Quelesh wrote:I'm also glad you'll be requesting it be pulled pending a redraft, as it could use some further work.
I do like this idea. Of course, I think that nations' criminal justice systems should focus more on rehabilitation and less on punishment and imprisonment anyway, but as long as people are being locked up in prison, they have the right to medical care.
Just a couple things that jumped out at me about the current version:Correctional Facility as any government building whose purpose is to house criminals as punishment.
This is a pretty big loophole. Not only does it not apply to any nation that confined its prisoners somewhere other than a building as such, it also does not apply to any nation that uses private prisons, as it only applies to government buildings.a) Employs two full time psychiatrists and two full time physicians; each of which working on separate shifts. The first working during the day, and the second during the night. At least one qualified psychiatrist and one qualified physician must be present in the medical ward at all times.
I don't generally complain about micromanagement, but this seems like excessive specificity.b) Employs orderlies at a two to one ratio to ensure that prisoners are ensured medical attention at all times. At least one orderly for every two prisoners must be present in the medical ward at all times.
Does this mean that in a prison with 400 inmates, there must be present in the medical word at least 200 medical orderlies at all times? If that is what you mean, that's absurdly excessive. If it's not what you mean, then this clause desperately needs to be clarified.c) Allows immediate access to anaesthesia, analgesics, and other such drugs to all prisoners.
This clause could do with the addition of "when medically necessary" or some such phrase. Otherwise, it means that all prisoners must, at all times, be able to access these drugs, whether they need them or not, whether they need any medical attention at all or not.d) Provides and adequate number of sleeping quarters; enough to accommodate 35% of the correctional facility's residents.
This clause is confusing and needs to be reworked. It seems to say that prisons only need to have enough room to house 35% of the people they currently house, but that makes no sense. I get the feeling that your intent here is to say "no more than three to a cell." If so, this needs to be expressed much more clearly in the clause.
The number of people in a cell might not be the best way to measure how much space people have anyway. Three people in a 5 ft x 10 ft cell is a lot different than three people in a 15 ft x 30 ft cell. Perhaps specifying the minimum number of square feet per person would work better?STIPULATING that capital punishment or State regulated executions by drugs be painless, effectively killing the accused quickly and painlessly.
Execution seems to be beyond the scope of the resolution. If you want to write a resolution saying that executions must be as humane and painless as possible, I suggest a separate resolution (for some reason, GAR112 doesn't do that). This particular clause would only apply to executions where death is caused by drugs, anyway. Other methods of execution could still be quite painful, so long as they didn't violate GAR9.
Thank you Quelesh, I've changed the draft accordingly. I would have never caught that "Correctional Facility" loophole if you hadn't pointed it out.