NationStates Jolt Archive

Stressing the need for UN Member States to reduce their reliance on incarcerating a person in a federal or provincial jail or prison as a lawful punishment or penalty to a low-risk, non-violent offense,
Conscious that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and are determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Noting that low-risk, non-violent offenders are not truly held accountable for their actions when placed in formal detention centres,
Noting further that other forms of rehabilitation are for more constructive, effective, and less costly to tax payers and society than a jail sentence,
Recognizing that recidivism rates are universally higher for incarcerated low-risk, non-violent offenders than those who participate in Alternatives To Incarceration programs, by
Approving the use of Alternatives To Incarceration programs,

1. Calls upon all United Nations Member States to move their respective justice systems away from retributive models, and toward restorative ones;
a)Declares that crime harms people and relationships, and is not only a violation of the law;
b)Finds that The State is not the victim of crime; that the victim is a person(s);
c)Considers the outcome of all acts of justice to be talk-related processes centered on problem-solving;
d)Encourages that the victim be an active participant in these processes, and that the offender is responsible for the process resolution;
e)Emphasizes the need to denounce the act, not the offender;
e)Further emphasizes that offense is paid by "making right" rather than by punishment;

2. Suggests that all United Nations Member States develop comprehensive and restorative sentencing options, in accord with Article 1;
a)Recommends options such as Alternatives to Incarceration programs; community corrections programs including residential facilities with rehabilitation skills in alcohol and drug treatment, education, mental health services, job-skills development and job placement; and post-rehabilitation assistance;

3. Endorses the following Alternatives to Incarceration programs;
a)Restitution - which orders offenders to compensate victims for property loss and personal injury.
b)Community Service Order - incorporates traditional work for pentinence within the affected community which is far more meaningful than restitution.
c)Broad Application of Mediation Services - provides victims with the opportunity to express their views directly to the offender, while the offender can witness the true consequence of their actions;
cc)Together, the victim and offender agree on a form of rehabilitation that is fair.
d)Electronic Monitoring - although widely used allready, this is to become a staple sentence for low-risk non-violent offenders in conjunction with rehabilitative options;

4. Instructs that Community Corrections legislation be put forth in individual Member States that financially supports Articles 2 and 3, and further provides incentives for grassroots justice systems to divert low-risk, non-violent offenders from prisons to Community Corrections initiatives;
a)Recommends local involvement in rehabilitation be promoted using community members from various aspects of society such as social services, education, business, religion, and the general public;
b)Assumes that community members will devise and supervise the programs, while governments provide access to reources;


It has been proposed by The People of The Republic of Domnonia that Member Nations distinguish between offenders who need to be seperated from society, and those who can be better managed in community rehabilitation programs. Such use of alternative methods of justice will reduce prison and jail costs, hold non-violent, low-risk offenders accountable for their crimes, and, without compromising public safety, help offenders to successfully reintegrate into the community.

My nation has fifteen federal prisons which excludes jails run by local police. We offer a 'three strikes your out' program in which low-risk criminal offenders will recieve either community service, probation or electronic monitoring and more, sometimes sentences are combined. We hold our prisons open mostly to murderers and high-risk sexual offenders, the sexual offenders we attempt to rehabilitate and then release them to halfway houses with low-risk offenders until they can prove they can be put back into society. If a criminal surpasses his three strikes, then they will be sentenced to prison for up to five years.

If I was a UN delegate I would support this, but I think this is a good proposal.

The Republic already has similar models in place, especially for property crimes, where the prisoner is put into labor, and then 25% of their pay is used for their housing and support, and the rest goes into paying for their restitution... and remain as such to the full ammount is payed off.

There are certain things for which restitution cannot be made. And as for my nation, our only alternative to incarceration is executiong through either impalement or tossing you out an airlock without a suit on while in high orbit. The airlock one is more humane, as you are sedated at the time.

As such, I would advise you to consider that not all nations in the UN will agree with this, and quite a few use incarceration or much worse methods. And, before you ask, I classify public execution as a "community corrections program". You may want to define your terms carefully.

We agree with the Community-Corrections problem however, we should define it.

The DRA wholeheartedly supports this motion. Our nation is prison-free, partly due to low crime and partly due to the fact that there is a very large network of rehabilitation programs and correctional programs which don't involve jailtime. Any motion to move away from incarceration will get full support from this nation.

Telidian penal policy is certainly congruent with the spirit of this proposal, however I am still to be convinced that this is truly an international issue. Is this not best left as a national issue? I remain open to be convinced otherwise of course.

Secondly I have a concern about the word ‘Federal’. It assumes that all member states are Federations such as RL USA. I suggest removing this word and perhaps replacing it with something like 'national'.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Bahgums delegate for coal mining leaves this thread red faced, having mistakingly thought that this was about alternatives to incineration. He had a rather good speech about how burning coal is great too!

Telidian penal policy is certainly congruent with the spirit of this proposal, however I am still to be convinced that this is truly an international issue. Is this not best left as a national issue? I remain open to be convinced otherwise of course.

Secondly I have a concern about the word ‘Federal’. It assumes that all member states are Federations such as RL USA. I suggest removing this word and perhaps replacing it with something like 'national'.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Both concerns will be addressed, honourable Ambassador Cornwall. The Domini people are looking forward to continuing with this proposal, and request that all Member Nations make further suggestions as to what should be changed.

The wonderful delegate of the IDU, Groot Gouda, has been more than helpful in submitting ideas towardas this proposal, and we would like to extend our thanks, and congratulations in winning the recent IDU elections.

IDEAS:
We are most protective of this proposals preambulatory set, Article 1 and it's clauses. As suggested by Groot, Article's 2 and 3 may be far too specific when taking into account the scope of the U.N. Would a more general guideline for implementing this proposal be better suited for NSUN Members?

Melpia strongly encourages the creation of special centers for criminals which would:
- offer a certain amount of compulsory psychological sessions for criminals, who then can pursue these sessions if desire;,
- offer a training for a professional career (in domains that need recruiting, particularly manual professions) which would:
a) be followed by a certain amount of working days (depending on the length of the training and of the length of the criminal's reclusion), which would pay for the training,
b) offer a possibility for the criminal to pursue this career at his exit from the center;
- help the criminal to be reintegrated into society at his exit from the center,
- offer the possibility for the criminals to organise themselves (with the help of some of the center's personnel) entertaining acts such as plays, concerts, etc... using material created by the criminals, donated to the center or funded by the UN.

These are of course just suggestions, and some parts could be modified, added or deleted if it is felt necessary by my fellow nation states.

A few of these centers have been created in Melpia so as to test if they function correctly, cause no problems unthought about before the creation of the center, and to see if they indeed improve the criminals' life conditions during and after their sentence.

The Miko Mono Politburo vehemently rejects this proposal for a number of reasons, including:

1. Issues of law and order are one of national soverignity and should be decided by national governments, not the United Nations.

2. Our system of re-education camps and penal colonies throughout our great land have been insturmental in preserving law and order for the good of all our citizens. Such weak-minded proposals such as this one would only help to increase the rates of violent crime and degeneracy in countries by removing the all-too-neccessary fear of puinishments from our legal systems.

3. We can only view this proposal as either one of awe-inspiring naivety or as a concerted effort to undermine the stability of U.N. members by seeking to increase crime and disorder. Regardless of which, we oppose this measure and call on other U.N. members to do the same.

Although we respect your opinion Miko Mono, we most point out that it is you who are naive of the benefits of Atlernatives to Incarceration and the cons of incarceration for LOW RISK, NON VIOLENT offenders..

::OOC:: Try doing a real world search on institutional recidivism rates compared to alternatives to incarceration.

Updated draft:

Stressing the need for UN Member States to reduce their reliance on incarcerating a person in a national or regional jail or prison as a lawful punishment or penalty to a low-risk, non-violent offense,
Conscious that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and are determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Noting that low-risk, non-violent offenders are not truly held accountable for their actions when placed in formal detention centres,
Noting further that other forms of rehabilitation are for more constructive, effective, and less costly to tax payers and society than a jail sentence,
Recognizing that recidivism rates are universally higher for incarcerated low-risk, non-violent offenders than those who participate in alternatives, rehabilitative programs,

1. Calls upon all United Nations Member States to move their respective justice systems away from retributive models, and toward restorative ones;
a)Declares that crime harms people and relationships, and is not only a violation of the law;
b)Finds that The State is not the victim of crime; that the victim is a person(s);
c)Considers the outcome of all acts of justice to be talk-related processes centered on problem-solving;
d)Encourages that the victim be an active participant in these processes, and that the offender is responsible for the process resolution;
e)Emphasizes the need to denounce the act, not the offender;
e)Further emphasizes that offense is paid by "making right" rather than by punishment;

2. Suggests that all United Nations Member States develop comprehensive and restorative sentencing options, in accord with Article 1 and in line with their own values systems
a)Recommends options such community corrections programs tailored to their populations own needs; including residential facilities with rehabilitation skills in alcohol and drug treatment, education, mental health services, job-skills development and job placement; and post-rehabilitation assistance;

3. Endorses Broad Application of Mediation Services while encouraging Member States to devise specific programs tailored to their populations values system;
a)Provides victims with the opportunity to express their views directly to the offender, while the offender can witness the true consequence of their actions;
b)Together, the victim and offender, along with State guidance, agree on a form of rehabilitation that is fair.


4. Instructs that legislation be put forth in individual Member States that financially supports Articles 2 and 3, and further provides incentives for grassroots justice systems to divert low-risk, non-violent offenders from prisons to rehabilitative initiatives;
a)Recommends local involvement in rehabilitation be promoted using community members from various aspects of society such as social services, education, business, religion, and the general public;
b)Assumes that community members will devise and supervise the programs, while governments provide access to resources;
c)Emphasizes the Nation States goal to help the offender reintegrate into society productively and safely upon completion of rehabilitation;

It has been proposed by The People of The Republic of Domnonia that Member Nations distinguish between offenders who need to be seperated from society, and those who can be better managed in community rehabilitation programs. Such use of alternative methods of justice will reduce prison and jail costs, hold non-violent, low-risk offenders accountable for their crimes, and, without compromising public safety, help offenders to successfully reintegrate into the community.

With all due respect to the Domnonian delegate, the Miko Mono Politburo does not feel that we need outsiders to tell us how to handle our internal affairs and how to address issues of law and order.

Our system of penal colonies and re-education camps provide a number of benefits to the state, including keeping dangerous criminals off the street and away from loyal citizens, as well as a key source of industrial production in our hinterlands.

As for the idea of "low-risk, non-violent offenders," we ask with all respect who is truly being naive? All crime is dangerous. All crime is an offense to the state. And all crime should be punished accordingly.

If there are countries who wish to offer their degenerates with solace and "compassion," that is their right and wish. We can only hope, though, that the chaos and disorder such policies will result in does not spread across borders.

It's a good concept, Domnonia, and a fine model for a national judicial overhaul. The problem is that you've bitten off more than you can chew in a single proposal. Is this Human Rights or Moral Decency? Is there a Social Justice element to it? You can't just make proposals in isolation to the game rules - correct use of proposal categories is integral to the success of a proposal.

The other concern is the standard complaint - where is the international component? A vague wave-of-the-hand towards the Goddess of Human Rights shouldn't compel such a drastic overhaul of a nation's judicial system. Protecting the prisoner's rights is one thing, defining specifically how that must be accomplished in a wide assortment of government systems is another.

Yes, you think your method is superior, and yes, you think everyone would benefit by using it. That is not a compelling argument for internationalism. We may well adopt portions or even all of this in Frisbeeteria's Code of Jurisprudence, but we cannot support a UN proposal mandating these changes.

The esteemed member from Frisbeeteria make an excellent point as always and we too would be grateful to know what category and strength this proposal will be submitted under. Furthermore as I pointed out previously, this proposal is congruent with Telidian penal policy, but as the Frisbeeterian member pointed out, is this an international concern?

I’d be most grateful if you could put forward you case in that regard. Also with regard to article 3b:

b)Together, the victim and offender, along with State guidance, agree on a form of rehabilitation that is fair.

I feel the state need to have the final say here in what is to be considered fair. I am concerned that human nature’s need for retribution may not always end up as fair treatment for the offender.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

b)Together, the victim and offender, along with State guidance, agree on a form of rehabilitation that is fair.

Dommonia, I have a problem with your proposal: It needs a clause dealing with victims unable to face their offender.

Dommonia, I have a problem with your proposal: It needs a clause dealing with victims unable to face their offender.

I have a general problem in that victims should not get any say in how someone is punished.

With all due respect to the Domnonian delegate, the Miko Mono Politburo does not feel that we need outsiders to tell us how to handle our internal affairs and how to address issues of law and order.


But if the UN is in existance to protect the least amongst us, surely prisoners of the state fall in to that category because the state has ultimate control over their lives, and they (the prisoners) will need someone to protect their interests.

Originally Posted by Domnonia
Stressing the need for UN Member States to reduce their reliance on incarcerating a person in a national or regional jail or prison as a lawful punishment or penalty to a low-risk, non-violent offense,
Conscious that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and are determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Noting that low-risk, non-violent offenders are not truly held accountable for their actions when placed in formal detention centres,
Noting further that other forms of rehabilitation are for more constructive, effective, and less costly to tax payers and society than a jail sentence,
Recognizing that recidivism rates are universally higher for incarcerated low-risk, non-violent offenders than those who participate in alternatives, rehabilitative programs,

1. Calls upon all United Nations Member States to move their respective justice systems away from retributive models, and toward restorative ones;
a)Declares that crime harms people and relationships, and is not only a violation of the law;
b)Finds that The State is not the victim of crime; that the victim is a person(s);
c)Considers the outcome of all acts of justice to be talk-related processes centered on problem-solving;
d)Encourages that the victim be an active participant in these processes, and that the offender is responsible for the process resolution;
e)Emphasizes the need to denounce the act, not the offender;
e)Further emphasizes that offense is paid by "making right" rather than by punishment;

2. Suggests that all United Nations Member States develop comprehensive and restorative sentencing options, in accord with Article 1 and in line with their own values systems
a)Recommends options such community corrections programs tailored to their populations own needs; including residential facilities with rehabilitation skills in alcohol and drug treatment, education, mental health services, job-skills development and job placement; and post-rehabilitation assistance;

3. Endorses Broad Application of Mediation Services while encouraging Member States to devise specific programs tailored to their populations values system;
a)Provides victims with the opportunity to express their views directly to the offender, while the offender can witness the true consequence of their actions;
b)Together, the victim and offender, along with State guidance, agree on a form of rehabilitation that is fair.


4. Instructs that legislation be put forth in individual Member States that financially supports Articles 2 and 3, and further provides incentives for grassroots justice systems to divert low-risk, non-violent offenders from prisons to rehabilitative initiatives;
a)Recommends local involvement in rehabilitation be promoted using community members from various aspects of society such as social services, education, business, religion, and the general public;
b)Assumes that community members will devise and supervise the programs, while governments provide access to resources;
c)Emphasizes the Nation States goal to help the offender reintegrate into society productively and safely upon completion of rehabilitation;

It has been proposed by The People of The Republic of Domnonia that Member Nations distinguish between offenders who need to be seperated from society, and those who can be better managed in community rehabilitation programs. Such use of alternative methods of justice will reduce prison and jail costs, hold non-violent, low-risk offenders accountable for their crimes, and, without compromising public safety, help offenders to successfully reintegrate into the community.


I am somewhat torn on this proposal. I fully support and approve of the aims - to move away from retribution and towards rehabilitation in dealing with those who commit crimes (all crimes in my view).

However I have several objections to letting the victim have a say in what goes on. Mostly the whole of article 1 (esp parts b and d) and article 3 (both parts).

Justice is (or should be) disinterested and unbiased. I am not convinced that a victim of any crime, however minor the crime might be, can be unbiased in dealing with the criminal.

And there can be crimes against the state, not just the people (unless I suppose you class every person in the state as a victim in the case of treason or something like that).

So while I generally support this, I am not convinced I can put my weight behind something that allows victims in to the process of justice, because it is just asking for vast acres of trouble.

Apologies I should have put this in my previous post, but this occurred to me while I was reading some other posts and the proposal again.

Since this proposal’s scope will only impact “non-violent, low risk” offenders we will need to think about a definition here. What is to be considered non-violent & low risk? For example an individual is found guilty of manslaughter and a custodial sentence is applied a judge feels appropriate. However, the facts of the case were in fact the person assaulted someone braking into their home, attacked them in fear of their own life, and inadvertently killed them. In this circumstance the act itself is violent, but the offender may not be ‘violent’ in a psychological sense.

Certainly this is a rather extreme example, but you see what I am trying to get at.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

The Telidia delegate raises an interesting point:

"Since this proposal’s scope will only impact “non-violent, low risk” offenders we will need to think about a definition here."

The Miko Mono Politubro believes this is one more reason why this proposal should be rejected. The United Nations has NO RIGHT to engage in such micro-manging of countries' penal codes, and such an effort would not only be a direct infringment on a country's national soverignity, but a slap in the face to the concept of soveriginty as a whole!!

We strenously call on other U.N. members to aid us in our efforts to roll back the efforts of a small, select group of countries who wish to use the United Nations to subjegate the rest of us by imposing teir national will throguh fiat.

Apologies I should have put this in my previous post, but this occurred to me while I was reading some other posts and the proposal again.

Since this proposal’s scope will only impact “non-violent, low risk” offenders we will need to think about a definition here. What is to be considered non-violent & low risk? For example an individual is found guilty of manslaughter and a custodial sentence is applied a judge feels appropriate. However, the facts of the case were in fact the person assaulted someone braking into their home, attacked them in fear of their own life, and inadvertently killed them. In this circumstance the act itself is violent, but the offender may not be ‘violent’ in a psychological sense.

Certainly this is a rather extreme example, but you see what I am trying to get at.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

They still killed a person, in violation of the law. And honestly if they are killing people, regardless of the reason, I would at least take them away from society for a little while.

Imagine this - Mr Jones' daughter is given cocaine by a local drug deal. Susie Jones (Mr Jones' daughter) gets high and jumps off a roof. Mr Jones is not happy, so he goes out and shoots the drug dealer in the head, and the drug dealer dies.

But Mr Jones would never kill anyone else. This was motivated purely because his daughter is dead and he has no more children.

Should he be locked away for a crime he is never going to commit again?

(I am on the "yes he darn well should" side of things, if you were curious).

They still killed a person, in violation of the law. And honestly if they are killing people, regardless of the reason, I would at least take them away from society for a little while.

Imagine this - Mr Jones' daughter is given cocaine by a local drug deal. Susie Jones (Mr Jones' daughter) gets high and jumps off a roof. Mr Jones is not happy, so he goes out and shoots the drug dealer in the head, and the drug dealer dies.

But Mr Jones would never kill anyone else. This was motivated purely because his daughter is dead and he has no more children.

Should he be locked away for a crime he is never going to commit again?

(I am on the "yes he darn well should" side of things, if you were curious).

Apologies, I should have illustrated my point in a different way. What I meant was the word ‘violent’ need to be defined in the resolution. You have cases where someone maybe pathologically violent and certainly should be segregated from society.

On the other hand you have situations where violent crimes happen in defence. For example, you are attacked (mugging etc. ) defend yourself with what you feel is appropriate force, harm or perhaps kill the attacker. In many legal systems this would not be a simple case of self-defence, particularly if the attacker were killed. Very often defendants in these cases are charged with a lesser crime of manslaughter instead of murder. Manslaughter being the unlawful, but unintended killing where there is no premeditation or as a result of accidents where someone was negligent in their duties.

These individuals do not necessarily pose a significant risk to society, but should they be covered under this proposed legislation is my question? Definition is important in this arena, I feel.

With regard to your example I don’t feel this applies because there was in fact a premeditation to kill, thus its murder.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Even given all this - who is violent and who isn't, but I still have serious objections to including the victim of a crime in the decision of the punishment. And not just in my nation, but every nation. If one of my people were to commit a crime abroad (which is not impossible I admit) I would expect them to have a fair and balanced trial, and a fair and balanced punishement. Not one that is decided by a grief-crazed vicitm who only wants revenge.

Even given all this - who is violent and who isn't, but I still have serious objections to including the victim of a crime in the decision of the punishment. And not just in my nation, but every nation. If one of my people were to commit a crime abroad (which is not impossible I admit) I would expect them to have a fair and balanced trial, and a fair and balanced punishement. Not one that is decided by a grief-crazed vicitm who only wants revenge.

In this regard I do agree with you. Justice must be unbiased, without it there is little point in it. I look forward to the comments from the honourable member of Domnonia with regard to issues raised here.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Issues of law and order are one of national soverignity and should be decided by national governments, not the United Nations.

I agree with Miko Mono. The delegates of BSR feel that this issue conflicts with national sovereignity; each nation should treat their own criminals how they see fit and should not be left up to the UN to decide.

However, I believe that if a nation resorts to acts of barbarism and terror, then it should be condemned for such actions.

The thing about the victim and offender having an agreement on a fair punishment is flat out scary. So if somebody is raped and they believe that the guy should be lockedup for a long time so he doesn't rape more people, but the offender says no they don't agree, so the offendr won't agree to anything. This is a very rationalized plan, but I don't want rapists out on my streets deciding thier own punishment, and thats what this is.

I agree with Miko Mono. The delegates of BSR feel that this issue conflicts with national sovereignity; each nation should treat their own criminals how they see fit and should not be left up to the UN to decide.

However, I believe that if a nation resorts to acts of barbarism and terror, then it should be condemned for such actions.

Actually barbaric punishments have been outlawed under a previous resolution, so no UN nation can actually enact them.

And my problem with this is what if one of my citizens becomes a criminal in another nation, for something I and my people would consider a trivial crime - something this proposal would cover. Should I be happy to let them be locked up forever?

The UN is (I think I am going to have this put on t-shirts) here to protect the least amongst us - those who can not protect themselves. And those put at the mercy and the whim of the state are indeed those who need protection from the state in the form of the UN.

The thing about the victim and offender having an agreement on a fair punishment is flat out scary. So if somebody is raped and they believe that the guy should be lockedup for a long time so he doesn't rape more people, but the offender says no they don't agree, so the offendr won't agree to anything. This is a very rationalized plan, but I don't want rapists out on my streets deciding thier own punishment, and thats what this is.

I think that rape would not be one of the crimes that would be treated like that under this proposal.

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights' government funds a reality simulation program that submits prisoners to a VR environment that creates a world in which a single prisoner spends an accelerated lifetime sentence in a given world in less than a day's time or whatever proportion a court of law sees fit.

Tuesday Heights' government will not support any legislation that seeks to change that, as its people know virtually (no pun intended) crime because of its VR incarceration program.

haha, I missed, the most important of it "low-risk" offenders. Then I might go along with this, but crimes and so on must be listed. As of now, I think this is a national issue, but I will consider this.