NationStates Jolt Archive

Unified Criminal Isolation, or UCI, is a program in which criminals with arrest warrants in two or more different countries will be isolated from the rest of the world in a high security prison. The criminals will await a decision on what their fate shall be. UCI will make sure the criminals remain here until that decision is made. This will ensure a neutral captivity while the countries decide what is to be done.

1.) All criminals with non-minor arrest warrants in more then one country will be brought here to await the decisions of which country they would be sent to.

2.) A top of the line security system will be installed, as well as strictly trained guards will be placed to ensure minimal if any uprising or escape attempts.

3.) Upon the decision completion the criminal will be immediately and securely escorted to the country in which the criminal will receive his/her just deserts.

4.) The funding will be split by all countries involved making it less expensive to each individual country.

Unified Criminal Isolation, or UCI, is a program in which criminals with arrest warrants in two or more different countries will be isolated from the rest of the world in a high security prison. The criminals will await a decision on what their fate shall be. UCI will make sure the criminals remain here until that decision is made. This will ensure a neutral captivity while the countries decide what is to be done.

1.) All criminals with arrest warrants in more then one country will be brought here to await the decisions of which country they would be sent to.

2.) A top of the line security system will be installed, as well as strictly trained guards will be placed to ensure minimal if any uprising or escape attempts.

3.) Upon the decision completion the criminal will be immediately and securely escorted to the country in which the criminal will receive his/her just deserts.

4.) The funding will be split by all countries involved making it less expensive to each individual country.

Two examples :-

First

What if my nation has found a person against whom there are two warrents, but neither of them have been served by my nation, and the two warrants are for something that my nation does not consider a crime.

Would this act compel me to hold this person? And would this act compel me to turn him over to the nations that served the warrents?

Second

What if a person has had two warrants served against him for something my nation would consider a crime, but but of these nations have the death penalty for this crime. My nation doesn't have the death penalty and would not be willing to turn someone over to a nation that would execute them. Would this act compel me to?

Two examples :-

First

What if my nation has found a person against whom there are two warrents, but neither of them have been served by my nation, and the two warrants are for something that my nation does not consider a crime.

Would this act compel me to hold this person? And would this act compel me to turn him over to the nations that served the warrents?

Warrents tend to have rewards for capturing the criminal. But what does that have to do with with UCI? The whole point of Unified Criminal Isolation is that it would hold the criminals while the nations decide what to do with them.

Second

What if a person has had two warrants served against him for something my nation would consider a crime, but but of these nations have the death penalty for this crime. My nation doesn't have the death penalty and would not be willing to turn someone over to a nation that would execute them. Would this act compel me to?

Unified Criminal Isolation would be a facility that would hold the criminals while the nations decide what to do with the criminal(s). UCI would then then have the criminals safely shipped to the country in which BOTH countries have decided would receive him. And if a differant course of action is decided (such as having him/her tried in a court that has all countries effected involved) the UCI will make sure the criminal gets where he/she is required to be.

Say there is someone who has been issued arrest warrants in two nations for non-violently making speeches expressing a point of view which is illegal in those 2 nations. We would want to prevent either of those nations being able to punish this person, so we would oppose the use of any system which helped those nations to bring him/her to "justice".

Well, I'd say to your primary example, that it would be governing upon the principles of Extradition.... ie. that you are not requred, by any law, and can never be required, by any law, upon your soveriegnty, to turn over someone accused of a crime in one or more other states, whereby the crime they are accused of by the other state(s) are not crimes in your nation. IOW. If someone has charges on them, one from a Theocratic Government for violation of some mandated religious practice, and in another despotic state for speaking against the government, and he is in your nation, that is a Democratic Free Republic... that you cannot be compeled to turn him over... as under your law, he has commited no crime (No nation is compelled to turn over any criminal to another nation, unless the crime he committed in the other nation is also a crime in yours). This is consistent with the principles exspoused in the Rights and Duties resolution. He, being in your borders, is subject upon your own sovereignty, to the duties and governance of your nation. And therefore cannot be held accountable for non-crimes... that if political freedom and religious freedom is maintaned in your state, that laws of other nations enforcement upon their populace are inapplicable to your state, and therefore, under your own provisional concepts, cannot arrest him, as he has commited no crime. On the flip side, the allowance of extradition would be applicable in a case where he has commited murder, as it is likely that is illegal in your nation and theirs.

AS to the author, I would need assurance, in the proposal, that this will not attempt to violate the principle of extraditionary clause, as I have stated. If it does, then regardless of your intent or the "overall good" of the proposal, I must reject it as illegal legislation.

I REMOVED THE SECTION THAT VIOLATED THE EXTRADITIONARY CLAUSE BEFORE ANYBODY VIEWED THIS WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL ARGUING OVER IT?
THIS IS ALL THE PROPOSAL SHOULD STATE, IF YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PROPOSAL PLEASE DISREGARD.

Unified Criminal Isolation, or UCI, is a program in which criminals with arrest warrants in two or more different countries will be isolated from the rest of the world in a high security prison. The criminals will await a decision on what their fate shall be. UCI will make sure the criminals remain here until that decision is made. This will ensure a neutral captivity while the countries decide what is to be done.

1.) All criminals with non-minor arrest warrants in more then one country will be brought here to await the decisions of which country they would be sent to.

2.) A top of the line security system will be installed, as well as strictly trained guards will be placed to ensure minimal if any uprising or escape attempts.

3.) Upon the decision completion the criminal will be immediately and securely escorted to the country in which the criminal will receive his/her just deserts.

4.) The funding will be split by all countries involved making it less expensive to each individual country.

I am concerned that two countries will 'gang up' on a person.

Say two countries are allies. Say one country has a political enemy. Say the other puts out a warrant. The person is yanked to your prison until… when? Whenever it's convenient for them to punish them.

How would your proposal ensure this doesn’t happen?

Also; don't yell at your critics, you won't win them over.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Warrents tend to have rewards for capturing the criminal. But what does that have to do with with UCI? The whole point of Unified Criminal Isolation is that it would hold the criminals while the nations decide what to do with them.


I was using warrent in the sense that - in my nation at least - a warrent is what you get from a judge to arrest someone. So if someone has a warrent outstanding against them they are wanted in connection with that crime.

So if two nations are looking for a criminal then I would assume that - in my terminology at least - they would have warrents from both nations against them.

And so if I find out that Mr X is hiding in my nation, when two other nations want him for various crimes, but none of these crimes are judged as crimes in my country. Would this proposal compel me to hold this person in Isolation? Or could I just let them go?


Unified Criminal Isolation would be a facility that would hold the criminals while the nations decide what to do with the criminal(s). UCI would then then have the criminals safely shipped to the country in which BOTH countries have decided would receive him. And if a differant course of action is decided (such as having him/her tried in a court that has all countries effected involved) the UCI will make sure the criminal gets where he/she is required to be.

But suppose you have a situation where there are two nations - mine and GeminiLand. And Mr Y blew up buildings in both of them, cause he was bored. GeminiLand want him executed, as blowing things up is a capital offence in that nation. I have no capital offences, and will not turn him over to be executed. Neither of us back down, so who decides? Who wins? And would I be compelled to send this man to his death despite my nations ban on execution?

I REMOVED THE SECTION THAT VIOLATED THE EXTRADITIONARY CLAUSE BEFORE ANYBODY VIEWED THIS WHY ARE PEOPLE STILL ARGUING OVER IT?
THIS IS ALL THE PROPOSAL SHOULD STATE, IF YOU SEE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE PROPOSAL PLEASE DISREGARD.


Because the rest of the proposal still relates to turning criminals over to an independent body.

But.....


Unified Criminal Isolation, or UCI, is a program in which criminals with arrest warrants in two or more different countries will be isolated from the rest of the world in a high security prison. The criminals will await a decision on what their fate shall be. UCI will make sure the criminals remain here until that decision is made. This will ensure a neutral captivity while the countries decide what is to be done.


Even if you discount the extradtion part, there is still the matter of who decides what the fate of the criminal shall be.


1.) All criminals with non-minor arrest warrants in more then one country will be brought here to await the decisions of which country they would be sent to.


Non minor? To the victim of a crime it probably isn't non-minor. And what might be considered minor in my nation (taking the name of The Lords in vain for example) might be way more serious in another.


2.) A top of the line security system will be installed, as well as strictly trained guards will be placed to ensure minimal if any uprising or escape attempts.


If there is to be a prison, then I have no problem with it being secure.


3.) Upon the decision completion the criminal will be immediately and securely escorted to the country in which the criminal will receive his/her just deserts.


This is where I have another problem - I would not let someone accused of a crime in my country be taken to a country where they might be executed, or treated in an inhumane and cruel manner. My nation believes that incarceration should not be used for punishment, but the safety of the people of my nation, and the rehabilitation of the offender.


4.) The funding will be split by all countries involved making it less expensive to each individual country.

Again I have no problem with this, except that I would like a more detailed example of what the split would entail.

I am concerned that two countries will 'gang up' on a person.

Say two countries are allies. Say one country has a political enemy. Say the other puts out a warrant. The person is yanked to your prison until… when? Whenever it's convenient for them to punish them.

How would your proposal ensure this doesn’t happen?

Also; don't yell at your critics, you won't win them over.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

This hadn't actually occurred to me but it is a good point.

But suppose you have a situation where there are two nations - mine and GeminiLand. And Mr Y blew up buildings in both of them, cause he was bored. GeminiLand want him executed, as blowing things up is a capital offence in that nation. I have no capital offences, and will not turn him over to be executed. Neither of us back down, so who decides? Who wins? And would I be compelled to send this man to his death despite my nations ban on execution?

Well on that point you have a problem. You have a person, who has engaged in clearly terrorist activities in another jurisdiction. LEgally, you cannot confine him in your nation for crimes he commited in another, jurisprudence would dictate his arraignment and trial occur in the jurisdiction the crime was commited. So "holding him" in your nation is out of the question. You would be forced either to (a) turn him over to the proper jurisdictionary authority, or (b) let him go free.... Legally the precept "we don't agree with your system of punishment" is not a valid argument against barring justice... If what he did would be a crime in your nation, you are ethically compelled to turn him over to the state which holds warrant against him, regardless whether or not you agree with the penalities imposed by the state in question.

For example, the Republic of Tekania does practice capital punishment in certain heinous crimes, in such a crime, say a person who has blown up a building, or went on a shooting spree at a school... and escaped to your nation... And we presented a warrants for charges of multiple counts of first degree murder, and demaned extridition... You would, ethically, regardless of the fact that if he is found guilty of the crime he will be put to death, compelled to turn him over to Tekanian authorities. For 1, you can't legally hold him for the crime, which has not happened under your jurisdictional authority, and 2, letting him go indicates that you have no concern for the public good, and therefore would be technically classified as a lawless rogue nation....

Now this is only applicable to situations where the "crime" is a crime in both nations of question. If someone were to present you a warrant against someone for "failure to pray to Bebo the God at noon everyday" and it carried a death sentance, you are not ethically compelled to turn him over, as, within the scope of your sovereignty he has comitted no crime.

It's all a matter of jurisdictional right.

Well on that point you have a problem. You have a person, who has engaged in clearly terrorist activities in another jurisdiction. LEgally, you cannot confine him in your nation for crimes he commited in another, jurisprudence would dictate his arraignment and trial occur in the jurisdiction the crime was commited. So "holding him" in your nation is out of the question. You would be forced either to (a) turn him over to the proper jurisdictionary authority, or (b) let him go free.... Legally the precept "we don't agree with your system of punishment" is not a valid argument against barring justice... If what he did would be a crime in your nation, you are ethically compelled to turn him over to the state which holds warrant against him, regardless whether or not you agree with the penalities imposed by the state in question.


Well in that case I would let him go free. Or we would get an agreement from the nation in question that they not execute him should be returned. But if that agreement was unavailable I would not be able to turn him over to a nation that would kill him should he be tried and convicted.

There is a third alternative I can think of - give him sanctuary.


For example, the Republic of Tekania does practice capital punishment in certain heinous crimes, in such a crime, say a person who has blown up a building, or went on a shooting spree at a school... and escaped to your nation... And we presented a warrants for charges of multiple counts of first degree murder, and demaned extridition... You would, ethically, regardless of the fact that if he is found guilty of the crime he will be put to death, compelled to turn him over to Tekanian authorities. For 1, you can't legally hold him for the crime, which has not happened under your jurisdictional authority, and 2, letting him go indicates that you have no concern for the public good, and therefore would be technically classified as a lawless rogue nation....


Then in this situation we would give him sanctuary. This would not be letting him go free, it would just be protecting him from, what we could consider, a barbaric and inhumane punishment. I can not imagine there is a law against granting sanctuary to a person.


Now this is only applicable to situations where the "crime" is a crime in both nations of question. If someone were to present you a warrant against someone for "failure to pray to Bebo the God at noon everyday" and it carried a death sentance, you are not ethically compelled to turn him over, as, within the scope of your sovereignty he has comitted no crime.


This we agree on.

Well in that case I would let him go free. Or we would get an agreement from the nation in question that they not execute him should be returned. But if that agreement was unavailable I would not be able to turn him over to a nation that would kill him should he be tried and convicted.

There is a third alternative I can think of - give him sanctuary.



Then in this situation we would give him sanctuary. This would not be letting him go free, it would just be protecting him from, what we could consider, a barbaric and inhumane punishment. I can not imagine there is a law against granting sanctuary to a person.



This we agree on.

No, but granting sanctuary is barring justice.... Within the scope of extraditionary pervue, the punishment is not applicable, merely the determination that he is charged with a valid crime. It's not within the scope of your authority to determine the appropriate punishment for an established crime commited within another sovereignty.... The third alternative is ethically inconsistent.... Within the Republic there are only two capitol offenses, Capitol (First-Degree) murder, and Treason... all Capitol offenses (crimes against the "head") only have one possible just punishment..... and that is penalty placed upon the head of the criminal (namely his own life)... anything less is unjust..... Though we would reduce the penalty, if the immediate family of the victim (in the case of Capitol murder) appeals to the court for leniency, or in the case of treason, if the people decide to grant leniency by referendum... In ethical truth, the only person who can grant leniency for a just sentance, is the vicitm the criminal perpetrated against, or their direct legal authority...

No, but granting sanctuary is barring justice.... Within the scope of extraditionary pervue, the punishment is not applicable, merely the determination that he is charged with a valid crime. It's not within the scope of your authority to determine the appropriate punishment for an established crime commited within another sovereignty.... The third alternative is ethically inconsistent.... Within the Republic there are only two capitol offenses, Capitol (First-Degree) murder, and Treason... all Capitol offenses (crimes against the "head") only have one possible just punishment..... and that is penalty placed upon the head of the criminal (namely his own life)... anything less is unjust..... Though we would reduce the penalty, if the immediate family of the victim (in the case of Capitol murder) appeals to the court for leniency, or in the case of treason, if the people decide to grant leniency by referendum... In ethical truth, the only person who can grant leniency for a just sentance, is the vicitm the criminal perpetrated against, or their direct legal authority...

I don't agree. If a refugee came to my nation on the grounds that his political views were going to get him executed in his home nation, then we would be fully justified in giving him sanctuary and not sending him back to be executed by his government.

So what is the difference between that and having someone in my country who fears for their life when they return home because of a crime they have committed?

And also - on another matter that doesn't really relate to this - victims (or their families) have no say in the punishment of criminals. Given that justice has to be impartial, my government, and my people, don't believe it is a good idea to involve those affected by it.

We disagree that we would be ethically compelled to turn over a murderer for execution in your nation. Although releasing him would be bad, it would be, in our view, the lesser of two evils, unless we could obtain a guarantee that he would not be executed.

Anyway, this proposal seems to me to make it easier for nations to exact punishments for things we would not consider to be criminal, and therefore I cannot support it.

I don't agree. If a refugee came to my nation on the grounds that his political views were going to get him executed in his home nation, then we would be fully justified in giving him sanctuary and not sending him back to be executed by his government.

So what is the difference between that and having someone in my country who fears for their life when they return home because of a crime they have committed?

And also - on another matter that doesn't really relate to this - victims (or their families) have no say in the punishment of criminals. Given that justice has to be impartial, my government, and my people, don't believe it is a good idea to involve those affected by it.

On the first point, the same case would occur in Tekania, if one were to flee here from governmental persecution for exercizing political freedom. Since political freedoms are guranteed, we certainly would not turn them over, for speaking against, or holding a contrary political view to the government is not a crime in the Republic. What I reffered to was the contextual situation in which the crime in question is both a crime in the native state, and your own... Murder is a recognized crime in the Republic, and we would be ethically compelled to turn him over. We could grant sanctuary for all types of political and religous crimes a person my be accused of in another state, but not for crimes such as rape, murder, etc.

The ethical difference is the precept of law... There is a massive ethical difference between granting sanctuary for a non-crime, and granting sanctuary for an established crime... Also, you cannot hold him confined in your nation, even for the purpose of sanctuary, you would be in violation of NSUN Resolution #73 "Habeus Corpus", since filling your own warrant to hold him would violate that resolution, as it specifically states only the jurisdiction the crime takes place can. And also obstruction of Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial" for holding someone and preventing a nations ability to carry out their requirements under national and UN laws. So there is a massive ethical difference between the two areas.

As for your last point. You are right, trial and sentancing is held by the jurisdictional court authority where the crime took place, and all capital crimes must be by jury. The point is, Tekanian law allows for victims, or their closest kin in the case where the victim is unable to speak, to appeal to the court for leniency on the one convicted of the offense... in essence the court must carry out the law, but the victim can present to the court an appeal of leniency where they can carry out less of a demand of the law for the crime. It is a most logical and ethical precept.

We disagree that we would be ethically compelled to turn over a murderer for execution in your nation. Although releasing him would be bad, it would be, in our view, the lesser of two evils, unless we could obtain a guarantee that he would not be executed.

Then you consider capitol murder excusable.... and would therefore be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Though, within the confines of your own sovereignty you most certainly have the right to do so... However, it merely becomes evidence of your nations ethical barbarism.

We value human life too dearly to effectively endorse the murder of any individual, be it by a state or another individual. We consider that to be perfectly ethical. Our ethics simply differ from yours.

EDIT: Oh, and we would not be excusing or endorsing the original murder, simply refusing to allow the killing to continue.

The ethical difference is the precept of law... There is a massive ethical difference between granting sanctuary for a non-crime, and granting sanctuary for an established crime... Also, you cannot hold him confined in your nation, even for the purpose of sanctuary, you would be in violation of NSUN Resolution #73 "Habeus Corpus", since filling your own warrant to hold him would violate that resolution, as it specifically states only the jurisdiction the crime takes place can. And also obstruction of Resolution #47, "Definition of Fair Trial" for holding someone and preventing a nations ability to carry out their requirements under national and UN laws. So there is a massive ethical difference between the two areas.


My arguement, whether it be legal, ethical or niether, is that we have no capital crimes (I define a capital crime as one that merits the death pentaly - since it takes the person's head as punishment) there can be no crime that this person has committed in my country, or any other, that would warrent them being executed. So we would not turn a person over to someone who would execute him, because we don't believe that that person has committed a crime that warrents it. So we give them sanctuary.

And I know that sanctuary doesn't involve keeping them in prison - I would just remind the person that my nation's protection only extends as far as my nation's borders.


As for your last point. You are right, trial and sentancing is held by the jurisdictional court authority where the crime took place, and all capital crimes must be by jury. The point is, Tekanian law allows for victims, or their closest kin in the case where the victim is unable to speak, to appeal to the court for leniency on the one convicted of the offense... in essence the court must carry out the law, but the victim can present to the court an appeal of leniency where they can carry out less of a demand of the law for the crime. It is a most logical and ethical precept.

This strikes me as cruel and unusual. We have a system of law whereby a crime receives a certain punishment, unless the defence can show some reason why it shouldn't (insanity, mental instability, dimished responsibility - I should point out I am not a criminal lawyer so these are just terms I have heard used in varoius cases). Whether or not the victim or the victim's family/friends think the person should receive a lesser sentence is not really relevent to the process of justice.

We value human life too dearly to effectively endorse the murder of any individual, be it by a state or another individual. We consider that to be perfectly ethical. Our ethics simply differ from yours.

EDIT: Oh, and we would not be excusing or endorsing the original murder, simply refusing to allow the killing to continue.

He's accused of a crime of capitol murder, he's going back to stand trial, and determine, by law, if he actually commited the crime or not. Our courts require en habitum prosecution and defense, so we cannot hold the trial in lieu. If he is found innocent, he will be set free, if he is found guilty he will be punished as the law directs unless the victims appeal for leniency on him. So, logically, you're obstructing justice, not preventing something which you illogically deem as "murder". We'ew not interested in your illogical and unequitable barbaric views as to the logicall penalties imposed by crimes by one against another. You are in fact logically excusing murder, no matter what remark you wish to make. You recognize murder as a crime, he is accused of murder, we have a warrant for his arrest, and are ready to put him before our fair and equitable justice system to determine if he is guilty. You oppose allowing him be tried for a crime, which we have rightly charged him with, and wish to put it before the impartiality of law, to determine if he actually commited, and you are obstructing it.

Tekanian law is equitable purity. The rights of our people are held tantamount. And invasion and removal of those rights it punishable by equitable penalty. Removal of the right of liberty, results in a penalty imposed equitably upon the convicts own liberty, to the persuit of happiness, the same, to life, also... the same. If you knowingly and premedatively removed, illegally, anothers right to life, your own life is penalized, should you be found guilty. It is a most fair, equitable, ethical and logical concept.

You recognize murder as a crime, he is accused of murder, we have a warrant for his arrest, and are ready to put him before our fair and equitable justice system to determine if he is guilty. You oppose allowing him be tried for a crime, which we have rightly charged him with, and wish to put it before the impartiality of law, to determine if he actually commited, and you are obstructing it.

Not to speak for my fellow nations, but in this case I have to disagree.

I recognise murder is a crime. I recognise there is a warrant for his arrest.

I even recognise your system of justice is fair and equitable. And I don't oppose him being tried for such a crime.

What I oppose is someone who is under my care (whenever someone is in my nation, they are under my care) being turned away and being killed. My nation does not believe that any crime warrants such a punishment, and considers such an action murder itself. So why would we turn someone over to be murdered?

Tekanian law is equitable purity. The rights of our people are held tantamount. And invasion and removal of those rights it punishable by equitable penalty. Removal of the right of liberty, results in a penalty imposed equitably upon the convicts own liberty, to the persuit of happiness, the same, to life, also... the same. If you knowingly and premedatively removed, illegally, anothers right to life, your own life is penalized, should you be found guilty. It is a most fair, equitable, ethical and logical concept.

The other way of phrasing this "ethical and logical concept" is this
"Killing someone with premediation is wrong. To prove it we are going to kill you with premediation, but not be punished for doing it"

Which is not so logical to me :}


But this is not a debate about the death penalty, or even about extradition rights. It is about this AS/UCI Proposal (which does kind of cover extradition I suppose, but certainly not an ethical debate about the rights and wrongs of executing prisoners)

Tekania, I believe this debate is a dead end, since we probably aren't going to dissuade each other of our basic principles.

Not to speak for my fellow nations, but in this case I have to disagree.

I recognise murder is a crime. I recognise there is a warrant for his arrest.

I even recognise your system of justice is fair and equitable. And I don't oppose him being tried for such a crime.

What I oppose is someone who is under my care (whenever someone is in my nation, they are under my care) being turned away and being killed. My nation does not believe that any crime warrants such a punishment, and considers such an action murder itself. So why would we turn someone over to be murdered?

Once again, he's not being turned over to be murdered (indeed, in truth, its impossible for governments to murder). You appearantly don't recognize the concept of fair trial. He's being turned over to stand trial for murder (capitol in this case). In which case he will have a fair trial, access to defense and all evidence against him, access to counsel. Only if he is found guilty, then will the penalty be imposed, if the capitol stance stands through trial, which it does not always, then will sentance be imposed.

The other way of phrasing this "ethical and logical concept" is this
"Killing someone with premediation is wrong. To prove it we are going to kill you with premediation, but not be punished for doing it"

Which is not so logical to me :}


But this is not a debate about the death penalty, or even about extradition rights. It is about this AS/UCI Proposal (which does kind of cover extradition I suppose, but certainly not an ethical debate about the rights and wrongs of executing prisoners)

Well, obviously your logic fails you on all points as well then, because your logic is non-equitable, it fails.... under your logic, any form of punishment would be wrong. Even if its merely detention. Which shows, nationally speaking, your nation is adverse to law in general. Your argument is bassed on irrationality rather then rational extrapolation. Such is always the case of the undisciplined minds of the world this day.

I'd imagine you would find it distasteful also to know, that other crimes where the death penalty would be imposed include, persons of the nation aiding the enemy in wartime, judges and lawmakers abusing their power of government (both are classified under our guidlines of treason).

Unified Criminal Isolation, or UCI, is a program in which criminals with arrest warrants in two or more different countries will be isolated from the rest of the world in a high security prison.

Where will this prison be located? How will it be funded? What if there is only one prison and a prisoner is from that country?

There's too many open-ended questions to consider; this proposals has a lot of loopholes, in my opinion.

The criminals will await a decision on what their fate shall be. UCI will make sure the criminals remain here until that decision is made.

Why do the criminals have to stay in a neutral country?

This will ensure a neutral captivity while the countries decide what is to be done.

How is one to ensure that countries holding other country's captives is neutral?

1.) All criminals with non-minor arrest warrants in more then one country will be brought here to await the decisions of which country they would be sent to.

In your first paragraph, you said that a criminal with two arrest warrants in two different countries would be held in this prison, and now we're down to just one arrest warrant.

2.) A top of the line security system will be installed, as well as strictly trained guards will be placed to ensure minimal if any uprising or escape attempts.

Who's paying for this? The country involved? The UN?

3.) Upon the decision completion the criminal will be immediately and securely escorted to the country in which the criminal will receive his/her just deserts.

Who will be pay for this? The country the criminal has residence in? The country the prison is located in?

4.) The funding will be split by all countries involved making it less expensive to each individual country.

Not enough information... if the entire UN supports this plan, then, the entire UN will need to fund the project making your explanation of funding null and void as stated above.

Personally, I believe this is an issue to work out as it comes up between countries, if necessary; I do not believe the UN should be funding prisons that many would agree are not necessary nor wanted at this time.