NationStates Jolt Archive

Our nation has now submitted a proposal to decrease crime rates worldwide. I think you may take a look at it and approve it if you like it.
Here goes the proposal:


Noting that some nations do have more trouble than others in managing crime in their territories,

Acknowledging that some nations' correctional facilites are better equipped and the personel have more work experience dealing with the mislead,

Noting further that the nations in the region "A Little Pain and Suffering" would be more than happy to decrease crime rates worldwide and some nations within -such as the submitter of this resolution- would not charge any fees for this service,

1. Trusts the nations of the UN in their decision of handling their crime problem on their own or seeking help from friendly willing nations;

2. Invites the nations who have decided to seek help to make the necessary legal adjustments so that their criminals can be corrected and rehabilitated back into the public in the correctional facilites of another nation;

3. Urges the nations referred in the second clause to make bilateral negotiations with the friendly willing nation to decide on the length, type and intensity of the rehabilitation;

4. Hopes that this resolution will decrease crime rates while decreasing the funding of the Law&Order departments worldwide.

All the regional delegates out there, make this wonderful proposal a resolution. It is only a click away.

Our nation has now submitted a proposal to decrease crime rates worldwide. I think you may take a look at it and approve it if you like it.
Here goes the proposal:


Noting that some nations do have more trouble than others in managing crime in their territories,

Acknowledging that some nations' correctional facilites are better equipped and the personel have more work experience dealing with the mislead,

Noting further that the nations in the region "A Little Pain and Suffering" would be more than happy to decrease crime rates worldwide and some nations within -such as the submitter of this resolution- would not charge any fees for this service,

1. Trusts the nations of the UN in their decision of handling their crime problem on their own or seeking help from friendly willing nations;

2. Invites the nations who have decided to seek help to make the necessary legal adjustments so that their criminals can be corrected and rehabilitated back into the public in the correctional facilites of another nation;

3. Urges the nations referred in the second clause to make bilateral negotiations with the friendly willing nation to decide on the length, type and intensity of the rehabilitation;

4. Hopes that this resolution will decrease crime rates while decreasing the funding of the Law&Order departments worldwide.

All the regional delegates out there, make this wonderful proposal a resolution. It is only a click away.

Before passing our judgment, we will seek clarification on several points.

Firstly, what would you define as a necessary legal adjustment, in order to 'rehabilitate criminals'.

Secondly, who would regulate such an exchange and ensure that it does not violate human rights resolutions. i.e. Freedom of Conscience, Habeaus Corpus, etc. By transferring the prisoners of a U.N. nation to those of a non-U.N. nation, unaffected by such safeguards.

Thirdly, would not the country charged with dealing with the unwanted experience a spike in its crime rate, as the strain of dealing with additional criminal elements, harmed its ability to deal with its own crime problems.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Firstly the legal adjustments are not to rehabilitate criminals. That, we hope, every nation has.
The legal adjustments are so that these criminals can be corrected in another nation.

Secondly haebus corpus would not pose a problem since these criminals are already convicted in their own nation and the recipient nation would not be holding them without any charges. Also I have sought for a resolution called freedom of conscience but not seen one on the UN resolutions throughout history pages.

Thirdly yes there would be an increase in the crime rates of the recieving nations however these nations, if they are to accept such a thing, already are dealing well with their criminals home. Also a nation can make such a decision: sacrifice the peace at home for a greater good, peace in the world.

As a long-term single dad of two daughters IRL, it is my humble opinion that the best way to drop crime rates in most nations is to teach all young women how to use handguns, and then arm them -- nothing like a rapist or mugger with a hole in his forehead to drop crime rates. Saves on rehab costs, too.

AK_ID

As a long-term single dad of two daughters IRL, it is my humble opinion that the best way to drop crime rates in most nations is to teach all young women how to use handguns, and then arm them -- nothing like a rapist or mugger with a hole in his forehead to drop crime rates. Saves on rehab costs, too.

AK_ID

May I just say that, without any exception, that is the most, (what's the right word) misguided suggestion i've ever encountered on these message boards. Arming your civilians does 3 things:

a). You have enormous quantities of deadly weaponry in society at large, ready and available to be used in the commission of crime or use against another human being in a moment of madness. Plus, criminals will respond by arming up, i.e. if the 'young women' have a handgun, then the muggers and rapists will start carrying Uzi's and AK-47's; (thus :mp5: becomes :sniper: ).

b). You will create a climate of distrust, as everyones afraid that if a dispute or other such matter gets a little to heated, they'll get shot. Besides, what if it's a case of mistaken intentions, supposing someone gets jittery and shoots a family man with a wife and kids? Not a pleasant thought. Equally, the dangers of accidental self-injury increase fairly steeply, because, regardless of training, you're always going to have accidents and with firearms, accidents can be fatal.

c). You won't solve the issue of crime, just have lots of dead criminals, meaning the live ones arm up (as noted in point a) and will get even nastier and more ruthless, in order to committ crimes.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Also I have sought for a resolution called freedom of conscience but not seen one on the UN resolutions throughout history pages.
Here it is.


United Nations Resolution # 115
Freedom of Conscience


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Ecopoeia

Description : We, the United Nations, recognise that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some member states persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely express beliefs or thoughts that are not state-approved.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future.

2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as an instance when a person has been taken into custody by government authorities or by an armed political group, when this person’s whereabouts and wellbeing are kept secret without the full, informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in question; and accordingly

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘disappeared’ person.

3) CONDEMN extrajudicial executions by governments, killings caused by the unnecessary use of lethal force by law enforcement officials and killings of civilians in direct or indiscriminate attacks by governments or armed political groups.

Votes For : 9,892

Votes Against : 4,179

Implemented : Wed Aug 3 2005

The resolution freedom of conscience would not be conflicted because the convicts are to return to their home nations rehabilitated. So there would be no systematic "disappearence". Moreover if the sending state is a UN member (which it must be for otherwise it would not have to abide by this resolution) then it would hold no victims of conscience as convicts for they must have been released because of this resolution "Freedom of Conscience".

Illegal due to meta-gaming.

What exactly in this resolution causes meta-gaming may we ask (as the delegates of disembowelia)

This resolution is not forcing non-UN nations to do anything if that is what is meant.

The resolution freedom of conscience would not be conflicted because the convicts are to return to their home nations rehabilitated. So there would be no systematic "disappearence". Moreover if the sending state is a UN member (which it must be for otherwise it would not have to abide by this resolution) then it would hold no victims of conscience as convicts for they must have been released because of this resolution "Freedom of Conscience".
You said you couldn't find it. I posted the text.
Illegal due to meta-gaming.
Yup.

As a long-term single dad of two daughters IRL, it is my humble opinion that the best way to drop crime rates in most nations is to teach all young women how to use handguns, and then arm them -- nothing like a rapist or mugger with a hole in his forehead to drop crime rates. Saves on rehab costs, too.

AK_ID

Also on court costs. :D

Our nation has now submitted a proposal to decrease crime rates worldwide. I think you may take a look at it and approve it if you like it.
Here goes the proposal:

....um......ok

Noting that some nations do have more trouble than others in managing crime in their territories,

Acknowledging that some nations' correctional facilites are better equipped and the personel have more work experience dealing with the mislead,

"mislead"......rather interesting term to use. Reminds me way too much of 1984

Noting further that the nations in the region "A Little Pain and Suffering" would be more than happy to decrease crime rates worldwide and some nations within -such as the submitter of this resolution- would not charge any fees for this service,

This feels a bit too much like branding

1. Trusts the nations of the UN in their decision of handling their crime problem on their own or seeking help from friendly willing nations;

...ok

2. Invites the nations who have decided to seek help to make the necessary legal adjustments so that their criminals can be corrected and rehabilitated back into the public in the correctional facilites of another nation;

Ok....

3. Urges the nations referred in the second clause to make bilateral negotiations with the friendly willing nation to decide on the length, type and intensity of the rehabilitation;

4. Hopes that this resolution will decrease crime rates while decreasing the funding of the Law&Order departments worldwide.

All the regional delegates out there, make this wonderful proposal a resolution. It is only a click away.

Nope

Why:
1) You make an fairly weak argument on the need of nations to send their criminals to other nations to help them
2) You make no arguments on the preference of rehabilitation over, say, just execute them here and now. These may seem obvious, but they are not
3) You make no move at getting nations to open up their facilities to other nations so that they could do such a thing. The burden is entirely upon the nation with the criminals
4) You claim this will drop crime rates, this increases rehabilitation, but that doesn't mean it'll drop crime rates. Remember that.

Oh, and its metagaming because it pushes agreements without actually forcing them per-se. If you had said that all nations with good correction facilities must open their doors or urging them to do so, that's one thing. However, you basically went under the assumption they will, which is not necessarily true. There's also a questionable optionality, but that's a debatable one especially considering the current structure.

2) You make no arguments on the preference of rehabilitation over, say, just execute them here and now. These may seem obvious, but they are not

The nations who are pro-execution can and will execute their criminals here and now and there's not much we can do about it. Other nations that are holding the convicts in jails are freeing up their jails. So it is a clear advantage and therefore the virtues of rehabilitation are not necessary to be included.

3) You make no move at getting nations to open up their facilities to other nations so that they could do such a thing. The burden is entirely upon the nation with the criminals

In the preambulatory clauses it is mentioned that one whole region is ready to accept criminals and lessen worldwide crime rates. If other nations with good correctional facilites also choose the greater good, then that is more nations on the good side.

4) You claim this will drop crime rates, this increases rehabilitation, but that doesn't mean it'll drop crime rates. Remember that.

Our hope is in the way that this will drop crime rates. Sending a criminal to a nation far away will definitely act as a deterrant, especcially if the sender nation has no or few regulations and perhaps an ineficient police force to enact its laws.

Oh, and its metagaming because it pushes agreements without actually forcing them per-se. If you had said that all nations with good correction facilities must open their doors or urging them to do so, that's one thing. However, you basically went under the assumption they will, which is not necessarily true. There's also a questionable optionality, but that's a debatable one especially considering the current structure.

This metagaming is a hard concept to understand. However our best scientists are working on this issue and will soon come up to me with an executive summary.

But before that let me respond with what I understand:

I did not order the nations with good correctional facilites to open their doors because:

a) good is a debatable concept therefore to force all nations having good correctional facilites would result in:
i) nations not wanting these extra criminals but having superb correctional facilites to state that they lack in funding equipment etc.
ii) nations that not ready to accept such a challenge but that are eager to show the world that they are, would open their doors, at the expense of criminals (and at the expense of the society which they will return to)

b) Nations sending their criminals may have special needs and restricting them by one resolution is not good. The recipient nation may request some money for their services, or the sender nation may request that certain methods of treatment (drugs, lobatomy, etc.) not be used (or they may request that these be used).

c) At least one region has declared that it will open its doors to the convicts. That is a good start we guess, and even if it stayed at that it is better than nothing. And bilateral agreements come in handy here. A nation does not accept more than it can carry. However in the case of mandatory sending one nation may be overloaded by unwanted convicts.

d) Some nations may want to keep their correctional facilities to themselves and that must be respected.

The nations who are pro-execution can and will execute their criminals here and now and there's not much we can do about it. Other nations that are holding the convicts in jails are freeing up their jails. So it is a clear advantage and therefore the virtues of rehabilitation are not necessary to be included.

You see, this is an argument. Why is it not in the proposal text (which was my very point)

In the preambulatory clauses it is mentioned that one whole region is ready to accept criminals and lessen worldwide crime rates. If other nations with good correctional facilites also choose the greater good, then that is more nations on the good side.

So make a clause in there that encourages those nations with adaquete facilities to open their doors to other nations for rehabilitating convicts. Again, that was my point

Our hope is in the way that this will drop crime rates. Sending a criminal to a nation far away will definitely act as a deterrant, especcially if the sender nation has no or few regulations and perhaps an ineficient police force to enact its laws.

Rehab is far from a deterrent. Jail is a deterrent. Laws against is a deterrent. Police is a deterrent. Rehab is no more (perhaps even less of) a deterrent than jail is. The purpose of rehab is not to deter criminals, but to help them become contributing members of society again.

This metagaming is a hard concept to understand. However our best scientists are working on this issue and will soon come up to me with an executive summary.

But before that let me respond with what I understand:

I did not order the nations with good correctional facilites to open their doors because:

a) good is a debatable concept therefore to force all nations having good correctional facilites would result in:
i) nations not wanting these extra criminals but having superb correctional facilites to state that they lack in funding equipment etc.
ii) nations that not ready to accept such a challenge but that are eager to show the world that they are, would open their doors, at the expense of criminals (and at the expense of the society which they will return to)

b) Nations sending their criminals may have special needs and restricting them by one resolution is not good. The recipient nation may request some money for their services, or the sender nation may request that certain methods of treatment (drugs, lobatomy, etc.) not be used (or they may request that these be used).

c) At least one region has declared that it will open its doors to the convicts. That is a good start we guess, and even if it stayed at that it is better than nothing. And bilateral agreements come in handy here. A nation does not accept more than it can carry. However in the case of mandatory sending one nation may be overloaded by unwanted convicts.

d) Some nations may want to keep their correctional facilities to themselves and that must be respected.

1) It's one thing not to mandate it, its another thing to not address it. To not address it is to make a metagaming violation.

2) The terms between the individual nations can be left to be negotiated between the nations. That is not the issue. The issue is that you only address the sending side, not the receiving side

3) The example you used is currently a branding violation, stop hiding behind it. To only address receiving side by saying a nation in one region has done this is not fixing your metagaming violation