[DRAFT] Correcting Correctional Facilities

[Bormiar]

I'm completely new to the GA, but have private-drafted a bit. Please treat the draft as such.

Correcting Correctional Facilities

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

This esteemed World Assembly,

Believing that a lack of accountability and institutionalized neglect among prison law enforcement in correctional facilities incites and abets in prisoner abuse,

Recognizing correctional facilities to be rehabilitative as well as punitive, and believing common practices such as excessive solitary confinement and unnecessary violence to be counter-productive to this goal,

Hereby:

1. Defines the following, for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. “prisoner” as any person legally held in a correctional facility for a crime they have been convicted of or for governmental investigative purposes, such as a person awaiting trial, questioning, a verdict, sentencing, or any other law enforcement proceeding,
   2. “solitary confinement” as any practice in which a prisoner is subject to isolation from others, not including guards, law enforcement, or medical authorities, for purposes other than sleep or immediate danger,
   3. “protective confinement” as any practice in which a prisoner is subject to isolation from others, not including guards and medical authorities, for the purpose of the prisoners own protection,
   4. “correctional facility” as any jail, prison, or facility designed to hold an incarcerated person or persons.
2. Criminalizes solitary confinement or protective confinement within member-nations, where it can reasonably be assumed to be maddening or otherwise cause or amplify psychological harm,
   1. Bars law enforcement entities from subjecting individuals under the age of majority with solitary confinement,
   2. Clarifies that prisoners which pose a credible safety risk may be isolated from other prisoners or guards, to the extent that the isolation will prevent the credible safety concerns from coming to fruition.
3. Bans the usage of excessive force on prisoners, such as hurting an incapacitated person, or using unnecessary lethal force, except when authorized in a sentencing in criminal or civil proceedings,
   1. Law enforcement authorities convicted of using excessive or unauthorized lethal force against a prisoner shall be sentenced to a punishment no less than sentences imposed upon a member of the public for equal or similar crimes.
4. Bans the intentional humiliation of prisoners by law enforcement entities through methods such as, but not limited to, strip or cavity searches,
5. Demands, as an alternative to prohibited solitary confinement, humiliation, or excessive force, humane methods such as delayed parole, revocation of abilities to participate in group activities not necessary for life, impounding luxuries, and/or loss of privileges such as visitation,
6. Retains that any administrators of any correctional facility or other facility which holds prisoners must allow said prisoners to file an official complaint with the World Assembly Solicitors Office in any case of breach of World Assembly law within the correctional facility of which they are held.

[Teretstein]

2. No. Have you ever been in a prison? If you're in there for a sex crime, I promise you, you'll wish you were in solitary confinement. That's seriously the safest those people can be in prison.

3. No. Someone attempts to escape, he's getting shot, period.

4. No. You'd be amazed how prisoners smuggle things into jails. I've seen things like iPhones smuggled in rectums... such things provide a serious danger to the prison. Can I at least put cellular blockers in my prisons? There's the only way I'm agreeing to this.

5. What does that mean exactly?

6. No. Filing it with the relevant government authority is good enough. Why should my states (which are in a confederacy and thus above the national government) have to file individual paperwork with the WA?

[Morover]

3. No. Someone attempts to escape, he's getting shot, period.

"This would seem to be resolved by the use of the word 'unnecessary' in clause three, ambassador."

[Teretstein]

3. No. Someone attempts to escape, he's getting shot, period.

"This would seem to be resolved by the use of the word 'unnecessary' in clause three, ambassador."

Assuming it was totally unnecessary then I can agree with the good ambassador from Morover. But who determines what is unnecessary?

[Morover]

"This would seem to be resolved by the use of the word 'unnecessary' in clause three, ambassador."

Assuming it was totally unnecessary then I can agree with the good ambassador from Morover. But who determines what is unnecessary?

"I would assume that, so long as the member-nation (or whatever entity is in charge of the prison) can make a case deemed sufficient enough by one of the many compliance agencies within the World Assembly, it would be enough."

[Denathor]

2. No. Have you ever been in a prison? If you're in there for a sex crime, I promise you, you'll wish you were in solitary confinement. That's seriously the safest those people can be in prison.

Clarifies that prisoners which pose a credible safety risk may be isolated from other prisoners or guards, to the extent that the isolation will prevent the credible safety concerns from coming to fruition.

"I believe, ambassador, that being beaten to death by fellow prisoners would count as 'credible safety concerns.'"

3. No. Someone attempts to escape, he's getting shot, period.

"There are many who would disagree with this rather barbaric approach."

4. No. You'd be amazed how prisoners smuggle things into jails. I've seen things like iPhones smuggled in rectums... such things provide a serious danger to the prison. Can I at least put cellular blockers in my prisons? There's the only way I'm agreeing to this.

Bans the intentional humiliation of prisoners by law enforcement

"These searches aren’t outright banned, they're merely restricted in cases where there is no justification for them."

5. What does that mean exactly?

"It ensures that there be other punishments available in lieu of methods such as solitary confinement."

6. No. Filing it with the relevant government authority is good enough. Why should my states (which are in a confederacy and thus above the national government) have to file individual paperwork with the WA?

"Because then it could be lost in bureaucratic hell, or worse, completely ignored.

"To the ambassador from Bormiar, I would only recommend that if you’re going to define 'prisoner,' I would change the order of these to have it defined before you use it in other definitions."

[Teretstein]

Assuming it was totally unnecessary then I can agree with the good ambassador from Morover. But who determines what is unnecessary?

"I would assume that, so long as the member-nation (or whatever entity is in charge of the prison) can make a case deemed sufficient enough by one of the many compliance agencies within the World Assembly, it would be enough."

I'm not sure I agree with that. Simply filing a report with the national government should be sufficient.

But here's an interesting case for you ambassador. Let's say the door in the recreational areas in one of my jails was accidentally unlocked. A man that was convicted of raping and murdering 18 children casually walks out through the gate. I'd be stunned if anyone here would object to a guard shooting him dead. But instead of that, let's say it was a man that accidentally stole a car because he didn't return it when the lease ran out and got convicted of grand theft auto. Would my guards be in trouble for shooting THAT man if he casually walked out? We can't have guards looking through every inmate's paperwork when deciding how to hand them!

"Because then it could be lost in bureaucratic hell, or worse, completely ignored.

That is implying the national government is incapable of handling it! What makes the WA any better?!

[Bormiar]

2. No. Have you ever been in a prison? If you're in there for a sex crime, I promise you, you'll wish you were in solitary confinement. That's seriously the safest those people can be in prison.

You're asking me whether I've been in prison; have you been abused for raping someone in a prison? I doubt it.

Anyways, a decent solution to that would be to allow protective confinement with consent.

3. No. Someone attempts to escape, he's getting shot, period.

It says "unnecessary lethal force". I assume good faith would apply. When it can't be seen within reasonable doubt as necessary, it's barbaric.

And what Morover and Denathor said.

4. No. You'd be amazed how prisoners smuggle things into jails. I've seen things like iPhones smuggled in rectums... such things provide a serious danger to the prison. Can I at least put cellular blockers in my prisons? There's the only way I'm agreeing to this.

The word "intentional" means that the guard must be intending to humiliate the detainee, such as publicly strip searching them and mocking them. This doesn't prohibit cavity searches for security or other reasonable justification.

The proposal doesn't prohibit cellular blockers.

5. What does that mean exactly?

What Denathor said.

6. No. Filing it with the relevant government authority is good enough. Why should my states (which are in a confederacy and thus above the national government) have to file individual paperwork with the WA?

I assume if it's an internationally relevant matter such that it gets its own mention in a resolution, it is relevant to international organizations of which the member-state participates.

I'm a little undecided there, now that you bring it up.

But here's an interesting case for you ambassador. Let's say the door in the recreational areas in one of my jails was accidentally unlocked. A man that was convicted of raping and murdering 18 children casually walks out through the gate. I'd be stunned if anyone here would object to a guard shooting him dead. But instead of that, let's say it was a man that accidentally stole a car because he didn't return it when the lease ran out and got convicted of grand theft auto. Would my guards be in trouble for shooting THAT man if he casually walked out? We can't have guards looking through every inmate's paperwork when deciding how to hand them!

I agree that it's ridiculous to posit that guards must be able to recognize each and every prisoner by record in order to
justify lethal force, but if it can be assumed that the guard has no manageable way with some chance of success at stopping the detainee, such as via physical, non-lethal force, or by - for example - shooting the prisoner in the leg, and the guard, with the knowledge they must have on hand of the prison, determines that no other guard will be able to stop the prisoner without lethal force, then in that case lethal force would be reasonably considered necessary.

[Morover]

That is implying the national government is incapable of handling it! What makes the WA any better?!

"Personally, I see no reason to discuss the merits of international law with an individual such as yourself who disavows it so. The World Assembly is a voluntary organization. My suggestion is that if you simply don't wish to follow any proposal or resolution simply for reasons of national sovereignty, you should just leave. You voluntarily gave up some of your sovereignty in joining this Assembly."

[WayNeacTia]

OCC:

2. No. Have you ever been in a prison? If you're in there for a sex crime, I promise you, you'll wish you were in solitary confinement. That's seriously the safest those people can be in prison.

Where is the problem here? I can assure you, solitary or not, child molesters are dealt with in prison, and not by other inmates.

3. No. Someone attempts to escape, he's getting shot, period.

Yeah, not how it works. There is this little thing called the "Use of Force Continuum". You should probably read up on that.

4. No. You'd be amazed how prisoners smuggle things into jails. I've seen things like iPhones smuggled in rectums... such things provide a serious danger to the prison. Can I at least put cellular blockers in my prisons? There's the only way I'm agreeing to this.

You have obviously never worked in a prison, and have watched far too many TV shows. Yes contraband does it get smuggled in, and that is why cell checks and sniffer dogs are an actual thing.

IC:

Not really seeing this to be an international issue myself. This is far better handled at the national level. In theory the idea is sound, but the WA really doesn't need oversight on national prison systems, unless they want to start footing some of the bill.

Wayne

[Bormiar]

"To the ambassador from Bormiar, I would only recommend that if you’re going to define 'prisoner,' I would change the order of these to have it defined before you use it in other definitions."

“Thank you, ambassador. I have taken this suggestion and amended the current draft.”

[Araraukar]

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform

OOC: Likely wrong one, given this:

Based on the intent of the category that Sep gave us, the general effect for Legal Regulation is, more or less, bad for your economy (more barriers for the legal industry), good for civil rights (less restrictions on individuals being able to sue/take up litigation).

Yours as written sounds either like Civil Rights (rights for prisoners) or Moral Decency (restrictions for prison guards' actions), but the main problem is that you're clumping a lot of things together that would each of them be worth a whole resolution.

Have you read the existing prisoners' rights resolutions?

[Bormiar]

Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform

OOC: Likely wrong one, given this:

Based on the intent of the category that Sep gave us, the general effect for Legal Regulation is, more or less, bad for your economy (more barriers for the legal industry), good for civil rights (less restrictions on individuals being able to sue/take up litigation).

Yours as written sounds either like Civil Rights (rights for prisoners) or Moral Decency (restrictions for prison guards' actions), but the main problem is that you're clumping a lot of things together that would each of them be worth a whole resolution.

Have you read the existing prisoners' rights resolutions?

I've read GAR #194 “Treatment of Inmates”, GAR#161 “Medical Standards in Prisons”, and GAR#468 "Prohibit Private Prisons". Going back on them, they are mostly "Human Rights", which I assume is the precursor to Civil Rights. My guess is that this one is Moral Decency, but do I have that much leniency in GenSec's view. I read something from Bears Armed saying that Civil Rights proposals tend to be more popular with votes.

Would this be "significant"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

they are mostly "Human Rights", which I assume is the precursor to Civil Rights.

They are one and the same. When the GA graphics were reworked, a new text mapping was inserted for the category. (The category was renamed.)

Would this be "significant"?

I would classify it as mild.

[Bormiar]

they are mostly "Human Rights", which I assume is the precursor to Civil Rights.

They are one and the same. When the GA graphics were reworked, a new text mapping was inserted for the category. (The category was renamed.)

Would this be "significant"?

I would classify it as mild.

Thanks, edited.

[Araraukar]

My guess is that this one is Moral Decency, but do I have that much leniency in GenSec's view. I read something from Bears Armed saying that Civil Rights proposals tend to be more popular with votes.

OOC: What category it fits, depends on the active clauses. If you want it to be about Civil Rights, then focus on the rights of your target group, not on restricting the actions of another group of individuals. If you want to do the latter instead, then go for Moral Decency.

But look up the last couple of topics (threads on this forum, not resolutions) on solitary confinement (and read through the actual threads, not just eyeballing the proposals) to see how difficult issue that is all on its own.