NATION

PASSWORD

[Passed] Fair Treatment of Prisoners

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:14 am

Astrobolt wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:4. Empowers member nations to decide for themselves, through their normal legislative process, whether to permit prisoners therein to work voluntarily during the period of their incarceration, and


OOC: Apologies for the lateness of this comment. I was wondering why this resolution allows member nations to prevent prisoners from voluntarily working during incarceration. Shouldn't all prisoners have the ability to work if they choose to do so?

OOC: There's a certain bit of controversy about permitting them to work voluntarily: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-23781988

At the end of the day I'm trying to satisfy everyone here. Preventing prisoners from working isn't exactly abusive.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:49 am

Astrobolt wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:4. Empowers member nations to decide for themselves, through their normal legislative process, whether to permit prisoners therein to work voluntarily during the period of their incarceration, and


OOC: Apologies for the lateness of this comment. I was wondering why this resolution allows member nations to prevent prisoners from voluntarily working during incarceration. Shouldn't all prisoners have the ability to work if they choose to do so?

At a second look I've decided to reverse that. Member states can no longer deny prisoners the opportunity to voluntary, paid labor.


User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:07 pm

Thoughts as I'm going through the current draft:

- "Resolved" is an awkward tense for the opening line when the next one is active.
- The original text made a point of defining protective confinement as "severe" isolation, which was distinct from punitive confinement's "total" isolation. Why did you choose to combine these in your definition?
- The wording of the definition is a bit busy too, and because of that it carries the unfortunate implication that a prisoner may be isolated from inmates if prison staff pose a threat to them. You can see how this would really easily lead to abuses. If you're going to keep this form for the definition, consider lengthening it to distinguish between threats to and toward the isolated prisoner to eliminate loopholes.
- That said, I think the handling of confinement as written is pretty messy and inconsistent. The definition in clause 1 includes causes for their being confined, but 2(d) lists different criteria. For the sake of legibility, these really have to be made consistent. If it were me, I might cut down clause 1 to just read "Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates," make slight adjustments to 2(d) as necessary in this light, and modify 2(e) to read "Placing a prisoner in protective confinement [etc.]" so as to consistently use your established definition.
- I didn't like 2(a)'s benchmark being PoWs at first, but after looking over GAR#18, I do feel better about the baseline protections and living standards it offers.
- In the interest of honesty, I was critical of an earlier draft for not addressing forced labour without realizing it was already covered by GAR#23. That said, I do think your provisions on this are solid and provide useful developments. My only concern would be whether the inclusion of "activity" in 2(b) could overly restrict prisons' ability to wrangle inmates when necessary.

Overall, I'm quite pleased with how this resolution has developed, and am prepared to make a positive recommendation if the above concerns are addressed.
Last edited by Junitaki-cho on Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:50 pm

Junitaki-cho wrote:- "Resolved" is an awkward tense for the opening line when the next one is active.

Changed that to "believing".
Junitaki-cho wrote:- The original text made a point of defining protective confinement as "severe" isolation, which was distinct from punitive confinement's "total" isolation. Why did you choose to combine these in your definition?

I found that there was a lack of consistency in ICP's definition when it came to the characterizations of these types of imprisonment as "severe" and total". Combining them broadens the scope of prohibited abusive conditions.
Junitaki-cho wrote:- The wording of the definition is a bit busy too, and because of that it carries the unfortunate implication that a prisoner may be isolated from inmates if prison staff pose a threat to them. You can see how this would really easily lead to abuses. If you're going to keep this form for the definition, consider lengthening it to distinguish between threats to and toward the isolated prisoner to eliminate loopholes.
- That said, I think the handling of confinement as written is pretty messy and inconsistent. The definition in clause 1 includes causes for their being confined, but 2(d) lists different criteria. For the sake of legibility, these really have to be made consistent. If it were me, I might cut down clause 1 to just read "Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates," make slight adjustments to 2(d) as necessary in this light, and modify 2(e) to read "Placing a prisoner in protective confinement [etc.]" so as to consistently use your established definition.

I've made the recommended changes to clause 1 and 2(d). I also find now that 2(e) was redundant because of 2(d), so I have replaced it with 2(f); which is now 2(e).
Junitaki-cho wrote:- I didn't like 2(a)'s benchmark being PoWs at first, but after looking over GAR#18, I do feel better about the baseline protections and living standards it offers.

I'm glad we are in agreement.
Junitaki-cho wrote:- In the interest of honesty, I was critical of an earlier draft for not addressing forced labour without realizing it was already covered by GAR#23. That said, I do think your provisions on this are solid and provide useful developments. My only concern would be whether the inclusion of "activity" in 2(b) could overly restrict prisons' ability to wrangle inmates when necessary.

Right, I've reworded that bit to "perform labor or a service" to narrow it a bit.
Junitaki-cho wrote:Overall, I'm quite pleased with how this resolution has developed, and am prepared to make a positive recommendation if the above concerns are addressed.

Well, what do you think of these changes :P

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:52 pm

"We are in support of this replacement attempt."

OOC:
Greater Cesnica wrote:1. Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates due to a significant risk posed to or from them, by or to those inmates or prison staff,


If read literally, this would include the near to total isolation of a prisoner but not the actual total isolation of a prisoner. It might be that interpreting it this way would be in bad faith - I'm not sure - but I don't think you'd lose anything by clarifying that this is "total or near to total isolation".

2. Prohibits:
[list=a][*]Subjecting a prisoner to treatment inferior to those legally permissible for prisoners of war,


Grammatically, "those" should be "that".

[*]Compelling a prisoner via force, threats of force, or other forms of coercion to carry out a service or activity as a punitive measure; or as a means to generate profit for a prison facility and/or associated third parties,


This semicolon should be a comma.

[*]All available measures are taken to permit the reinstatement of a prisoner into the general prison population, provided that it is deemed safe for them to be able to do so,


I'd personally edit the phrasing of this to "All available measures are taken to reinstate a prisoner into the general prison population, as soon as it is safe to do so" - otherwise I think the "provided that it is deemed safe" could leave undesirable wiggle room in terms of who is doing the "deeming".

[*]Member states ensure that prisoners have access to investigative resources and legal recourse in the event that they lodge a complaint about abuses inflicted upon them,


You could consider adding that prisons can't retaliate against prisoners for lodging complaints?

Edit: apologies if any of the wording I quoted is slightly different now - I didn't catch your post about new edits before hitting send on this one.
Last edited by Maowi on Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:04 pm

Maowi wrote:"We are in support of this replacement attempt."

OOC:
Greater Cesnica wrote:1. Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with near to total isolation from other inmates due to a significant risk posed to or from them, by or to those inmates or prison staff,


If read literally, this would include the near to total isolation of a prisoner but not the actual total isolation of a prisoner. It might be that interpreting it this way would be in bad faith - I'm not sure - but I don't think you'd lose anything by clarifying that this is "total or near to total isolation".

2. Prohibits:
[list=a][*]Subjecting a prisoner to treatment inferior to those legally permissible for prisoners of war,


Grammatically, "those" should be "that".

[*]Compelling a prisoner via force, threats of force, or other forms of coercion to carry out a service or activity as a punitive measure; or as a means to generate profit for a prison facility and/or associated third parties,


This semicolon should be a comma.

[*]All available measures are taken to permit the reinstatement of a prisoner into the general prison population, provided that it is deemed safe for them to be able to do so,


I'd personally edit the phrasing of this to "All available measures are taken to reinstate a prisoner into the general prison population, as soon as it is safe to do so" - otherwise I think the "provided that it is deemed safe" could leave undesirable wiggle room in terms of who is doing the "deeming".

[*]Member states ensure that prisoners have access to investigative resources and legal recourse in the event that they lodge a complaint about abuses inflicted upon them,


You could consider adding that prisons can't retaliate against prisoners for lodging complaints?

Edit: apologies if any of the wording I quoted is slightly different now - I didn't catch your post about new edits before hitting send on this one.

I have made the changes you recommended save for the recommendation for clause 1, which I had fixed earlier. Also, no worries, everyone get's ninja'd!
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:08 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:Well, what do you think of these changes :P

Good calls. Barring any oversights, I'm a fan of this proposal.

Although one other clarification came to mind. ICP included a provision to confine individuals who are "legally unable to [offer informed consent]." In hindsight, this implementation isn't great, but does there need to be something in there to allow the separation of a prisoner who's incapacitated? Is a sick bay with no other prisoners present technically protective confinement under this definition?
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:10 pm

Junitaki-cho wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:Well, what do you think of these changes :P

Is a sick bay with no other prisoners present technically protective confinement under this definition?

I wouldn't say so. A sick bay exists to provide treatment and facilitate the recovery of a prisoner, not to protect them or others from threats posed to or from a prisoner.

User avatar
Junitaki-cho
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 60
Founded: Sep 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Junitaki-cho » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:14 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Junitaki-cho wrote:Is a sick bay with no other prisoners present technically protective confinement under this definition?

I wouldn't say so. A sick bay exists to provide treatment and facilitate the recovery of a prisoner, not to protect them or others from threats posed to or from a prisoner.

I'm just not sure intent is legally important here. If the only criteria for protective confinement is that it's isolated from the general population, the circumstances of that isolation don't seem to matter.
Refugia Councillor of World Assembly Affairs

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:23 pm

Junitaki-cho wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:I wouldn't say so. A sick bay exists to provide treatment and facilitate the recovery of a prisoner, not to protect them or others from threats posed to or from a prisoner.

I'm just not sure intent is legally important here. If the only criteria for protective confinement is that it's isolated from the general population, the circumstances of that isolation don't seem to matter.

Alright, I've added a provision covering medical incapacitation.

Seeing as Tinfect has once again submitted their flawed resolution, I will be submitting now.

Final Draft (Draft Fourteen]:

The General Assembly,

Believing that the abuse of the imprisoned is an intolerable state of affairs,

Aiming to reform the criminal justice system to prevent these abuses from occurring,

Hereby,

1. Defines protective confinement as the imprisonment of a person with severe or total isolation from other inmates,

2. Prohibits:
  1. Subjecting a prisoner to treatment inferior to that legally permissible for prisoners of war,
  2. Compelling a prisoner via force, threats of force, or other forms of coercion to perform labor or a service as a punitive measure, or as a means to generate profit for a prison facility and/or associated third parties,
  3. The sale or leasing of any prisoner by the government or any private prison to any private corporation or institution,
  4. Placing a prisoner in protective confinement, unless:
    1. The informed consent of the prisoner is present,
    2. Doing so is the only means available to mitigate risks posed by the prisoner to the general prison population, or
    3. The prisoner is medically incapacitated, and
  5. Barring prisoners from the opportunity to voluntarily carry out a service or activity as a form of paid labor,
3. Requires that:
  1. Those who have had protective confinement imposed on them have regular access to the services of psychiatric staff; and that they have access to visitations from guests in accordance with standard prison policy,
  2. All available measures are taken to reinstate a prisoner into the general prison population, as soon as it is safe to do so,
  3. Member states ensure that prisoners have access to investigative resources and legal recourse in the event that they lodge a complaint about abuses inflicted upon them, and that no reprisals are carried out against those who lodge these complaints,
  4. Prisoners who voluntarily carry out a service or activity as a form of labor during the period of their incarceration receive a wage commensurate to the extent of their work, which shall be equivalent to the wage a free worker employed in the same trade would receive for doing the same quantity and quality of work, and that
  5. All workplace health and safety regulations, past and future, on the national and international level, apply to prisoners working voluntarily during the period of their incarceration.

Co-authored by Barfleur.
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Neymarland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 104
Founded: Jan 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Neymarland » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:44 pm

I'd let this be a resolution if I actually had endorsements.
What's that, someone is within 5 feet from me? Dives REF, REF! RED CARD, RED CARD
NEYMARLAND Is a proud member of UEFA Champions League
"You passed the Parc de Pantses. Hope you find your new jeans tomorrow."
Sign on HIghway 45802-540-35903
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett
"Don't waste your money on a chair. Your chair is now broken and meaningless, as you bought that chair from a yard sale." -Thomas Edward Harrison
NEWS: Football fans rejoice in PSG's last victory.---Trump supporter causes barfight over election rigging.
Stance:Semi-Dictatorship, right-wing. Like everything except communists, abortion, and brussel sprouts.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 1:46 pm

Neymarland wrote:I'd let this be a resolution if I actually had endorsements.

I thank you for your support regardless!

User avatar
Sylh Alanor
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 109
Founded: May 10, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sylh Alanor » Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:23 pm

On recommendation from my WAA Councillor and my own reading of the replacement draft and thread, I've approved. I think that, combined with IA's Death Penalty Ban, this is quite good. Barring any major points that come up in our regional discussion that I haven't considered, I plan on voting for, should this reach quorum.

Consider my concerns addressed to you over discord the other day addressed and calmed ^-^
Valkyrie
Delegate and Councillor of Culture,
Refugia

she/her

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:25 pm

Sylh Alanor wrote:On recommendation from my WAA Councillor and my own reading of the replacement draft and thread, I've approved. I think that, combined with IA's Death Penalty Ban, this is quite good. Barring any major points that come up in our regional discussion that I haven't considered, I plan on voting for, should this reach quorum.

Consider my concerns addressed to you over discord the other day addressed and calmed ^-^

:D Thank you!

User avatar
Qvait
Envoy
 
Posts: 219
Founded: Mar 08, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Qvait » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:26 pm

I'm not opposed to this proposal, but it could have addressed the rights and protections of prisoners during hunger strikes.
Hey, I'm Jay and I am a legislator and roleplayer in the South Pacific.

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs /// Member of the Council on Regional Security /// Former Minister of Regional Affairs

My History

User avatar
Barfleur
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 468
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:47 pm

In terms of approvals, we’re proceeding nicely. 31 down, 26 more to go. When it reaches quorum, the full author and I will go all in on campaigning.
Last edited by Barfleur on Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Jan 19, 2021 6:54 pm

Barfleur wrote:In terms of approvals, we’re proceeding nicely. 31 down, 26 more to go. When it reaches quorum, the full author and I will go all in on campaigning.

Looking forward to it :D


User avatar
Neymarland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 104
Founded: Jan 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Neymarland » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:27 am

Congrats. I have voted For.
What's that, someone is within 5 feet from me? Dives REF, REF! RED CARD, RED CARD
NEYMARLAND Is a proud member of UEFA Champions League
"You passed the Parc de Pantses. Hope you find your new jeans tomorrow."
Sign on HIghway 45802-540-35903
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it." - Terry Pratchett
"Don't waste your money on a chair. Your chair is now broken and meaningless, as you bought that chair from a yard sale." -Thomas Edward Harrison
NEWS: Football fans rejoice in PSG's last victory.---Trump supporter causes barfight over election rigging.
Stance:Semi-Dictatorship, right-wing. Like everything except communists, abortion, and brussel sprouts.


User avatar
Anarchist Republic of Melodia
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 19, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Anarchist Republic of Melodia » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:07 am

Fair treatment of prisoners, among those nations which use a traditional prison system, is absolutely essential to a successful recovery. While we do not believe in the top-down authority of a state to confine its citizens in such a way, we do believe this legislation can be a stepping stone to a more just and equal society for more traditional nations.

With the consent of the assembly of ARM's civilian leaders, we are voting to approve this legislation.
Last edited by Anarchist Republic of Melodia on Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6840
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:12 am

Anarchist Republic of Melodia wrote:Fair treatment of prisoners, among those nations which use a traditional prison system, is absolutely essential to a successful recovery. While we do not believe in the top-down authority of a state to confine its citizens in such a way, we do believe this legislation can be a stepping stone to a more just and equal society for more traditional nations.

With the consent of the assembly of ARM's civilian leaders, we are voting to approve this legislation.

IC: "We greatly appreciate your support, Ambassador."

User avatar
Barfleur
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 468
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:31 pm

"I have had the honor of casting Barfleur's vote in favor of the proposal at vote. We appreciate the support of all the delegates who approved it and all the nations who have voted--and who plan on voting--for it."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
The Candy Of Bottles
Diplomat
 
Posts: 602
Founded: Jan 01, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Candy Of Bottles » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:01 pm

Hmm. Little surprised 2(a)(ii) doesn't go the other way around too- protecting a prisoner from other convicts who wish to harm them.
Nation May also be called Ebsas Shomad.
WA Delegate: Tislam Timnärstëlmith (Tislam Taperedtresses)
Operates on EST/EDT
1.) Ignore them, they want attention. Giving it to them will only encourage them.
2.) Keep a backup region or two handy, with a password in place, in case you are raided. You can move there if needed.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Liberatarian States, Majestic-12 [Bot]

Advertisement

Remove ads