[DRAFT] Promoting Prisoner Work and Skills

[Separatist Peoples]

I already asked you what compromise you wanted and you responded by touting a distinction between criminal and civil law that I'm pretty sure is wrong (or, at least, very incomplete). What good faith engagement from me are you looking for?

Ooc: given I'm drawing on my Ooc private civil practice experience, I'm pretty confident that it's not wrong.

Ic: "The initial criticism included the solution, ambassador. Not forcing states to impose work restrictions on all prisoners is the solution. Voluntary labor programs eliminate inefficient labor practices and not conditioning leisure on labor reduces the incidence of violence in prisons."

Can we agree that restitution to victims is a legitimate facet of the criminal law? Or that promoting rehabilitation and a successful re-entry to society is a legitimate facet of the criminal law?

"I can agree to the latter, and the entirety of my argument has been based on the concern that this policy has on rehabilitation as much as it attempts to blur the role of civil and criminal court systems."

If so, then you're just being unimaginative about the concept and how to fairly achieve its aims. Put aside your predispositions about what criminal law should and should not do.

"Arguments criticizing my creativity when addressing the failures of the proposed policy to fit within the clearly delineated concepts of civil law vs criminal law sound to me like somebody who is defensive about their own bad information and are trying to convince me to overlook the myriad of technical concerns. That is why, the meters and bounds of criminal and civil law matter to me."

What exactly is wrong with conditioning the use and enjoyment of prison leisure offering on the agreement to work and thereby both engage in rehabilitation and earn money toward paying restitution.

"Because denying incarcerated populations recreational opportunities increases violence among convicts and against guards. Because conditioning those opportunities on labor is a coercive effect that will breed as much resentment as actual labor. Because coerced labor is of poor quality, which relegate prison labor to those tasks where labor quality is irrelevant, which are generally done better by machines to begin with. Because rehabilitation can only be achieved if a party wants to be rehabilitated, and resentment from being forced to so engage will sabotage rehabilitation and create recidivism. Because civil remedies, being born of civil causes of action tailored to specific intrapersonal interactions, are a better avenue for restitution than criminal law, which is primarily subject to the state's interests and expectations. Because restitution, broadly, can rely on remedies in contract or tort, and are dependant on societal norms and party expectations and not statute or direct state concerns. Because mandating restitution prevents prosecutors from using agreements to repay debts in a plea deal, increasing the need for trials and preventing parties from coming to an agreement as is the case in civil law. The best alternative is to let work opportunities to be voluntary for prisoners. The opportunity for repayment is, therefore, available but without need for blurring the lines between criminal and civil law and without coercing labor."

Surely, as I have agreed, we should not say you must work. But if you won't work (for instance, to repay the family whose money you stole), why is it so unreasonable to say "that's fine, but then you cannot enjoy the prison television and game room"?

"Ibid. But, again, I'm just as happy to address this politically and not through discussion, so yo can take or leave my concerns, ambassador."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"The initial criticism included the solution, ambassador. Not forcing states to impose work restrictions on all prisoners is the solution. Voluntary labor programs eliminate inefficient labor practices and not conditioning leisure on labor reduces the incidence of violence in prisons."

Can we agree that restitution to victims is a legitimate facet of the criminal law? Or that promoting rehabilitation and a successful re-entry to society is a legitimate facet of the criminal law?

"I can agree to the latter, and the entirety of my argument has been based on the concern that this policy has on rehabilitation as much as it attempts to blur the role of civil and criminal court systems."

* * * * *

What exactly is wrong with conditioning the use and enjoyment of prison leisure offering on the agreement to work and thereby both engage in rehabilitation and earn money toward paying restitution.

"Because denying incarcerated populations recreational opportunities increases violence among convicts and against guards. Because conditioning those opportunities on labor is a coercive effect that will breed as much resentment as actual labor. Because coerced labor is of poor quality, which relegate prison labor to those tasks where labor quality is irrelevant, which are generally done better by machines to begin with. Because rehabilitation can only be achieved if a party wants to be rehabilitated, and resentment from being forced to so engage will sabotage rehabilitation and create recidivism. Because civil remedies, being born of civil causes of action tailored to specific intrapersonal interactions, are a better avenue for restitution than criminal law, which is primarily subject to the state's interests and expectations. Because restitution, broadly, can rely on remedies in contract or tort, and are dependant on societal norms and party expectations and not statute or direct state concerns. Because mandating restitution prevents prosecutors from using agreements to repay debts in a plea deal, increasing the need for trials and preventing parties from coming to an agreement as is the case in civil law."

I will wait for further feedback on this issue.

I am reluctant to accept your solution, because I reject the premise that restitution is not a legitimate aim of the criminal law. While civil actions are one option for certain victims to pursue (usually wealthy ones, or ones whose victimizer has deep pockets or a nice insurance policy), that option does not preclude society exploring other mechanisms. Particularly where what I purpose not only promotes restitution but also other penological interests we agree on like reformation and rehabilitation.

On that subject, I don't think conditioning recreational opportunities on labor is unfair or coercive. We all deal with that all the time. I have to work to earn money so I can take my kid to Disneyland. That doesn't mean I've been compelled to work against my will, or that my employer, country, and Disneyland have effectively coerced me to work. It also doesn't mean I will produce poor quality work. Most people work because of a concrete incentive and not merely for personal enjoyment or betterment; it's a basic tenant of every economic system. In radical communism, you work for the gains of the collective and your proportional enjoyment of those gains. In a capitalism... well, obviously. Even in a radical anarchy, you work to steal the neighboring marauders' oil supply and to prevent that other band of marauders from doing the same to you.

I question the rationale that people may become violent if you don't give them free entertainment as a sound basis for giving anyone (including my toddler) free stuff. And, while I agree that people have to want to be rehabilitated, incentives can help the "want to." That is part of the idea of incarceration as a punishment in the first place: a consequence you wish to avoid by conforming behavior to a different standard. If you really think about it, giving free recreation is sort of a perverse incentive for some people. I'm not talking about conditioning food, water, or medical care here. I'm surprised by the resistance to making HBO an earned privilege.

It is still early and I just proposed the incentive provision after removing the (admittedly draconian) hard mandate. So far I have not heard much chorus demanding that leisure privileges not be contingent on a willingness to work. Earning something (including privileges) in exchange for labor is the basic premise of many societies. I think I've drawn the line fairly but I'll wait to hear from other interested parties.

I already asked you what compromise you wanted and you responded by touting a distinction between criminal and civil law that I'm pretty sure is wrong (or, at least, very incomplete). What good faith engagement from me are you looking for?

Ooc: given I'm drawing on my Ooc private civil practice experience, I'm pretty confident that it's not wrong.

OOC: Let's call it incomplete then. The existence of civil remedies in purely civil matters is not - and never has been - an expressed or implied limit on what states can do to assist crime victims in being made whole in the criminal system.

[Separatist Peoples]

Particularly where what I purpose not only promotes restitution but also other penological interests we agree on like reformation and rehabilitation.

On that subject, I don't think conditioning recreational opportunities on labor is unfair or coercive. We all deal with that all the time. I have to work to earn money so I can take my kid to Disneyland. That doesn't mean I've been compelled to work against my will, or that my employer, country, and Disneyland have effectively coerced me to work.

"The notable difference is thar you are free to come and go essentially anywhere, socialize freely, and return to your own space. Prisoners are bound, physically and metaphorically, and have no other outlets. Either the prison can keep inmates busy, or the inmates will keep the prison busy.

It also doesn't mean I will produce poor quality work. Most people work because of a concrete incentive and not merely for personal enjoyment or betterment; it's a basic tenant of every economic system. In radical communism, you work for the gains of the collective and your proportional enjoyment of those gains In a capitalism... well, obviously. Even in a radical anarchy, you work to steal the neighboring marauders' oil supply and to prevent that other band of marauders from doing the same to you.

"Correct. People work for incentives. If they want the incentive, they work hard for it, usually putting energy into doing a satisfactory job. If the incentive isnt motivating, their labor will be lessened. Thus why slave labor rarely outputs high quality. In a mechanized society, the labor output from a coerced workforce will be poor, and likely not better than a machine can accommodate. Like smashing rocks or digging trenches."

I question the rationale that people may become violent if you don't give them free entertainment as a sound basis for giving anyone (including my toddler) free stuff. And, while I agree that people have to want to be rehabilitated, incentives can help the "want to." That is part of the idea of incarceration as a punishment in the first place: a consequence you wish to avoid by conforming behavior to a different standard. If you really think about it, giving free recreation is sort of a perverse incentive for some people. I'm not talking about conditioning food, water, or medical care here. I'm surprised by the resistance to making HBO an earned privilege.

"While I might agree, the difficulties of prison necessitate perverse incentives. Recreational activities keep inmates focused on at least neutral uses of energy and not planning how to ruin a guard's day or rob a bunk. It limits energy being used destructively on property and people and gives a sense of community essential for rehabilitation to thrive.

"Prisons are antithetical to the nature of sentient beings. Small wonder that hard time produces unbalanced recidivists. If you've no sympathy for those incarcerated, have sympathy for those cleaning up the mess.

"Coercing prisoners to work for that bare modicum of recreation is just going to drive recalcitrant prisoners (of which there are many) to seek alternative outlets, none of which are good."

It is still early and I just proposed the incentive provision after removing the (admittedly draconian) hard mandate. So far I have not heard much chorus demanding that leisure privileges not be contingent on a willingness to work. Earning something (including privileges) in exchange for labor is the basic premise of many societies. I think I've drawn the line fairly but I'll wait to hear from other interested parties.

"Seeking alternative input is fair. I do not think it is wrong to offer incentives to work. I do think conditioning all leisure options on working is an unrealistic and impractical view of the necessity of leisure in prison and the application of prison work programs, which is not fair."

Ooc: despite that, civil remedies are preferred. Not least of which because the burden of proof is much lower. It's not clear why you'd deliberately foist a higher factual burden to show specific damages on victims of crime.

[Comfed]

Article IV (g) is needless interference and micromanagement of national prison systems.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*Arguments against conditioning access to recreational activities on willingness to work*

Okay, well I still believe that having prisoners earn leisure activities by working is a valid policy, and in particular it addresses the following point made by our esteemed colleague:

[What about incentives for] those who do not wish to work due to having a life sentence and thus being unable to access any funds they may earn * * * .

That said, I can agree that requiring member nations to adopt that policy is unfriendly to other valid approaches. I can afford to water it down without damaging the overall aims of this proposal. As an offer of compromise, I've changed the provision from a must-do to a mere encouragement.

Hopefully, that will be sufficient to satisfy us both.

Ooc: despite that, civil remedies are preferred. Not least of which because the burden of proof is much lower. It's not clear why you'd deliberately foist a higher factual burden to show specific damages on victims of crime.

You're not foisting a higher burden on to show damages on the victim. In crimes with a victim, the state already had to prove there was harm to the victim beyond a reasonable doubt. Once that has been proved, it is wasteful and inefficient to require the victim to mount a new, separate civil action to reprove the same thing (even if by a lower standard of proof). This is why restitution proceedings are folded into the criminal process in the first place. For an example, see here.

[Barfleur]

OOC: As the coauthor of GA#534, I believe that this proposal does largely the same things at that resolution. GA#534 sec. 2(e) already requires prisoners to be allowed to work if they so choose, and sec. 3(d) requires their compensation to be pegged to that which a free worker would be entitled to.

[Makko Oko]

OOC: As the coauthor of GA#534, I believe that this proposal does largely the same things at that resolution. GA#534 sec. 2(e) already requires prisoners to be allowed to work if they so choose, and sec. 3(d) requires their compensation to be pegged to that which a free worker would be entitled to.

OOC: Would that compensation not be nothing since 'free' worker? Just curious, not complaining or anything and nor am I providing feedback

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

OOC: As the coauthor of GA#534, I believe that this proposal does largely the same things at that resolution. GA#534 sec. 2(e) already requires prisoners to be allowed to work if they so choose, and sec. 3(d) requires their compensation to be pegged to that which a free worker would be entitled to.

I do try to research what has already been done and I saw that elements of this topic were (very briefly) touched on in a broad prisoner's rights proposal. I intentionally tried to do enough differently to qualify this as a distinct and non-duplicative proposal.

GAR #534 Part 2.e "Prohibits: * * * barring prisoners from the opportunity to voluntarily carry out a service or activity as a form of paid labor." This proposal goes well beyond that limited prohibition. It requires that prisoners be permitted to perform work full-time (a concept defined in the proposal). That is a substantially different and stronger provision than the general right to not be barred from some opportunity to work. This proposal also includes incentives for prisoners to do work. It includes provisions for job training. It includes provisions regarding who prisoners may work for, and under what conditions. I believe the provisions here clearly go beyond GAR #534's very limited treatment of the subject. I note that GAR #534 does not purport to block further legislation on the matter, such as by reserving the right to regulate prison work to member nations or by prohibiting any further WA action on the subject. I think it's unfair to say that all the several provisions put together in this proposal largely do the same thing as that one line from GAR # 534. Don't you?

GAR # 534 Part 3.d: "Requires that: * * * 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." There is undeniable overlap between that line and the current Article IV.d of this proposal, which says: "Member nations must allow prisoners to be paid a fair wage for their work, in light of their abilities, work quality, and financial needs." I do not believe the two provisions contradict one another. I think any duplication is minor, given the overall differences in the proposals which I addressed above. If GAR # 534 is ever repealed for any reason, this proposal needs language about fair wages. I believe it falls into the long-standing WA tradition of allowing minor duplication among proposals that otherwise do and accomplish different things. But of course if there is an actual game rules violation over this I will remove Article IV.d.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Re 2(e): I agree with you there, your proposal does go beyond what GA#534 touched on, and so I think that part is legal. I apologize for challenging that. But re 3(d), I still think the proposal simply duplicates what GA#534 already says. And I don't think the duplication is particularly minor, as the two clauses overlap one another very closely and do the exact same thing. If GA#534 were to be repealed, then I might support reenacting parts of it in a different proposal. But that is a conversation for another day.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Re 2(e): I agree with you there, your proposal does go beyond what GA#534 touched on, and so I think that part is legal. I apologize for challenging that. But re 3(d), I still think the proposal simply duplicates what GA#534 already says. And I don't think the duplication is particularly minor, as the two clauses overlap one another very closely and do the exact same thing. If GA#534 were to be repealed, then I might support reenacting parts of it in a different proposal. But that is a conversation for another day.

Ooc: My take on this is that the minor duplication is a substantive issue w/r/t the ecstsnt resolution. 534 addresses this right very lightly, and the draft seeks to address it comprehensively. I suspect that, even if they do the same thing, a majority of GenSec wouldn't see it as impermissible. It sure doesn't seem that way to me.

OP, I think you good.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would call any such duplication minor and reject the challenge.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Thank you all.

This fell off the first page, so I'm bumping it back up to see if there are further comments, critiques or suggestions.

[Juansonia]

OOC: As the coauthor of GA#534, I believe that this proposal does largely the same things at that resolution. GA#534 sec. 2(e) already requires prisoners to be allowed to work if they so choose, and sec. 3(d) requires their compensation to be pegged to that which a free worker would be entitled to.

OOC: Would that compensation not be nothing since 'free' worker? Just curious, not complaining or anything and nor am I providing feedback

free as in freedom, not free as in free beer.

[Attempted Socialism]

- I will voice my concern with IV(g) along with the others who have done so.
- With IV(d) just requiring that states allow prisoners to be paid a fair wage, there is inadequate protection for the workers. This allows for prisoners to be used to dump wages, as an attack on the workforce in general, and to be individually exploited with a merely "fair" wage. I would like (At minimum) an edit to the clause ensuring that union membership is allowed, that pay is commensurate to a non-prisoner worker doing the same or similar job, and that other benefits (Pensions, unemployment benefits if applicable, the like) are included in that wage.
- With the definition of work, prisoners are not allowed, for instance, to work part-time if it suits their health or disposition better. I'm also opposed to setting the bar at the average or 2/3 of waking hours, whichever greater. If a national average is around 40 hours/week, and we go with 8 hours sleep/day, that is 2/3*16*7=~75h/week for work, as a requirement to be allowed to work at all. The discrepancy between regular workers working 40 hours and a prisoner being required to work at least 75 hours is a large flaw in the draft as it currently stands.
- The definition of training programme excludes general education (At least as I read it; general education whether at primary, secondary, or tertiary levels rarely teach directly work-related skills, after all) without any good reason. I hope that is an oversight.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

- I will voice my concern with IV(g) along with the others who have done so.
- With IV(d) just requiring that states allow prisoners to be paid a fair wage, there is inadequate protection for the workers. This allows for prisoners to be used to dump wages, as an attack on the workforce in general, and to be individually exploited with a merely "fair" wage. I would like (At minimum) an edit to the clause ensuring that union membership is allowed, that pay is commensurate to a non-prisoner worker doing the same or similar job, and that other benefits (Pensions, unemployment benefits if applicable, the like) are included in that wage.
- With the definition of work, prisoners are not allowed, for instance, to work part-time if it suits their health or disposition better. I'm also opposed to setting the bar at the average or 2/3 of waking hours, whichever greater. If a national average is around 40 hours/week, and we go with 8 hours sleep/day, that is 2/3*16*7=~75h/week for work, as a requirement to be allowed to work at all. The discrepancy between regular workers working 40 hours and a prisoner being required to work at least 75 hours is a large flaw in the draft as it currently stands.
- The definition of training programme excludes general education (At least as I read it; general education whether at primary, secondary, or tertiary levels rarely teach directly work-related skills, after all) without any good reason. I hope that is an oversight.

I'll address the remainder of these solid points later (gotta run), but I wanted to address the last one really quick. It's not an oversight. I am pursuing an advancement of industry aim here with a focus on work and related skills. I have tried not to include any blockers so that others may pursue prison education initiatives (and I'm happy to add anti-blocker language if you think it needs). But that would go beyond the scope of this particular resolution and infringe on some future author's freedom to address education for prisoners comprehensively.

More to come on the remaining points.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Turning at last to this, to round out my WA activity for the morning.

- I will voice my concern with IV(g) along with the others who have done so.

Previously voiced concerns with IV(g) have already been addressed in the present draft, by accepting the request of the Eminent Ambassador from Separatist Peoples that the provision not be mandatory. It is merely an 'urges' clause now. Nations that believe it is legitimate to condition prison leisure activities on work in order to promote work, but maybe had not thought of it, will be encouraged to consider that option (which serves the work and skills promotion aim of this proposal). Nations that wish to pacify prisoners who refuse to work and would become violent if you took away their foosball time - or pursue whatever other national policies regarding prison leisure activities - remain free to do so. If you have other particular concerns or requests on this let me know!

- With IV(d) just requiring that states allow prisoners to be paid a fair wage, there is inadequate protection for the workers. This allows for prisoners to be used to dump wages, as an attack on the workforce in general, and to be individually exploited with a merely "fair" wage. I would like (At minimum) an edit to the clause ensuring that union membership is allowed, that pay is commensurate to a non-prisoner worker doing the same or similar job, and that other benefits (Pensions, unemployment benefits if applicable, the like) are included in that wage.

I just had the ambassador from Barfleur complain that I was treading on their toes on this issue. I'd rather not encroach further on ground staked out by GAR #534, which already has several of the wage provisions you're requesting here. (Aside: while I understand your concerns, I disagree that workers should necessarily be guaranteed the same pay as other workers. Other workers have financial needs which prisoners, by virtue of their incarceration, do not. Other workers enjoy liberties that enable them to provide greater service to employers which prisoners, by virtue of their incarceration, do not. There are market reasons to pay the two groups differently that I don't feel like meddling in under the circumstances).

With respect to union membership... I'm open to suggestion on language there but I'd want it pretty limited. I'd point out again that prisoners are in a very different set of circumstances than other workers who may bargain for their kids' dental plans and cost-of-living increases and the like. Any bargaining a prisoners union could do would be subject to strict and total override by prison officials for security reasons. I think a broader proposal on prisoner union rights might be made. I'm not stepping deeply into that hornet's nest here.

- With the definition of work, prisoners are not allowed, for instance, to work part-time if it suits their health or disposition better. I'm also opposed to setting the bar at the average or 2/3 of waking hours, whichever greater. If a national average is around 40 hours/week, and we go with 8 hours sleep/day, that is 2/3*16*7=~75h/week for work, as a requirement to be allowed to work at all. The discrepancy between regular workers working 40 hours and a prisoner being required to work at least 75 hours is a large flaw in the draft as it currently stands.

The proposal just says that prisoners must be allowed to work that much. My thought was: what else are they doing? Some may wish to spend that kind of time working and earning money that they can use when they are released. If they want to work like farmers or others who put in hours like that why not let them?

The right to some opportunity to work (i.e. part-time work) is already covered by the aforementioned GAR #534.

[Yerbanistan]

"Prisoner? What prisoner?"

Maxim Yachingov, Chancellor of Yerbanistan

---

"This is a joke. Why do other countries like to pamper criminals so much? Not only are you rewarding them with free food and housing, you are also letting them get rich on society's dime. This reckless policy will make people commit more crimes to get into prison and win a free ride from the state. Not here, we simply execute all of them."

Abdülaziz Aslanov, Chief Judge and Chairman of the Supreme People's Court of Yerbanistan

[Comfed]

Not here, we simply execute all of them.

Then you are in violation of GA#535 and possibly also GA#545.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Prisoner? What prisoner?"

Maxim Yachingov, Chancellor of Yerbanistan

---

"This is a joke. Why do other countries like to pamper criminals so much? Not only are you rewarding them with free food and housing, you are also letting them get rich on society's dime. This reckless policy will make people commit more crimes to get into prison and win a free ride from the state. Not here, we simply execute all of them."

Abdülaziz Aslanov, Chief Judge and Chairman of the Supreme People's Court of Yerbanistan

Pssh. Since when has encouraging someone to get a job been "pampering." Kids these days...

[Separatist Peoples]

"Prisoner? What prisoner?"

Maxim Yachingov, Chancellor of Yerbanistan

---

"This is a joke. Why do other countries like to pamper criminals so much? Not only are you rewarding them with free food and housing, you are also letting them get rich on society's dime. This reckless policy will make people commit more crimes to get into prison and win a free ride from the state. Not here, we simply execute all of them."

Abdülaziz Aslanov, Chief Judge and Chairman of the Supreme People's Court of Yerbanistan

Pssh. Since when has encouraging someone to get a job been "pampering." Kids these days...

Bell sighs heavily. "Isn't it a shame how civil discussion of a balance between human rights and legitimate criminal justice concerns brings out the orcs in such droves? And yet people still ask me why I spend more time in my office and less on the floor..."