[PASSED] International Criminal Protocol

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Hanabi laughed out loud at that. “What, spend a month in the depths of hell defending our ideals, only to become a puppet state of a democracy? Get that form away from me before I set it on fire. I don’t have that authority anyway. I’m Head of Security. If you’re really going to offer that, you’d have to talk to Tokiko or the Supreme Overlady of All Reality. Actually, don’t. They might kill you for the mere suggestion.”

"Many Havenic provinces are not democracies...in fact I can't even claim to speak for all of them, just the central government. The Havenic government would actually only have the domestic authority to enforce this resolution, or any for that matter, on around 50 % of its population."

“Look, Kyoki Chudoku’s title is the Supreme Ultimate Country. Pretentious as all hell? Yeah. But we’re a country, not a province, and we always will be. We’re not going to let other powers try take advantage of our situation like that. And an inability to enforce authority, by the way, isn’t exactly a good thing.”

[Wallenburg]

Solitary confinement is more than just "temporary unpleasantness". It is demonstrably a form of torture, and has been shown to drive inmates into psychosis.

Some of the Free Kingdom's top scientists have done some research, and it turns out that executions have been shown to cause death in inmates. In the opinion of this delegation, that is quite serious.

Can you truly identify no criminal justice solutions other than death and solitary confinement?

[Separatist Peoples]

Some of the Free Kingdom's top scientists have done some research, and it turns out that executions have been shown to cause death in inmates. In the opinion of this delegation, that is quite serious.

Can you truly identify no criminal justice solutions other than death and solitary confinement?

"Sternly worded letters. I bet they use those."

[Falcania]

Some of the Free Kingdom's top scientists have done some research, and it turns out that executions have been shown to cause death in inmates. In the opinion of this delegation, that is quite serious.

Can you truly identify no criminal justice solutions other than death and solitary confinement?

I do not think it is a peculiar cultural quirk to think that execution is more cruel than solitary confinement.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"Many Havenic provinces are not democracies...in fact I can't even claim to speak for all of them, just the central government. The Havenic government would actually only have the domestic authority to enforce this resolution, or any for that matter, on around 50 % of its population."

Which is a violation of more WA resolutions, ambassador.

"If we are physically incapable of enforcing Havenic law on our distant Provinces, entirely out of design I might add, I do not see how that is the Assemblys business. There are Havenic laws that are mandatory for joining the Haven, WA law is not part of that."

[Tinfect]

"If we are physically incapable of enforcing Havenic law on our distant Provinces, entirely out of design I might add, I do not see how that is the Assemblys business. There are Havenic laws that are mandatory for joining the Haven, WA law is not part of that."

"If you cannot enforce your laws within your jurisdiction, Ambassador, then your government is, quite frankly, a failure. World Assembly Law is mandatory for all Member-States, if there exist units of your government that operate in flagrant violation of those laws, than that concern is yours. You claim to represent these 'provinces' within the World Assembly, their compliance is your responsibility. As they are subdivisions of your Government, your Government is responsible for their noncompliance. It is a quite simple concept to understand."

[Wallenburg]

Can you truly identify no criminal justice solutions other than death and solitary confinement?

I do not think it is a peculiar cultural quirk to think that execution is more cruel than solitary confinement.

That isn't the question I asked.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

"If we are physically incapable of enforcing Havenic law on our distant Provinces, entirely out of design I might add, I do not see how that is the Assemblys business. There are Havenic laws that are mandatory for joining the Haven, WA law is not part of that."

"If you cannot enforce your laws within your jurisdiction, Ambassador, then your government is, quite frankly, a failure. World Assembly Law is mandatory for all Member-States, if there exist units of your government that operate in flagrant violation of those laws, than that concern is yours. You claim to represent these 'provinces' within the World Assembly, their compliance is your responsibility. As they are subdivisions of your Government, your Government is responsible for their noncompliance. It is a quite simple concept to understand."

The ambassador laughed.
"With all due respect, no I don't. I claim to represent those parts of the Haven which are members of the world assembly; the Haven being several distinct entities. One country, 6 or 7 foreign affairs departments depending on whether you count the Barecci's public relation department as one, one world assembly member, 30 or so actual governments, more than 50 militaries, no centralised criminal codes."

[Tinfect]

"With all due respect, no I don't. I claim to represent those parts of the Haven which are members of the world assembly; the Haven being several distinct entities. One country, 6 or 7 foreign affairs departments depending on whether you count the Barecci's public relation department as one, one world assembly member, 30 or so actual governments, more than 50 militaries, no centralised criminal codes."

"And all of them, Ambassador, are the Haven. Regardless of how your government considers its subdivisions, if they at all fall under your jurisdiction, their compliance or noncompliance is the responsibility of your government."

[Falcania]

I do not think it is a peculiar cultural quirk to think that execution is more cruel than solitary confinement.

That isn't the question I asked.

The answer to the question you've asked is, "yes, don't be ridiculous".

I answered the question you seemed to be implying.

Prison reform in the Free Kingdom has come a long way - in living memory, prior to compliance with the World Assembly, prisons were typically just a place where down-and-outs were locked up to get murdered and, typically, harvested for organs. King Falcon III, after the Tyrannicide, put us on a different path, our current path. To be frank, we are experts in cruel and unusual punishment, because not so long ago, we practised it.

Which is to say, I believe that solitary confinement, which this legislation prohibits, is less cruel than capital punishment, which this does not.

[Wallenburg]

That isn't the question I asked.

The answer to the question you've asked is, "yes, don't be ridiculous".

I answered the question you seemed to be implying.

Prison reform in the Free Kingdom has come a long way - in living memory, prior to compliance with the World Assembly, prisons were typically just a place where down-and-outs were locked up to get murdered and, typically, harvested for organs. King Falcon III, after the Tyrannicide, put us on a different path, our current path. To be frank, we are experts in cruel and unusual punishment, because not so long ago, we practised it.

Which is to say, I believe that solitary confinement, which this legislation prohibits, is less cruel than capital punishment, which this does not.

"I rarely imply questions inside of other questions. I asked because your comments suggested that your nation perceives no alternatives but execution and solitary confinement to the control and punishment of incarcerated individuals. If you consider capital punishment inhumane, you are able to prohibit it. In fact, you must prohibit it, under currently existing World Assembly legislation, and this proposal would produce no limitations to you continuing a total ban on capital punishment within the jurisdiction of your nation. You are just as able to prohibit solitary confinement, and I would argue must do so under other World Assembly legislation prohibiting torture. If you are aware that you can do both of these without injuring your ability to maintain law and order, then I can imagine no legitimate reason you can stand opposed to the principles of this resolution. 'But what about capital punishment?' is nothing but a naked attempt to distract from a no less serious issue of sapient rights and civilized treatment of the incarcerated."

[Falcania]

The answer to the question you've asked is, "yes, don't be ridiculous".

I answered the question you seemed to be implying.

Prison reform in the Free Kingdom has come a long way - in living memory, prior to compliance with the World Assembly, prisons were typically just a place where down-and-outs were locked up to get murdered and, typically, harvested for organs. King Falcon III, after the Tyrannicide, put us on a different path, our current path. To be frank, we are experts in cruel and unusual punishment, because not so long ago, we practised it.

Which is to say, I believe that solitary confinement, which this legislation prohibits, is less cruel than capital punishment, which this does not.

"I rarely imply questions inside of other questions. I asked because your comments suggested that your nation perceives no alternatives but execution and solitary confinement to the control and punishment of incarcerated individuals. If you consider capital punishment inhumane, you are able to prohibit it. In fact, you must prohibit it, under currently existing World Assembly legislation, and this proposal would produce no limitations to you continuing a total ban on capital punishment within the jurisdiction of your nation. You are just as able to prohibit solitary confinement, and I would argue must do so under other World Assembly legislation prohibiting torture. If you are aware that you can do both of these without injuring your ability to maintain law and order, then I can imagine no legitimate reason you can stand opposed to the principles of this resolution. 'But what about capital punishment?' is nothing but a naked attempt to distract from a no less serious issue of sapient rights and civilized treatment of the incarcerated."

Please help me understand why 2,880 minutes in solitary confinement is not considered cruel but 2,881 is? What happens in the 2,881st minute of solitary confinement that makes solitary confinement stop being an acceptable incarceration technique and start being so horrible it should be prohibited by international law?

Or is the "two days" an arbitrary time limit?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Not when you're put in time-out to calm down. Spending a couple of hours alone won't drive sane people into psychosis.

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

OOC: Where the fuck are you getting the idea that a few hours spent alone is torture? A kid can be told that they're grounded and need to stay in their room until dinner, which is a few hours away, without it being torture, so why the hell would it be torture for an inmate??? Please tell me you're kidding.

We should treat mentally ill people by locking them up and throwing away the key? Really?

Okay, I'm not keen on actually saying this in public, but seems like you're leaving me no choice... I have actually spent some time in a mental hospital (for suicidal reasons, it was more than a decade ago, I'm doing better now, so don't worry about me). It was a locked ward, meaning you couldn't go outside without permission, and in some cases, due to risk of suicide or running away, a nurse to accompany you. We were not confined to our rooms, but there was a "time out room" that, yes, literally had padded, soundproofed walls and rubber floor and no furniture, because when someone has a proper breakdown (not psychotic, there are emotional breakdowns too) and turns violent, they need to be isolated from others - in the case of a mental hospital especially as the other people there have psychological and emotional issues as well, and could also react in a volatile way - until they have calmed down.

During the week I spent there, my primary roommate (there was some changeover as people came in and got out or were transferred to other wards, etc., but she remained as my roommate for the duration) went into the isolation room voluntarily twice, so that she could, in her words, "scream at the walls without bothering others". I saw one patient coming in, straight from hospital, where they had had to pump her stomach after a suicide attempt, and she was wearing an actual straightjacket and still trashing and screaming and trying to hurt the ambulance crew that brought her in. She was put (still wearing the straightjacket) in the isolation room to calm down. Obviously nurses would check regularly (like every 15 minutes) that she was okay. She got out after she had calmed down, which took about three hours.

Being put alone into a room is not torture when it's done for the protection of yourself and others.

Also, "locking them up and throwing away the key" is unnecessary dramatization on your part. Nobody's been suggesting that, and you know it.

Name me one circumstance in which total isolation for an extended period of time is necessary to contain an inmate.

Safety of theirself - like, say, a prison gang wants them dead - staff and other prisoners - in the case of a violent inmate who lashes out at others to make theirself feel better. In neither case is it "locking them up and throwing away the key", but controlled isolation for the good of everyone involved. I don't understand what's so hard to get? Isolation from the general population of inmates does not mean you were put into a bare cell with nothing to do but go crazy. Like, do you understand that in actual Real Life prisons inmates have access to library books, often television, and can take courses, and will be offered therapy and rehabilitation and will be given chances for exercise and all that? Being kept in isolation wouldn't necessarily (in case of a violent inmate, some reasonable restrictions (like not giving them metal cutlery) might need to be made) deprive them from any of those rights?

---

OOC: The reason I'm using out-of-character arguments is because I prefer being able to use actual reasoning to talk about these things, rather than going for the Araraukarian stance of "they broke the laws, they knew the punishment for law-breaking, they chose the punishment given, end of story", though obviously put into a more flowery mode of speech. Which doesn't mean that Araraukarian prisons weren't geared for rehabilitation and therapy and all that, it just means that inmates understand they have no right to dictate the terms of how they're housed, and that individual cells (in which you still have limited - for privacy protection - view into other inmates' cells, and are able to talk with them) are a thing.

Araraukar is at the same time both a utopia and a dystopia. It's a dictatorial police state where bureaucrats hold the true power. People are brought up to understand exactly how they will give up a lot of their rights if they break the laws, and upon reaching the age of majority actually have to sign a binding legal contract with the government that they fully understand the ramifications of law-breaking (it has lots of other things, too, of course, but they're not relevant here), so they fully know what they're in for. (Refusing to sign it means not being given the full citizenship privileges of an adult.)

However, the Araraukarian prison population is very small, because as a nation they believe into crime prevention rather than punishments after the fact.

[Dreadton]

The nation of Dreadton prefers a fact based approach to crime, as such we can not support the death penalty because there is no way for us to be 100% sure that every person charge with a particular crime is guilty, that our methods at determining their guilt are fool proof, and that there is not some other fact we missed.

We would support this proposal in that regard.

However, the section on investigations is a bit weak in our opinion, as it would allow for a nation to investigate itself. And as many here have show us, if they investigate themselves then they did nothing wrong.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
For the record, the function of psychiatric hospitals is outside the scope of this draft. If it still affects them, that is a problem, not a feature.

[Wallenburg]

"I rarely imply questions inside of other questions. I asked because your comments suggested that your nation perceives no alternatives but execution and solitary confinement to the control and punishment of incarcerated individuals. If you consider capital punishment inhumane, you are able to prohibit it. In fact, you must prohibit it, under currently existing World Assembly legislation, and this proposal would produce no limitations to you continuing a total ban on capital punishment within the jurisdiction of your nation. You are just as able to prohibit solitary confinement, and I would argue must do so under other World Assembly legislation prohibiting torture. If you are aware that you can do both of these without injuring your ability to maintain law and order, then I can imagine no legitimate reason you can stand opposed to the principles of this resolution. 'But what about capital punishment?' is nothing but a naked attempt to distract from a no less serious issue of sapient rights and civilized treatment of the incarcerated."

Please help me understand why 2,880 minutes in solitary confinement is not considered cruel but 2,881 is? What happens in the 2,881st minute of solitary confinement that makes solitary confinement stop being an acceptable incarceration technique and start being so horrible it should be prohibited by international law?

Or is the "two days" an arbitrary time limit?

I never claimed that there is a specific point at which isolation becomes torture. However, since you seem hellbent on pretending that solitary confinement is never torture, I have a question of my own. Please help me understand why 40 years in solitary confinement is not considered cruel? Please help me understand why spending the majority of your entire life cut off from every person in the world, stuffed into a prison cell for 23 hours a day isn't torture?

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

OOC: Where the fuck are you getting the idea that a few hours spent alone is torture? A kid can be told that they're grounded and need to stay in their room until dinner, which is a few hours away, without it being torture, so why the hell would it be torture for an inmate??? Please tell me you're kidding.

OOC: I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that solitary confinement is torture regardless of the reasons you give for using it. At no point did I mention any sort of time limit or duration of isolation.

We should treat mentally ill people by locking them up and throwing away the key? Really?

Okay, I'm not keen on actually saying this in public, but seems like you're leaving me no choice... I have actually spent some time in a mental hospital (for suicidal reasons, it was more than a decade ago, I'm doing better now, so don't worry about me). It was a locked ward, meaning you couldn't go outside without permission, and in some cases, due to risk of suicide or running away, a nurse to accompany you. We were not confined to our rooms, but there was a "time out room" that, yes, literally had padded, soundproofed walls and rubber floor and no furniture, because when someone has a proper breakdown (not psychotic, there are emotional breakdowns too) and turns violent, they need to be isolated from others - in the case of a mental hospital especially as the other people there have psychological and emotional issues as well, and could also react in a volatile way - until they have calmed down.

During the week I spent there, my primary roommate (there was some changeover as people came in and got out or were transferred to other wards, etc., but she remained as my roommate for the duration) went into the isolation room voluntarily twice, so that she could, in her words, "scream at the walls without bothering others". I saw one patient coming in, straight from hospital, where they had had to pump her stomach after a suicide attempt, and she was wearing an actual straightjacket and still trashing and screaming and trying to hurt the ambulance crew that brought her in. She was put (still wearing the straightjacket) in the isolation room to calm down. Obviously nurses would check regularly (like every 15 minutes) that she was okay. She got out after she had calmed down, which took about three hours.

You seem not to recognize here that when you have medical staff following you around and at the very least checking in on you every 15 minutes, then by definition you are not experiencing solitary confinement. In the case of the incarcerated, regular interaction with other inmates and prison staff by definition means that you are not experiencing solitary confinement. And I shouldn't have to explain why asking to enter solitary for a brief period isn't even remotely similar to being put in solitary for days or weeks or months or years.

Being put alone into a room is not torture when it's done for the protection of yourself and others.

Again, you can give any reasons you want, but that doesn't stop torture from being torture.

Also, "locking them up and throwing away the key" is unnecessary dramatization on your part. Nobody's been suggesting that, and you know it.

Seeing as your comments suggested that solitary confinement could somehow be used to treat the psychotic, then no, it's not "unnecessary dramatization".

Name me one circumstance in which total isolation for an extended period of time is necessary to contain an inmate.

Safety of theirself - like, say, a prison gang wants them dead - staff and other prisoners - in the case of a violent inmate who lashes out at others to make theirself feel better. In neither case is it "locking them up and throwing away the key", but controlled isolation for the good of everyone involved.

There's an abyss between protective isolation and solitary confinement.

I don't understand what's so hard to get? Isolation from the general population of inmates does not mean you were put into a bare cell with nothing to do but go crazy.

Like, do you understand that in actual Real Life prisons inmates have access to library books, often television, and can take courses, and will be offered therapy and rehabilitation and will be given chances for exercise and all that? Being kept in isolation wouldn't necessarily (in case of a violent inmate, some reasonable restrictions (like not giving them metal cutlery) might need to be made) deprive them from any of those rights?

Are you fucking kidding me? The whole point of solitary confinement is to punish inmates by depriving them of any outside stimuli. As a result, those in solitary receive no privileges that regular inmates do. That means no books, no TV, and definitely no classes or rehab which would, by definition, mean that they are no longer experiencing solitary confinement.

I urge you to actually look into the realities of solitary confinement. It isn't regular treatment except you don't spend as much time with the other inmates. It's literally being thrown in a room and only interacted with when absolutely necessary. In most cases, it's 23 hours in a glorified closet and 1 hour or less to shower and stretch your legs.

[Falcania]

Please help me understand why 2,880 minutes in solitary confinement is not considered cruel but 2,881 is? What happens in the 2,881st minute of solitary confinement that makes solitary confinement stop being an acceptable incarceration technique and start being so horrible it should be prohibited by international law?

Or is the "two days" an arbitrary time limit?

I never claimed that there is a specific point at which isolation becomes torture. However, since you seem hellbent on pretending that solitary confinement is never torture, I have a question of my own. Please help me understand why 40 years in solitary confinement is not considered cruel? Please help me understand why spending the majority of your entire life cut off from every person in the world, stuffed into a prison cell for 23 hours a day isn't torture?

"At this stage I have to apologise for misunderstanding but I have mixed up my facts, and thought you were the delegation proposing this legislation and having to defend it, rather than someone who just has a bee in their bonnet about solitary confinement always being torture. Anyway, to answer your question, forty years in solitary is cruel, two days isn't, I don't know where the dividing line is, because I'm not a sequence of peer reviewed studies on the topic, but as I'm not the one proposing the legislation, that's not really my problem. At a ballpark, I'd probably reckon about two weeks? Then again, Falcanians are made of pretty tough stuff."

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Are you fucking kidding me? The whole point of solitary confinement is to punish inmates by depriving them of any outside stimuli. As a result, those in solitary receive no privileges that regular inmates do. That means no books, no TV, and definitely no classes or rehab which would, by definition, mean that they are no longer experiencing solitary confinement.

I urge you to actually look into the realities of solitary confinement. It isn't regular treatment except you don't spend as much time with the other inmates. It's literally being thrown in a room and only interacted with when absolutely necessary. In most cases, it's 23 hours in a glorified closet and 1 hour or less to shower and stretch your legs.

You seem obsessed with the American "SuperMax" conception to the exclusion of all else. You are aware that other traditions and regimes exist, which operate along different lines. Whatever point the "SuperMax" may have, the system is not shared, at least, with France's solitary confinement regime, which governs such Isolement under The Code of Penal Procedure articles R57-7-62 and R57-7-63 Relevant Text (Fr). Translating the relevant text for you:

The placement of an inmate in isolation, for reasons of security or protection, whether done officially or upon the request of the inmate does not constitutes a disciplinary measure.

...

S/he retains her right to information, visitation, written and telephonic correspondence, exercise of religion and the use of his/her personal account.

Toutefois, le chef d'établissement organise, dans toute la mesure du possible et en fonction de la personnalité de la personne détenue, des activités communes aux personnes détenues placées à l'isolement.

S/he cannot participate in in promenades or collective activities which persons detained under the normal detention regime may participate, except by authorization, for a specific activity, given by the chief of the establishment.

However, the chief of the establishment will organize, to the extent possible and in accordance with the personality of the inmate, communal activities for persons placed in isolation.

...

Technically the "isolation" has no limit placed on it, but each 3 months it gets transferred to a higher level of responsibility until, eventually, the Minister of Justice himself is required to personally authorize the continuation every three months (beginning at 1 year of isolation).


There is a punitive form known as the "disciplinary cell" that is closer to, but still, quite far from the extreme conditions posited by the histrionic ranting taking place. R-57-7-1 to R-57-7-62 deal with it. I have no desire to translate nearly that much text for you but in highlights:

• Confinement in a single cell
• Minimal furnishing. No electronics save for the radio
• 3 Showers per week, 1 hour exercise per day
• 1 telephone call a week
• The prisoner retains the right to read and write and receive religious and legal visits
• Purchases are limited to necessary products (hygiene, writing), and tobacco
• Visited twice a week by a doctor who can order an end to the punishment, which in no case may persist longer than 30 days

Minors have their own special rules (no isolation under 16 years of age, much more limited number of punishable offences, requirement to continue attending classes). There is also the possibility for minors and adults of a "isolation in ordinary cell" which is somewhat halfway between ordinary detention and the disciplinary cell (common recreation, but otherwise limited to the conditions of the disciplinary cell).

If you believe this regime amounts to torture, then all I can say is I am glad you are not in charge of prosecutions. Fortunately, Tinfect seems to have used a definition of solitary that seems, on its face, to mimic only the, I will say torturous, American "SuperMax" nonsense.

[Wallenburg]

OOC:

*snip*

1) Most of the player base is in the US, and so most players will more immediately identify "solitary confinement" with the American system rather than any other system.
2) Tinfect defines solitary confinement pretty strictly to systems such as that in the United States, so what does it matter what France does?

If you believe this regime amounts to torture, then all I can say is I am glad you are not in charge of prosecutions.

I don't, and I never said I did. You know that, so don't pretend otherwise.

Fortunately, Tinfect seems to have used a definition of solitary that seems, on its face, to mimic only the, I will say torturous, American "SuperMax" nonsense.

You even recognize that 1) the "solitary confinement" relevant to this proposal is the kind familiar in the US prison system, and 2) that such treatment of prisoners is torture. So what the fuck are you arguing about? I don't need a lesson in French prison procedures just so you can pretend that I wasn't referring to solitary confinement as I understand it and as this proposal understands it.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Are you fucking kidding me? The whole point of solitary confinement is to punish inmates by depriving them of any outside stimuli. As a result, those in solitary receive no privileges that regular inmates do. That means no books, no TV, and definitely no classes or rehab which would, by definition, mean that they are no longer experiencing solitary confinement.

I urge you to actually look into the realities of solitary confinement. It isn't regular treatment except you don't spend as much time with the other inmates. It's literally being thrown in a room and only interacted with when absolutely necessary. In most cases, it's 23 hours in a glorified closet and 1 hour or less to shower and stretch your legs.

You seem obsessed with the American "SuperMax" conception to the exclusion of all else. You are aware that other traditions and regimes exist, which operate along different lines. Whatever point the "SuperMax" may have, the system is not shared, at least, with France's solitary confinement regime, which governs such Isolement under The Code of Penal Procedure articles R57-7-62 and R57-7-63 Relevant Text (Fr). Translating the relevant text for you:

The placement of an inmate in isolation, for reasons of security or protection, whether done officially or upon the request of the inmate does not constitutes a disciplinary measure.

...

S/he retains her right to information, visitation, written and telephonic correspondence, exercise of religion and the use of his/her personal account.

Toutefois, le chef d'établissement organise, dans toute la mesure du possible et en fonction de la personnalité de la personne détenue, des activités communes aux personnes détenues placées à l'isolement.

S/he cannot participate in in promenades or collective activities which persons detained under the normal detention regime may participate, except by authorization, for a specific activity, given by the chief of the establishment.

However, the chief of the establishment will organize, to the extent possible and in accordance with the personality of the inmate, communal activities for persons placed in isolation.

...

Technically the "isolation" has no limit placed on it, but each 3 months it gets transferred to a higher level of responsibility until, eventually, the Minister of Justice himself is required to personally authorize the continuation every three months (beginning at 1 year of isolation).


There is a punitive form known as the "disciplinary cell" that is closer to, but still, quite far from the extreme conditions posited by the histrionic ranting taking place. R-57-7-1 to R-57-7-62 deal with it. I have no desire to translate nearly that much text for you but in highlights:

• Confinement in a single cell
• Minimal furnishing. No electronics save for the radio
• 3 Showers per week, 1 hour exercise per day
• 1 telephone call a week
• The prisoner retains the right to read and write and receive religious and legal visits
• Purchases are limited to necessary products (hygiene, writing), and tobacco
• Visited twice a week by a doctor who can order an end to the punishment, which in no case may persist longer than 30 days

Minors have their own special rules (no isolation under 16 years of age, much more limited number of punishable offences, requirement to continue attending classes). There is also the possibility for minors and adults of a "isolation in ordinary cell" which is somewhat halfway between ordinary detention and the disciplinary cell (common recreation, but otherwise limited to the conditions of the disciplinary cell).

If you believe this regime amounts to torture, then all I can say is I am glad you are not in charge of prosecutions. Fortunately, Tinfect seems to have used a definition of solitary that seems, on its face, to mimic only the, I will say torturous, American "SuperMax" nonsense.

The Havenic position is, and will always be, that the imprisonment of inmates without a rehabilitative attempt being made amounts to a gross and disproportionate attack on human rights. Once an inmate has been placed in solitary confinement, no attempt to rehabilitate him or her is being made and therefore, a gross violation of human rights has been committed.

[Araraukar]

OOC: For the record, the function of psychiatric hospitals is outside the scope of this draft. If it still affects them, that is a problem, not a feature.

OOC: I'm fairly sure that people who are "criminally insane" do not get locked up in regular psychiatric hospitals, but specific facilities that have same security features as prisons, but specialize in mental health care of such inmates/patients?

OOC: I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that solitary confinement is torture regardless of the reasons you give for using it. At no point did I mention any sort of time limit or duration of isolation.

OOC: Not when you're put in time-out to calm down. Spending a couple of hours alone won't drive sane people into psychosis.

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

OOC: I point out that a time-out for a few hours is not considered torture normally. You say "no, it absolutely is torture". How did you expect that to be understood?

Please help me understand why 40 years in solitary confinement is not considered cruel?

I don't think anyone's arguing against that? We're arguing it not being torture in the short term. You might get bored but you won't go insane if you're not allowed to interact with people 24/7.

In the case of the incarcerated, regular interaction with other inmates and prison staff by definition means that you are not experiencing solitary confinement.

Okay, so your definition of solitary confinement greatly differs from mine, that explains some things. You're thinking of medieval conditions (that, yes, exist in some places in RL even now), whereas I'm thinking of an inmate simply being separated from the general prison population.

Seeing as your comments suggested that solitary confinement could somehow be used to treat the psychotic, then no, it's not "unnecessary dramatization".

*sigh* Which part of "being a danger to others and the staff" is so hard to understand? If you re-read my post, you'll see that I specifically specified psychotic violent people who can't be treated or whose particular variety of psychosis is treatment resistant, as might be the case when it's caused by actual brain damage.

What would you do, then? Let a violent person attack others, injuring or even killing them? This same goes for non-psychotic violent prisoners. What would you do if isolating them is not allowed?

There's an abyss between protective isolation and solitary confinement.

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

Want to explain the contradiction between your replies?

Are you fucking kidding me? The whole point of solitary confinement is to punish inmates by depriving them of any outside stimuli.

Not for the reasons I've already repeated at least three times. Protective, cool-down, safety. I'd say only in cool-down, which wouldn't last more than a few hours at most, they might not have access to regular prisoner's things and activities. And in safety cases might not, say, have access to metal cutlery, but I don't think anyone's going to try to argue that not having metal cutlery is torture. Cue a joke about airplane meals.

I urge you to actually look into the realities of solitary confinement.

And I urge you to actually read what people are saying on this thread, rather than going ballistic over the conditions in some horrible RL nations. If you want RL debate, General forum is thataway. -->

OOC: 1) Most of the player base is in the US, and so most players will more immediately identify "solitary confinement" with the American system rather than any other system.

OOC: Well that's their problem.

2) Tinfect defines solitary confinement pretty strictly to systems such as that in the United States, so what does it matter what France does?

So what does it matter to Wallenburg what Araraukar does? Unless you're saying this isn't an international issue?

You even recognize that 1) the "solitary confinement" relevant to this proposal is the kind familiar in the US prison system

Why should it be? NS =/= USA.

I don't need a lesson in French prison procedures just so you can pretend that I wasn't referring to solitary confinement as I understand it and as this proposal understands it.

And we don't need a lesson in USA practices. The proposal text would have same effect on both USA and France, despite France solitary confinement (or Finnish for that matter) not being torture.

General forum is still thataway. -->

[Wallenburg]

OOC:

OOC: I didn't say anything remotely like that. I said that solitary confinement is torture regardless of the reasons you give for using it. At no point did I mention any sort of time limit or duration of isolation.

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

OOC: I point out that a time-out for a few hours is not considered torture normally. You say "no, it absolutely is torture". How did you expect that to be understood?

I expected it to be read as written, including the rather important "regardless of the reason you say you are doing it", which makes up the majority of the length of that sentence. Cutting off over half of an idea will obviously change that idea. You have to read the sentence to the end.

Please help me understand why 40 years in solitary confinement is not considered cruel?

I don't think anyone's arguing against that? We're arguing it not being torture in the short term. You might get bored but you won't go insane if you're not allowed to interact with people 24/7.

The arguments presented against this so far have been pretty broad-brush, and have rarely if ever actually specified a time limit, instead arguing that solitary confinement is never torture. It's only when the argument is made that it is torture that opponents to this start rolling their eyes and saying "really, grounding a kid for half an hour is torture? So ridiculous."

Yes, you will likely go insane if you're not allowed to interact with people 24/7. I'd like to see anyone go weeks without any outside stimuli and not go insane.

In the case of the incarcerated, regular interaction with other inmates and prison staff by definition means that you are not experiencing solitary confinement.

Okay, so your definition of solitary confinement greatly differs from mine, that explains some things. You're thinking of medieval conditions (that, yes, exist in some places in RL even now), whereas I'm thinking of an inmate simply being separated from the general prison population.

Again, I am using the definition familiar to me and the definition this proposal adopts. I see no reason to accommodate alternative, less common definitions.

Seeing as your comments suggested that solitary confinement could somehow be used to treat the psychotic, then no, it's not "unnecessary dramatization".

*sigh* Which part of "being a danger to others and the staff" is so hard to understand? If you re-read my post, you'll see that I specifically specified psychotic violent people who can't be treated or whose particular variety of psychosis is treatment resistant, as might be the case when it's caused by actual brain damage.

What would you do, then? Let a violent person attack others, injuring or even killing them? This same goes for non-psychotic violent prisoners. What would you do if isolating them is not allowed?

1) If you are fully aware of the definition I am using, then why are you still pretending that my opposition to solitary confinement is opposition to any sort of isolation at all?
2) Restraints are a thing. You control violent people by restraining them. This is a very common practice.

There's an abyss between protective isolation and solitary confinement.

No, it absolutely is torture, regardless of the reason you say you are doing it.

Want to explain the contradiction between your replies?

I already have. You have to go past the first 5 words in that sentence if you want to fully understand it.

Are you fucking kidding me? The whole point of solitary confinement is to punish inmates by depriving them of any outside stimuli.

Not for the reasons I've already repeated at least three times. Protective, cool-down, safety. I'd say only in cool-down, which wouldn't last more than a few hours at most, they might not have access to regular prisoner's things and activities. And in safety cases might not, say, have access to metal cutlery, but I don't think anyone's going to try to argue that not having metal cutlery is torture. Cue a joke about airplane meals.

You are again conflating isolation and solitary confinement. A few hours without access to other inmates or standard privileges is not "the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and/or prison staff", and obviously is not greater than two days.

I urge you to actually look into the realities of solitary confinement.

And I urge you to actually read what people are saying on this thread, rather than going ballistic over the conditions in some horrible RL nations. If you want RL debate, General forum is thataway. -->

I have been reading what people are saying. In fact, I seem to be one of very few who actually are discussing the matter in good faith.

OOC: 1) Most of the player base is in the US, and so most players will more immediately identify "solitary confinement" with the American system rather than any other system.

OOC: Well that's their problem.

It's not a problem, it's how language works.

2) Tinfect defines solitary confinement pretty strictly to systems such as that in the United States, so what does it matter what France does?

So what does it matter to Wallenburg what Araraukar does? Unless you're saying this isn't an international issue?

What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? My argument is that Tinfect is clearly using a more American definition of solitary confinement, rather than a French one. That has absolutely fuck all to do with the idea of international importance or our NS nations' interest in the domestic policies of member states. In your words, I urge you to actually read what people are saying on this thread.

You even recognize that 1) the "solitary confinement" relevant to this proposal is the kind familiar in the US prison system

Why should it be? NS =/= USA.

We have to adopt some definition or another when addressing solitary confinement in legislation, so either we adopt the definition familiar to the most people (the US definition) or we adopt some obscure definition that will be more likely to confuse the average reader.

I don't need a lesson in French prison procedures just so you can pretend that I wasn't referring to solitary confinement as I understand it and as this proposal understands it.

And we don't need a lesson in USA practices. The proposal text would have same effect on both USA and France, despite France solitary confinement (or Finnish for that matter) not being torture.

General forum is still thataway. -->

A lesson in US practices is somewhat relevant given that is the sort of solitary confinement this proposal addresses.

[Separatist Peoples]

You are again conflating isolation and solitary confinement. A few hours without access to other inmates or standard privileges is not "the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and/or prison staff", and obviously is not greater than two days.

OOC: This is a salient point that formed the basis of my original objection. Thank you for clarifying. Objection withdrawn.

[Araraukar]

What the fuck are you talking about? Seriously? My argument is that Tinfect is clearly using a more American definition of solitary confinement, rather than a French one.

OOC: Actually, no she isn't:

"complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and/or prison staff"

That's definition 2. See the bits underlined. If the inmate still has human contact with prison staff and their relatives can come visit them, they would still be in solitary confinement, which you argue is always (in long term) torture. The current definition still catches things that aren't USesque torture.

We have to adopt some definition or another when addressing solitary confinement in legislation, so either we adopt the definition familiar to the most people (the US definition)

If you want to use the US definition, you actually have to use the US definition. Tinfect's current definition would still catch non-US definitions. (Actually, it also currently also defines as solitary confinement you being among the general prison population but not having regular contact with the staff.)

or we adopt some obscure definition that will be more likely to confuse the average reader.

Well I can't help it if you/they are unaware of the USA not being the same as all of the rest of the world.

Wikipedia definition
Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment distinguished by living in single cells with little or no meaningful contact to other inmates, strict measures to control contraband, and the use of additional security measures and equipment. It is specifically designed for disruptive inmates that are security risks to other inmates, the prison staff, or the prison itself. It is mostly employed for violations of discipline, such as murder, hostage-taking, deadly assault, and rioting. However, it is also used as a measure of protection for inmates, whose safety is threatened by other inmates. Prison authorities consider solitary confinement an administrative placement measure, not a punishment.

Later on it does say "Solitary confinement has received severe criticism for having detrimental psychological effects and, to some and in some cases, constituting torture." (Emphasis mine.) Do notice the use of "some" rather than "all".

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Bringing this draft back up too.