwide; (After discussions held in my previous discussion with Kenmoria, we have decided to amend this clause to solve the question of federalism (MG and San Carlos Islands) raised by San Carlos Islands' concerns and to account for the fact that private prisons may be located in violent areas where it is a near impossibility for them to meet such requirements.)

3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:

1. Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to earn profit by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison; and (You might want to add this pursuant in for clarity, since if it interpreted wrongly by a layman - it sounds quite aggressive independently as a prohibition clause.)
2. Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship;

4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:

1. Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made;
2. Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs;
3. Staffing and manpower services auxiliary staff not necessary to the continued operation of the prison, such as janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and so on; and
4. Consultation and research;

5. Also requires that should clause 2, 3 or 4 of this resolution or any part thereof be breached, member nations are obliged to send a written notice to all relevant parties of the private prison to address the violation and its potential consequences; (If you are going to introduce regulations such as requiring the termination of new private prisons or leases etc, you need to mandate penalties for non-compliant private corporations, otherwise breaking these regulations will have no effect on them.)

6. Mandates all member nations, pursuant to clause 5, to impose and enforce immediate financial penalties relative to the prison or private enterprise's gross income flow to make further prison operations unprofitable to non-compliant private enterprises; (See above to Clause 5.)

7. Clarifies that the resolution shall not extend to apply to private probation, home detention, and other similar practices deemed by the member states through the use of private properties or entities in the legal justice system; and

8. Declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 5 and 6, such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security and public order, such as national disasters, on a temporary basis if necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners. (I have taken the time and liberty to rewrite both clause 7 and 8 from elements of CD's GAR #468, and I see no reason as to why we cannot introduce these clauses since they have not raised any issues during debate.)

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath
Contributions by Kenmoria (At the request and established precedent by Bears Armed.)

And with all of that in, we have clocked in 4455 characters! (of course, scratching off the color, sharpies and my notes on this resolution) Anyway, let me know what you think of this proposal. I will let Marxist Germany take a review at it since I don't want to see LPIP be repealed once more over trivial matters.

Also, I have attached a clean and black-and-white copy for your reference:

The World Assembly,

Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,

Optimistic that the ratification of this improved resolution can at least promote a minimum standard of living of inmates to ensure proper rehabilitation and reconciliation for their crimes,

Concerned, however, that the extreme harm caused by profit-driven recidivism raised in GA#468 are left unaddressed due to the repeal,

Quoting in particular, "Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits," and "Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,"

Hereby,
1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a "prison" as any correctional or detention center that holds or houses, on a permanent or long term basis individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences,
2. "private enterprise" as any individual or group not affiliated with the state, who owns or stakes part-ownership of any business, industry, service, or activity which directly affects the economy and is run for profit,
3. a "private prison" as a prison that is owned or partly-owned by a private enterprise, or a prison primarily or wholly owned by the state but is leased to a private enterprise for profit,

2. Requires all WA member states and their political subdivisions, at the date of this resolution's effectivity, to establish a national plan that will:

1. Terminate the construction of any new private prisons;
2. End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise;
3. Ensure that any existing private prisons no longer confer profit to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by member states; and
4. Ensure that the general well-being, recidivism rates and performance of any existing private prisons must be better or match the average standards of a public prison with a deviation of no more than 10% either within the political constituencies, provinces or by nationwide;

3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:

1. Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to earn profit by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison; and
2. Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship;

4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:

1. Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made;
2. Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs;
3. Staffing and manpower services auxiliary staff not necessary to the continued operation of the prison, such as janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and so on; and
4. Consultation and research;

5. Also requires that should clause 2, 3 or 4 of this resolution or any part thereof be breached, member nations are obliged to send a written notice to all relevant parties of the private prison to address the violation and its potential consequences;

6. Mandates all member nations, pursuant to clause 5, to impose and enforce immediate financial penalties relative to the prison or private enterprise's gross income flow to make further prison operations unprofitable to non-compliant private enterprises;

7. Clarifies that the resolution shall not extend to apply to private probation, home detention, and other similar practices deemed by the member states through the use of private properties or entities in the legal justice system; and

8. Declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 5 and 6, such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security and public order, such as national disasters, on a temporary basis if necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners.

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath

[Bears Armed]

(OOC: I’ve recently checked, and it seems not to be allowed to place other nations in the text as anything other than co-authors. In other words, you can’t have differing levels of coauthor and contributor without making it illegal for branding; everybody needs to be mentioned as having co-authored. Since I’ve contributed relatively little, I’m happy to be unlisted on the proposal.)

OOC
There's also precedent for listing somebody as 'Author', when another player actually submits the proposal, e.g. GA Resolution #20.

[Youssath]

(OOC: I’ve recently checked, and it seems not to be allowed to place other nations in the text as anything other than co-authors. In other words, you can’t have differing levels of coauthor and contributor without making it illegal for branding; everybody needs to be mentioned as having co-authored. Since I’ve contributed relatively little, I’m happy to be unlisted on the proposal.)

OOC
There's also precedent for listing somebody as 'Author', when another player actually submits the proposal, e.g. GA Resolution #20.

Understandable. In such a case, we will have no choice but to drop Kenmoria as a contributor if it violates the precedent.
However, I will still stand on the term "co-author", since a stronger precedent has been established with the term, "co-author".

[Kenmoria]

OOC
There's also precedent for listing somebody as 'Author', when another player actually submits the proposal, e.g. GA Resolution #20.

Understandable. In such a case, we will have no choice but to drop Kenmoria as a contributor if it violates the precedent.
However, I will still stand on the term "co-author", since a stronger precedent has been established with the term, "co-author".

(OOC: I think you have misinterpreted what BA is saying. Co-author is completely fine, as is author. However, those are the only two possible options. The only term that was in doubt was ‘contributor’.)

[Youssath]

(OOC: I think you have misinterpreted what BA is saying. Co-author is completely fine, as is author. However, those are the only two possible options. The only term that was in doubt was ‘contributor’.)

Oh. My bad, I initially thought that BA wanted me to amend from "co-author" to "author".

Also, I have attached a clean and black-and-white copy for your reference. Feel free to leave your feedback in that rather than my scribbled note.

Limiting Private Involvement in the Prison System

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Free Santa Rosa

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,

Optimistic that the ratification of this improved resolution can at least promote a minimum standard of living of inmates to ensure proper rehabilitation and reconciliation for their crimes,

Concerned, however, that the extreme harm caused by profit-driven recidivism raised in GA#468 are left unaddressed due to the repeal,

Quoting in particular, "Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits," and "Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,"

Hereby,
1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a "prison" as any correctional or detention center that holds or houses, on a permanent or long term basis individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences,
2. "private enterprise" as any individual or group not affiliated with the state, who owns or stakes part-ownership of any business, industry, service, or activity which directly affects the economy and is run for profit,
3. a "private prison" as a prison that is owned or partly-owned by a private enterprise, or a prison primarily or wholly owned by the state but is leased to a private enterprise for profit,

2. Requires all WA member states and their political subdivisions, at the date of this resolution's effectivity, to establish a national plan that will:

1. Terminate the construction of any new private prisons;
2. End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise;
3. Ensure that any existing private prisons no longer confer profit to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by member states; and
4. Ensure that the general well-being, recidivism rates and performance of any existing private prisons must be better or match the average standards of a public prison with a deviation of no more than 10% either within the political constituencies, provinces or by nationwide;

3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:

1. Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to earn profit by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison; and
2. Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship;

4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:

1. Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made;
2. Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs;
3. Staffing and manpower services auxiliary staff not necessary to the continued operation of the prison, such as janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and so on; and
4. Consultation and research;

5. Also requires that should clause 2, 3 or 4 of this resolution or any part thereof be breached, member nations are obliged to send a written notice to all relevant parties of the private prison to address the violation and its potential consequences;

6. Mandates all member nations, pursuant to clause 5, to impose and enforce immediate financial penalties relative to the prison or private enterprise's gross income flow to make further prison operations unprofitable to non-compliant private enterprises;

7. Clarifies that the resolution shall not extend to apply to private probation, home detention, and other similar practices deemed by the member states through the use of private properties or entities in the legal justice system; and

8. Declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 5 and 6, such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security and public order, such as national disasters, on a temporary basis if necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners.

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath

[Marxist Germany]

"I oppose this proposal due to clause 2c and 3a which I deem ridiculous and inappropriate. Without profits, there is no incentive for any entrepreneur to start a private prison as there will not be a return on their investment."

[Youssath]

"I oppose this proposal due to clause 2c and 3a which I deem ridiculous and inappropriate. Without profits, there is no incentive for any entrepreneur to start a private prison as there will not be a return on their investment."

Understandable. Hence, I shall propose the following amendments, subject to the approval of Free Santa Rosa:

Clause 2(c): Ensure that any existing private prisons to confer up to 30% of its profits to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by member states;

Clause 2(e): Pursuant to clause 2(c), to allow the national government to reinvest the remaining profits conferred by existing private prisons to the rehabilitation of the inmates through general welfare or educational programs;

Clause 3(a): Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to take up more than 30% profits by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison.

Clause 9: Also declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 2(c), 2(e) and 3(a), such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient to ensure a guaranteed return on their original investment.

This is to at least ensure we can drive down profit-driven recidivism - which is the main goal of this resolution - but I will leave it up to the approval of Free Santa Rosa to decide whether he wishes to implement this down.

EDIT: An updated resolution has been created with my updates in it, 4968 characters! Phew!

Limiting Private Involvement in the Prison System

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Free Santa Rosa

---

The World Assembly,

Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,

Optimistic that the ratification of this improved resolution can at least promote a minimum standard of living of inmates to ensure proper rehabilitation and reconciliation for their crimes,

Concerned, however, that the extreme harm caused by profit-driven recidivism raised in GA#468 are left unaddressed due to the repeal,

Quoting in particular, "Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits," and "Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,"

Hereby,
1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a "prison" as any correctional or detention center that holds or houses, on a permanent or long term basis individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences,
2. "private enterprise" as any individual or group not affiliated with the state, who owns or stakes part-ownership of any business, industry, service, or activity which directly affects the economy and is run for profit,
3. a "private prison" as a prison that is owned or partly-owned by a private enterprise, or a prison primarily or wholly owned by the state but is leased to a private enterprise for profit,

2. Requires all WA member states and their political subdivisions, at the date of this resolution's effectivity, to establish a national plan that will:

1. Terminate the construction of any new private prisons;
2. End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise;
3. Ensure that any existing private prisons to confer up to 30% of its profits to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by member states;
4. Ensure that the general well-being, recidivism rates and performance of any existing private prisons must be better or match the average standards of a public prison with a deviation of no more than 10% either within the political constituencies, provinces or by nationwide; and
5. Pursuant to clause 2(c), to allow the national government to reinvest the remaining profits conferred by existing private prisons to the rehabilitation of the inmates through general welfare or educational programs;

3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:

1. Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to take up more than 30% profits by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison; and
2. Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship;

4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:

1. Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made;
2. Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs;
3. Staffing and manpower services auxiliary staff not necessary to the continued operation of the prison, such as janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and so on; and
4. Consultation and research;

5. Also requires that should clause 2, 3 or 4 of this resolution or any part thereof be breached, member nations are obliged to send a written notice to all relevant parties of the private prison to address the violation and its potential consequences;

6. Mandates all member nations, pursuant to clause 5, to impose and enforce immediate financial penalties relative to the prison or private enterprise's gross income flow to make further prison operations unprofitable to non-compliant private enterprises;

7. Clarifies that the resolution shall not extend to apply to private probation, home detention, and other similar practices deemed by the member states through the use of private properties or entities in the legal justice system; and

8. Declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 5 and 6, such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security and public order, such as national disasters, on a temporary basis if necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners.

9. Also declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 2(c), 2(e) and 3(a), such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient to ensure a guaranteed return on their original investment.

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath

[Free Santa Rosa]

"I oppose this proposal due to clause 2c and 3a which I deem ridiculous and inappropriate. Without profits, there is no incentive for any entrepreneur to start a private prison as there will not be a return on their investment."

Capitalists can engage in profit through the prison system by engaging in labor employment, concessionaires, offering construction and maintenance, research and consultation, and so on. Allow us to paint a picture. A capitalist owns a prison and seeks to make money off it. How does he do that? He gets subsidies from the state in exchange of being allowed to put his fellow citizens in a cell. Of course, some caveats are made: a prison with no prisoners isn't an effective one, and so doesn't get any subsidy. Prisons get quotas and incentives to hold more prisoners. The laws of capitalism will naturally incentivize the capitalist to maintain this arrangement so as to gain more subsidies, and in turn, greater profit. Profit-bearing ownership of a prison will naturally lead to prison owners wanting to maintain prisoners to make profits. It essentially creates a system where prisons seek to keep prisoners instead of rehabilitate them.

Prisons aren't meant for "entrepreneurs" to engage and make money from. Prisons are meant to keep people who violated the laws of society. If anything, we want to reduce the number of prisoners in a country. Any modification, therefore, that will still allow private enterprise to make profit from a prison, no matter how small, will defeat this resolution's intent: to reduce recidivism and foster rehabilitation.

This is the current draft:

Limiting Private Involvement in the Prison System
Category: Social Justice | Strength: Significant

---

The General Assembly,

Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,

Optimistic that the ratification of this improved resolution can at least promote a minimum standard of living of inmates to ensure proper rehabilitation and reconciliation for their crimes,

Concerned, however, that the extreme harm caused by profit-driven recidivism raised in GA#468 are left unaddressed due to the repeal,

Quoting in particular, "Recognizing that capitalism promotes and that business enterprises pursue the acquisition of repeat customers and the maximization of profits," and "Deeply concerned that capitalism, in the context of prisons, creates perverse incentives to increase recidivism rates (more repeat customers) and to increase public expenditures on prisons (greater profit maximization), contrary to legitimate penological goals and the general welfare,"

Hereby,
1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:

1. a "prison" as any correctional or detention center that holds or houses, on a permanent or long term basis individuals who have been convicted of crimes and are serving criminal sentences,
2. "private enterprise" as any individual or group not affiliated with the state, who owns or stakes part-ownership of any business, industry, service, or activity which directly affects the economy and is run for profit,
3. a "private prison" as a prison that is owned or partly-owned by a private enterprise, or a prison primarily or wholly owned by the state but is leased to a private enterprise for profit,

2. Requires all WA member states and their political subdivisions, at the date of this resolution's effectivity, to establish a national plan that will:

1. Terminate the construction of any new private prisons;
2. End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise;
3. Ensure that any existing private prisons no longer confer profit to a private enterprise, by virtue of nationalization through eminent domain, or by any other means deemed necessary and acceptable by member states; and
4. Ensure that the general well-being, recidivism rates and performance of any existing private prisons must be better or match the average standards of a public prison with a deviation of no more than 10% either within the political constituencies, provinces or by nationwide;

3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:

1. Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to earn profit by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison; and
2. Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship;

4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:

1. Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made;
2. Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs;
3. Staffing and manpower services auxiliary staff not necessary to the continued operation of the prison, such as janitorial staff, cafeteria staff, and so on; and
4. Consultation and research;

5. Also requires that should clause 2, 3 or 4 of this resolution or any part thereof be breached, member nations are obliged to send a written notice to all relevant parties of the private prison to address the violation and its potential consequences;

6. Mandates all member nations, pursuant to clause 5, to impose and enforce immediate financial penalties relative to the prison or private enterprise's gross income flow to make further prison operations unprofitable to non-compliant private enterprises;

7. Clarifies that the resolution shall not extend to apply to private probation, home detention, and other similar practices deemed by the member states through the use of private properties or entities in the legal justice system; and

8. Declares that member states and their political subdivisions may by right impose, on the right conferred by clause 5 and 6, such exemptions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of national security and public order, such as national disasters, on a temporary basis if necessary for the safety, health, or welfare of prisoners.

Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath

[Youssath]

"The objections raised by Marxist Germany has unfortunately been overruled by Free Santa Rosa. While I would have made amendments to the draft to at least gain his support, the points raised by Free Santa Rosa are certainly validated. We hope that Ambassador Klaus would continue to support this proposal, even though its fundamentals are being opposed."

"If there is no further discussion on this topic, I will attempt to escalate this with the author to bring this draft to the General Assembly for voting. Of course, he can choose to let this mature here for longer, although I feel that the necessary key points have been debated and addressed in GAR #470."

[Great Nortend]

OOC: People still seem to be ignoring the fact that prisons aren't closed down for lack of inmates. They're closed down because there are newer, better or larger facilities built. If a prison can be run at a profit yet still be cheaper than a government-run alternative, why should it be prohibited? What is the inherent benefit of a state-run prison? The way to tackle recidivism and foster rehabilitation is to make policies which focus on that, not a roundabout resolution to ban private prisons which may only be tangentially related to the desired effect.

[Free Santa Rosa]

OOC: People still seem to be ignoring the fact that prisons aren't closed down for lack of inmates. They're closed down because there are newer, better or larger facilities built. If a prison can be run at a profit yet still be cheaper than a government-run alternative, why should it be prohibited? What is the inherent benefit of a state-run prison? The way to tackle recidivism and foster rehabilitation is to make policies which focus on that, not a roundabout resolution to ban private prisons which may only be tangentially related to the desired effect.

OOC: Again, we go to the question of how does a private prison make profit? Prisoners obviously don't pay to get in or out^₁ of the prison. Let's say you own a prison. How do you make bank on it?

You make money by government contracts. The state subsidizes your expenses (i.e. pays you) to keep their prisoners. If they got prisoners, and you got the space, then they pay you for it. It could be a flat rate. It could be per prisoner. It could be some other arrangement. But in any case, it boils down to you, the government, and a contract based on you keeping prisoners in your depressing hotel. And yes, IRL, outsourcing prisons is cheaper, which is why the Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) makes over a billion dollars every year.

They also make bank through things like occupancy clauses, which stipulate that private prisons should be kept full, and by doling out infractions which lengthen prison sentences. In any case, corporations like CoreCivic have little to no incentive to actually let their prisoners out, because keeping prisoners is how they make over a billion dollars every year. Likewise, states are faced with either continuing their contracts or taking up the burden and expense of managing prisons, and in a society where capital reigns over human rights, guess which option wins?

In the end, yes, banning private prisons doesn't automagically end recidivism. The problem of recidivism can't be solved in one resolution. It'll take multiple, long, hard looks into the entirety of the prison system and solving those problems piecemeal. But private prisons, and the market they create and encourage, certainly don't help.

_{¹Only in Monopoly!}

[Marxist Germany]

"In that case expect my opposition to this proposal, whilst I have no problems with most of it, clause 2c is outrageous and I will not allow myself to support."

[Kenmoria]

OOC: People still seem to be ignoring the fact that prisons aren't closed down for lack of inmates. They're closed down because there are newer, better or larger facilities built. If a prison can be run at a profit yet still be cheaper than a government-run alternative, why should it be prohibited? What is the inherent benefit of a state-run prison? The way to tackle recidivism and foster rehabilitation is to make policies which focus on that, not a roundabout resolution to ban private prisons which may only be tangentially related to the desired effect.

OOC: Again, we go to the question of how does a private prison make profit? Prisoners obviously don't pay to get in or out^₁ of the prison. Let's say you own a prison. How do you make bank on it?

(OOC: That is true, but some prisons may allow prisoners to pay for better conditions.)

[Free Santa Rosa]

"In that case expect my opposition to this proposal, whilst I have no problems with most of it, clause 2c is outrageous and I will not allow myself to support."

Regrettable, but let us leave it to the democratic vote to decide. We have formally sent the proposal, seeing no other major changes to be made. We thank you for the support!

[Great Nortend]

OOC: People still seem to be ignoring the fact that prisons aren't closed down for lack of inmates. They're closed down because there are newer, better or larger facilities built. If a prison can be run at a profit yet still be cheaper than a government-run alternative, why should it be prohibited? What is the inherent benefit of a state-run prison? The way to tackle recidivism and foster rehabilitation is to make policies which focus on that, not a roundabout resolution to ban private prisons which may only be tangentially related to the desired effect.

OOC: Again, we go to the question of how does a private prison make profit? Prisoners obviously don't pay to get in or out^₁ of the prison. Let's say you own a prison. How do you make bank on it?

You make money by government contracts. The state subsidizes your expenses (i.e. pays you) to keep their prisoners. If they got prisoners, and you got the space, then they pay you for it. It could be a flat rate. It could be per prisoner. It could be some other arrangement. But in any case, it boils down to you, the government, and a contract based on you keeping prisoners in your depressing hotel. And yes, IRL, outsourcing prisons is cheaper, which is why the Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) makes over a billion dollars every year.

They also make bank through things like occupancy clauses, which stipulate that private prisons should be kept full, and by doling out infractions which lengthen prison sentences. In any case, corporations like CoreCivic have little to no incentive to actually let their prisoners out, because keeping prisoners is how they make over a billion dollars every year. Likewise, states are faced with either continuing their contracts or taking up the burden and expense of managing prisons, and in a society where capital reigns over human rights, guess which option wins?

In the end, yes, banning private prisons doesn't automagically end recidivism. The problem of recidivism can't be solved in one resolution. It'll take multiple, long, hard looks into the entirety of the prison system and solving those problems piecemeal. But private prisons, and the market they create and encourage, certainly don't help.

_{¹Only in Monopoly!}

1. What kind of legal system lets private prisons determine the length of sentences? That is what a judge is for. If it is a problem, then ban that. An infraction generally only removes privileges or benefits—it doesn't extend the sentence.
2. A prison can't just keep a prisoner locked up without authority, and prisoners have recourse through habeas corpus (GAR 201).
2. GAR 194 already prohibits abusive prisons. If prisons are abusing their prisoners, the prisoners already have recourse.
3. You make a false dichotomy between some 'benevolent' state-run prison and 'depressing' and 'human-rights-infringing' private prisons. The latter is already illegal per GAR 194. I don't see why if a private prison is both cheaper and run at the same level of effectiveness as a state-run prison, that the private prison should be banned simply for making profit.
4. You can solve the problem of occupancy clauses and other per diem per capita rates by you know, forbidding them instead. In any case, any effect that has on a person's sentence comes down to a fair trial and whether the sentence is appropriate. Excessive sentences apparently aren't prohibited, since the repeal of 'Crime and Punishment' though, so that may need fixing. If the state wants to waste money with such clauses, why should the GA stop it?
5. Again, a resolution that requires prisons to focus on rehabilitation would far more effectively reduce recidivism than a roundabout resolution targeting private prisons based on their assumed deficiencies. Not every country is like the US, where private prisons seem to be mostly corrupt. No doubt there are countries where privately run prisons are very effective.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: I see this has been submitted, so you might want to change the title tag from [DRAFT] to [SUBMITTED]. Good luck.)

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I note Christian Democrats is listed as a co-author. Did you receive his consent for this?

[Concrete Slab]

OOC: I note Christian Democrats is listed as a co-author. Did you receive his consent for this?

Yes... it's fine if he actually gave his consent, but if you just copied and pasted his writings and slapped a co-authorship... that's not good.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I note Christian Democrats is listed as a co-author. Did you receive his consent for this?

Yes... it's fine if he actually gave his consent, but if you just copied and pasted his writings and slapped a co-authorship... that's not good.

OOC: There's no plagiarism with CD's resolution, I'm not concerned about that. What may be an issue is putting someone's name on something without receiving permission to do so.

[Aclion]

OOC: People still seem to be ignoring the fact that prisons aren't closed down for lack of inmates. They're closed down because there are newer, better or larger facilities built. If a prison can be run at a profit yet still be cheaper than a government-run alternative, why should it be prohibited? What is the inherent benefit of a state-run prison? The way to tackle recidivism and foster rehabilitation is to make policies which focus on that, not a roundabout resolution to ban private prisons which may only be tangentially related to the desired effect.

OOC:They also make bank through things like occupancy clauses, which stipulate that private prisons should be kept full, and by doling out infractions which lengthen prison sentences. In any case, corporations like CoreCivic have little to no incentive to actually let their prisoners out, because keeping prisoners is how they make over a billion dollars every year. Likewise, states are faced with either continuing their contracts or taking up the burden and expense of managing prisons, and in a society where capital reigns over human rights, guess which option wins?\

This is the tangent relationship to the desired effect being referred to. The problem isn't that the prisons are privately operated. It's that states fund prisons in a way that incentivises full occupancy. If you fund them by capacity and quality of treatment(as Aclion does)then you don't run into these problems. If you have prisons funded this way you will run into these problems regardless of whether they are private or publicly run.

[Bears Armed]

Yes... it's fine if he actually gave his consent, but if you just copied and pasted his writings and slapped a co-authorship... that's not good.

OOC: There's no plagiarism with CD's resolution, I'm not concerned about that. What may be an issue is putting someone's name on something without receiving permission to do so.

OOC; Indeed. There's actually at least one Modly precedent (from pre-GenSec days) for a proposal being officially removed from the submissions page -- maybe even from the queue -- at the request of a "co-author" who did not want to be listed thus.
Get that explicit permission, and get it where we can see it, or I'd say that the proposal is illegal for this reason.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: CD didnt contribute to this, remove him, he is also pretty inactive so dont expect him to respond.