Advertisement
by Araraukar » Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:19 am
United States of Americanas wrote:Though the ethical solution would be to enact a minimum standards of national civil rights and political freedoms to be a member of the WA.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Canadian Republic Colonies » Sat Mar 02, 2019 6:07 pm
The Canadian Republic Colonies - Canada For All ; All For Canada
by Maowi » Sun Mar 03, 2019 3:42 am
The Canadian Republic Colonies wrote:I would say my biggest concern is the wide depth of this proposal. It fails to coherently address enough of the issue related to solitary confinement and fails to properly define what solitary truly is. It does not make mention of what would fully constitute solitary in regards to a time frame. It mentions that a time frame is to be used to justify whether it is Solitary or not, however fails to lay anything further. No guidelines are provided for alternatives. Because of this, and because it mentions studies but fails to provide citations to those studies, We must vote no. We do believe that solitary confinement is to be considered in very certain circumstances, such as an offender who voluntarily wants to be alone. These situations are not mentioned. In the way the law is written here, a patient even being in a private room in hospital would be against this law. There is far too much open endedness. Once this law is polished further, it will be good to go. But as it stands, it needs lots of work. The good thing is that it opens up international talks to hopefully get to a point where a law that covers all that is needed can come to light.
by Marxist Germany » Sun Mar 03, 2019 4:43 am
Maowi wrote:The Canadian Republic Colonies wrote:I would say my biggest concern is the wide depth of this proposal. It fails to coherently address enough of the issue related to solitary confinement and fails to properly define what solitary truly is. It does not make mention of what would fully constitute solitary in regards to a time frame. It mentions that a time frame is to be used to justify whether it is Solitary or not, however fails to lay anything further. No guidelines are provided for alternatives. Because of this, and because it mentions studies but fails to provide citations to those studies, We must vote no. We do believe that solitary confinement is to be considered in very certain circumstances, such as an offender who voluntarily wants to be alone. These situations are not mentioned. In the way the law is written here, a patient even being in a private room in hospital would be against this law. There is far too much open endedness. Once this law is polished further, it will be good to go. But as it stands, it needs lots of work. The good thing is that it opens up international talks to hopefully get to a point where a law that covers all that is needed can come to light.
I thought it better to not define a strict time frame for the definition of solitary given the enormous range of sapient species present in the NS multiverse. For one, being in solitary for 6 days could be harmful; for another, 5 hours might drive them crazy.
Regarding the studies, it would be a RL reference to include citations of studies from RL proving the adverse health effects of solitary, but I can provide them here. This is just one example:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326
And about your last clause, putting a willing prisoner in solitary would not, regarding this proposal, be considered solitary confinement, as solitary is defined as the involuntary confinement ... etc.
by Kenmoria » Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:15 am
Marxist Germany wrote:Maowi wrote:
I thought it better to not define a strict time frame for the definition of solitary given the enormous range of sapient species present in the NS multiverse. For one, being in solitary for 6 days could be harmful; for another, 5 hours might drive them crazy.
Regarding the studies, it would be a RL reference to include citations of studies from RL proving the adverse health effects of solitary, but I can provide them here. This is just one example:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326
And about your last clause, putting a willing prisoner in solitary would not, regarding this proposal, be considered solitary confinement, as solitary is defined as the involuntary confinement ... etc.
Why would anyone willingly go there?
by Marxist Germany » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:17 am
by Kenmoria » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:54 am
Soviet Confederacy wrote:This resolution is way to vague.
by Salcanceacy » Sun Mar 03, 2019 8:16 am
by Araraukar » Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:28 pm
Salcanceacy wrote:RIP resolution
"Restricting Solitary Confinement" was defeated 11,224 votes to 4,373.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Maowi » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:26 pm
Araraukar wrote:To author: I hope you try again (though remember you need to make a new thread as this one will be archived), because it looks like the biggest failing was people not understanding you're not actually banning solitary confinement, but merely restricting it. Do you know what was in the campaign TG?
by Araraukar » Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:12 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Daphomir
Advertisement