Advertisement
by Refuge Isle » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:03 am
by Kenmoria » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:07 am
Refuge Isle wrote:I see that this has been submitted, but I haven't seen that CD agreed to be listed as a co-author, especially showing as being last active before this draft was first written. I'll pass on approving this, because that's some spooky false advertisement/endorsement. After the fact is not when you ask permission.
by Youssath » Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:10 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Refuge Isle wrote:I see that this has been submitted, but I haven't seen that CD agreed to be listed as a co-author, especially showing as being last active before this draft was first written. I'll pass on approving this, because that's some spooky false advertisement/endorsement. After the fact is not when you ask permission.
(OOC: I fully agree with this, both on the ideal time for permission to have been sought, and the lack of interaction CD has had with this draft. Author, what has Christian Democrats contributed to this proposal?)
by Marxist Germany » Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:32 pm
Youssath wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I fully agree with this, both on the ideal time for permission to have been sought, and the lack of interaction CD has had with this draft. Author, what has Christian Democrats contributed to this proposal?)
He has provided elements from Clause 5 to 8, where it is directly sourced from the now redundant GAR #468. We will continue to work things out and give you all an update on the development of this situation.
by Bananaistan » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:22 pm
Bananaistan wrote: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.
by Marxist Germany » Wed Oct 09, 2019 2:44 pm
by Maowi » Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:40 am
Free Santa Rosa wrote: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Noting that GA#470 repealed GA#468, Prohibit Private Prisons, citing valid points as to the latter's weaknesses,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: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: 'effectivity' means how effective something is. I don't think this is correct usage. I'd recommend replacing with 'passage'. Also, you should probably include an explicit requirement somewhere for member nations to act upon the plan without wasting time
- 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, why only on a long term basis? are prisoners with shorter sentences not deserving of the same standards? Also, what about those awaiting trial or a verdict? If I remember correctly, that last point was brought up in the repeal
- "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,
- 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, It's always a bit hard with this sort of stuff, but I think repeating 'a prison' makes it look like nations can choose between the two potential definitions. I think that would be solved by removing the second mention of 'a prison'
3. Prohibits all WA member states from the engaging in the following:
- Terminate the construction of any new private prisons;
- End any lease contracts of state-owned or public prisons to private enterprise;
- 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
- 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; how are you measuring the 'average standards of a public prison' in a quantifiable way where you can find 10%? This is a genuine question ... although if you can't answer it that's something to think about
4. Limits private enterprise in WA member states to engaging with the prison system in the following:
- Pursuant to clause 4(a), allowing private enterprises to earn profit by virtue of being a part-owner of a prison; and
- Engaging in partnerships with foreign states to lease out prisons and in turn, making a profit off said relationship;
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;
- Majority or full ownership of a prison, provided that no profit is made;
- Construction and maintenance work of the prison and its environs;
- 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
- Consultation and research;
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. can you lose the bolding?
Co-authored by Christian Democrats, Youssath!
by Imperium Anglorum » Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:49 am
by Marxist Germany » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:36 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The real question for American lawyers and law students is... Is "Submit'd" a proper Bluebook abbreviation?
by Great Nortend » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:22 am
by Marxist Germany » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:00 am
Great Nortend wrote:Those are contractions, not abbreviations. That is, 'do not' and 'had not' are each two words. 'Submitted' is one word.
by The New Nordic Union » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:10 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The real question for American lawyers and law students is... Is "Submit'd" a proper Bluebook abbreviation?
by WayNeacTia » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:03 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Youssath » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:33 am
by Kenmoria » Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:41 am
by Great Nortend » Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:21 am
by Youssath » Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:17 am
Great Nortend wrote:It still seems rather vague as to whether private prisons are allowed. Why should private prisons (which presumably can only exist if they are non-profit) be held to higher standards than public prisons? Honest question.
Maowi wrote:How are you measuring the 'average standards of a public prison' in a quantifiable way where you can find 10%? This is a genuine question ... although if you can't answer it that's something to think about.
Maowi wrote:can you lose the bolding?
by WayNeacTia » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:18 am
Youssath wrote:Withdraw the resolution, Free Santa Rosa. There are prominent flaws in the resolution that needs to be addressed and I think to campaign before submitting a proposal and to win over Marxist Germany's support should be prioritized here.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Bears Armed » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:24 am
Youssath wrote:"Also, private prisons already have a monetary incentive to take up more inmates as compared to public prisons - since they do receive grants from receiving inmates - and we understand that some private corporations might take up this opportunity to "over-capacitate" themselves to receive greater funding from the government. This ultimately hurts the well-being and welfare of the prisoners as a whole"
by Youssath » Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:45 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Youssath wrote:"Also, private prisons already have a monetary incentive to take up more inmates as compared to public prisons - since they do receive grants from receiving inmates - and we understand that some private corporations might take up this opportunity to "over-capacitate" themselves to receive greater funding from the government. This ultimately hurts the well-being and welfare of the prisoners as a whole"
"On the other paw, some governments might -- as you phrase it -- 'over-capacitate' the prisons that they themselves own and operate in order to economise on the construction budget... so might not a proposal against overcrowding in both categories of prison serve better?"
Hwa Sue,
Legal Attaché,
Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly
(and anthropomorphic male Giant Panda).
by Liberimery » Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:32 am
by Aclion » Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:42 am
Wayneactia wrote:Youssath wrote:Withdraw the resolution, Free Santa Rosa. There are prominent flaws in the resolution that needs to be addressed and I think to campaign before submitting a proposal and to win over Marxist Germany's support should be prioritized here.
Please explain when MG became so damn important? He is one vote and that is it. He has zero sway over anyone that could make this a reality.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan
Advertisement