NationStates Jolt Archive

This draft was orginaly written by me but then reworded and edited by Dancing Bananland. any quotes to this that don't make since are becuase of the change of the old draft. No draft EVER said anything against capital punishment

This is a draft of a prison quality Un proposal does anyone have suggestion?

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

NOTING, with regret, the lack of UN legislation regarding the rights of prisoners.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a prisoner as a person detained and/or held in captivity. This does not include people who are held because of mental disability or prisioners of war.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a prison as a place where prisoners are detained.

MANDATING that:

1) No Prisoner may be killed unless the pose an immediate and significant threat to another person and cannot be halted with non-lethal methods or is the carrying out of a court-approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated. In the event of a jail break, if national law premits, lethal force may be used on people who are escaping.

2) No prisoner may be beaten, tortured, or caused significant physical pain except in cases of self defense or is part of the carrying out of a court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.

3) Prison employee/staff members may not be intoxicated while on duty, as it inhibits their ability to think critically and react to a situation properly.

4) Prisoners must be allowed the right to reasonably hygienic living conditions and proper hygiene, including some form of effective body cleansing at least once per month as well as personal hygiene items such as soap, and dental items. These items may be altered to address safety concerns.

5) All prisoners shall have access to proper waste removal facilities (toilets) as well as an adequate supply for survival supply of clean drinking water.

6) All prisoners must have access to at least two adequete, sanitary meal per day, and are not starved.

7) No prisoner may be treated unfairly because of their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs.

8) All prisoners must be provided the opportunity, at least once weekly, to exercise and maintain proper fitness levels.

9) All prisoners must be provided access to proper medical care in the case of injury, illness, or other medical emergency

10) All prisoners have the right to full and private communication with their appointed legal advisor.

11) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners are to be properly trained to handle any foreseeable situation, including hand-to-hand combat as well as weapons training.

12) Prisoners shall be granted adequate clothing and shelter for their situation.

13) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be supplied with non-lethal, self-defensive devices and instructed to use these in place of lethal weapons in all but the most extreme cases.

14) No prison employee/staff may provide prisoners with weapons and/or engage in sexual acts with unwilling prisoners.

15) No prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner. This does not in any way restrict policemen.

RECOMMENDING that the disposal of dead prisoners' corpses should be in accordance with their beliefs.

To put it simply, no. Gruenberg would be in non-compliance with just about every article of this resolution at present, and we see no reason to dramatically overhaul our effective, fair, efficient judicial system merely to pander to the whims of some criminal-loving global conspiracy.

Before even read this can't agree with any of it because of these opening lines.

Noting the lack of any type of protection for prisonersIf one prisoner assaults another then time is added to his sentence based on the degree of the assault. Thus we protect all prisoners from each other and our citizens from them. If a criminal murders another criminal he is hung just like anyone else would be. If a criminal gets enough time in prison placed on them and they get over their expected life they are hung. Thus good reason not to screw up in prison here or you could hang.

Believing that prisoners, as citizens of our nations, also have rights.

Citizens who commit crimes and are found guilty under our laws are now NO longer Citizens they are CRIMINALS and have no rights. Thus ends the issue of what happens to them once they have been tried and found guilty so end of matter. They are shipped off to a national prison where they serve their time or hang.. Those that have short times to do may return to society once their time is done. Those that have done crimes that put them in prison past their expected life time are hung. Those that repeat their crimes are hung end of the effort to rehab them.

We don't believe that honest citizens should pay again and again to keep criminals healthy. As this makes them victums of those criminals again and again. As honest citizens have rights and it's up to the nation to protect their rights. Criminals have no rights they only take away or abuse the right of honest citizens thus they are moved out of society... in order to protect that society.

You may well consider this barbaric but considering the crimes these former citizens committed to get in prison we are angels compared to them. Also before you talk about mistakes in the legal system you need to look at your own as we have a working system that makes no mistakes and gives all citizens equal protection once charged with a crime. However once they are convicted and become criminals they have no rights as citizens.


AND YES I DID READ IT ALL. And see that you have added things that we do already to as you say protect criminals but due to the use of the term CITIZEN instead of CRIMINAL you change the effects of this for us.. As they to us are two different persons one, Citizen has rights, other criminal lost rights and thus has none.


What we can't understand is why all the concern for criminals who leave victums forever scared by their actions...

A child who lost a mother and family ends up in an orphanage because nobody from her family was left alive to bring her up. How can you even think that a savage who would take her family has any rights? All they have a right to is a real tall strong tree and good strong short rope.

Or what scars are left on a young girl raped by savages who care little for her rights as they only want sex. No we don't need to be nice to the criminals we need to protect their victums from them and other citizens from them. The nation has a duty to it's citizens to protect them from criminals and thus must do all that is needed to do this.

Also since you make it required we let them have time outside and visits from family that removes our policy of requiring them to earn those privilages by doing what they are told to do and not causing trouble. As if you refuse to work or don't meet work levels here you don't get privilages.. Like time in library or a visit from family.

Also once they have been found guilty they have no need for legal help as they are in until their time is done. There is no repeal system here once they get to prison. They either within two days hang or buckle in to do the time they were sentenced to do.

This is a good idea for a resolution, but it needs alot of work. I'll see if I can fix it up a bit:

NOTING With regret the lack of legislation regarding the rights of prisoners.

DEFINING For the purposes of this resolution a prisoner as a person detained and/or held in captivity.

DEFINING For the purposes of this resolutoin a prison as a place where prisoners are detained.

DECLARING That no prisoner may be killed unless they pose an immidiate and significant threat to another prisoner, civilian, polic officer, or prison employee/staff member, and cannot be halted with non lethal methods.

MANDATING That no prisoner may be beaten, tortured, r caused significant pain or greif except in cases of self defense.

EXCLUDING From the above two clauses the above court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcirated.

MANDATING That prison employees/staff members may not be intoxicated while on duty, as this inhibits their ability to think critically and react to a situation properly.

MANDATING That prisoners must be allowed the right to reasonably hygenic living conditions and proper hygiene, including some form of effective body cleansing at least once per month, as well as personal hygience items such as soap, and dental health items. Thse items may be altered for safety purposes.

MANDATING That all prisoners have access to proper waste removal facilities (toilets) as well as an appropriate supply of clean drinking water, no less then 1.5 liters per day.

MANDATING That all prisoners have access to at least two healthy, sanitary meals per day, and are not starved.

MANDATING That no prisoner may be treated differently based on their ethnicity, appearence, gender, opinion or beleifs.

MANDATING That all prisoners be provided the opportunity, at least once weekly, to exercise and maintain proper physical fitness levels.

MANDATING That all prisoners be provided access to proper medical care in the case of an injury, illness, or other medical emergency.

MANDATING That all family members, children and spouses have the right to communication of some form with prisoners, and vice-versa. As well, all prisoners have the right to full and private communication with their appointed legal advisor.

MANDATING That all prisoners have the right for their bodies to be returned to their loved ones and/or family for a proper burial/funeral right. As well as that their corpses be sanitarily disposed of in the case nobody claims the corpse.

MANDATING All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be properly trained to handle any situation, including hand to hand combat, as well as weapons training.

MANDATING That all prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be supplied non-lethal self-defense devices, and that these be used in the place of lethal weapons in all but the most extreme cases.

MANDATNG That no prison employees/staff may provide prisoners with weapons, nor engage in sexual acts with prisoners.

MANDATING That no prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner.

EXCLUDING From the above resolution, Prisoners of War (See Wolfish Convention on POWs)




Okay, this I've tweaked it for you if you like this version better newfoundcanada. I really think this is a good idea for a proposal.

There are some good ideas in this draft, but it needs much work before we would consider supporting it.

Our first major objection is to the provision on firearms. Not to be offensive, but it makes no sense at all to limit the caliber of weapons allowed or to limit them to hand-held weapons. If lethality is your concern, you need to do some research on the subject.

We'd also have some serious objections to the inclusion of "friends" and the overly-broad "family members" in section 14, and to the wording of section 5.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

^^
What about my re-draft (which by the way, newfoundcanada, you still get credit for, don't think I'm a glory hog).

Before even read this can't agree with any of it because of these opening lines.

If one prisoner assaults another then time is added to his sentence based on the degree of the assault. Thus we protect all prisoners from each other and our citizens from them. If a criminal murders another criminal he is hung just like anyone else would be. If a criminal gets enough time in prison placed on them and they get over their expected life they are hung. Thus good reason not to screw up in prison here or you could hang.


I would like to point out that i never in anyway actualy ruled out capital punishment. I attempted to stop torture of prisoners. I think you should look over at guantanamo prison or at what hapened to POW in the holocaust(we already have protection for the jews).


Citizens who commit crimes and are found guilty under our laws are now NO longer Citizens they are CRIMINALS and have no rights.


have you ever used limewire or another p2p program? Well people have gone to prison for that. Also people go all the time for getting angry some day and hitting there wife to hard. These people may have problems but they arn't crazy lunatics should they be tortured? Also people got to prison before they have been proven guilty so do you think they should have all there finger nails and toe nails removed and die of starvation even before they are proven guilty?


Thus ends the issue of what happens to them once they have been tried and found guilty so end of matter. They are shipped off to a national prison where they serve their time or hang.


I agree they should serve there time. If your country is going to hang them fine with this actualy read it. The question is if they are tortured to death or just serve there time.


Those that have short times to do may return to society once their time is done. Those that have done crimes that put them in prison past their expected life time are hung. Those that repeat their crimes are hung end of the effort to rehab them.

DO YOU WANT ME TO SAY IT A FEW MORE TIMES THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. I am very for rehab and your system is great but there is NOTHING THAT SO FAR IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS.


We don't believe that honest citizens should pay again and again to keep criminals healthy. As this makes them victums of those criminals again and again. As honest citizens have rights and it's up to the nation to protect their rights. Criminals have no rights they only take away or abuse the right of honest citizens thus they are moved out of society... in order to protect that society.


another attack on your false belif this is against capital punishment. I'd like to note that this repeats itself one hell of a lot.


You may well consider this barbaric but considering the crimes these former citizens committed to get in prison we are angels compared to them. Also before you talk about mistakes in the legal system you need to look at your own as we have a working system that makes no mistakes and gives all citizens equal protection once charged with a crime. However once they are convicted and become criminals they have no rights as citizens


Do you really want me to describe barbaric to me? It could be a bit descusting or maybe I should show you some of those tapes of people in guantanamo? That might just be interesting to see your reaction.


EDIT: thanks banna-man for the rewording/editing of the thing it seems to be almost exactly what i wanted. I also will agree with Ausserland fully that the calibre makes no since on second thought but I think it would be a better Idea to just say hand-gun this term I found is actualy defined as what i want. No machine guns which could kill people by mistake or anything.

PS: Calibre is really stupid lol unless i was making it very low

Allow me to start by saying that Kivisto is not in favour of anything that grants rights to our prisoners.

This is a draft of a bill on prison quality. It has been looked at by my region of Aberdeen finding flaws in grammer, puncuation and help in ideas. This is only a draft and suggestions are very helpfull.

This is a draft of a prison quality Un proposal does anyone have suggestion?

Yeah. Don't do it.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Noting the lack of any type of protection for prisoners

Maybe that's because they're criminals.

Believing that prisoners, as citizens of our nations, also have rights.

They have infringed upon the rights of others and have temporarily given up claim to their own.

Define for the purpose of this resolution

Prisoner as anybody who is being held in captivity by any member Nation.

A little too vague. May want to include something about being held by the government.

Sufficient quality of food is as healthy food that is not rotting or expired in anyway have any type of disease. It also has to be digestible and not being used for testing purposes.

Not bad.

Mandates that all Member states shall:

1) No person shall kill prisoners unless the prisoner is making an act that poses a considerable physical risk to another prisoner, guard or visitor and there is no other choice or the execution is part of a court-scheduled sentence .

Minor rewrite done.

2) No guard is allowed to drink alcohol on duty.

Fair.

3) Prisoners must be allowed to wash themselves and have access to regularly cleaned toilets.

There are some with whom it is dangerous to allow them to anything for themselves.

4) Prisoners must have ample food supply of sufficent quality. Starving people is a very strictly disallowed.

Should define starving. Or ample supply.

5) You are not allowed to hurt prisoners in any significant degree. Though if a prisoner tries to attack a guard he should be pushed back and possible knocked out but no more then the necessary amount.

Keeping them captive is psychological trauma. With this, we would have to release them all.

6) Prisoners still have rights.[QUOTE]

Again, this is debatable.

[QUOTE] If there is a fight in a prison it should be stopped in the same way if that fight was on a street.

You might not want to know how street fights are dealt with in Kivisto...

7) People may not be categorized by the color of there skin or religion.

Agreed. We categorize and persecute these prisoners because they are criminals. The rest is unimportant.

8) If you are in prison you must have the ability to go outside for at least 2 hours a day. The space has to be ample to move around freely.

I will grant them ample moving room outside. In the crater of a semi-active volcano. Some prisoners are in solitary confinement. These aren't pets. Why should it be mandated that we walk them.

9) If somebody is injured in prison they must have access to proper health facilities.

What constitutes proper health facilities?

10) All people in prison have the right to a proper funeral and disposition of body.

Again, what qualifies as proper? Our prisoners do not get the same ceremonies as law-aiding citizens. We are not exceptionally religious, but if they gain absolution in death, it will not be with our assistance.

11) All gaurds should not carry guns more then .50 inchs in calibre (12.7 mm) and may not have a weight of any more then 3.09 pounds(about 1.4kg) also it must not be held in more then one hand.

Why? Sniper rifles are excellent tools for deterring and stopping escapes.

Noting these are very low level retrictions and that one shot of such a gun would take kill any person.

Not at range.

12)For a secondary non killing weapons. No object with a sharp pointed objets are allowed to be used.

At all? What shall the guards butter their toast with? Kidding.... No, I guess they don't need to stab anyone.

Noting: such objects are for piercing and not for the proper use. Most other items are allowed including taser, pepper spray and bludgeon weapons.

Uhhhh.... From personal experience, I'd rather be stabbed than beaten with a bat. Trust me on this one.

13) Gaurds should have a proper training in the use of all protection or weapons they may be given.

Good idea. Doesn't have much to do with prisoner rights, but whatever.

14) All prisioner have the right to see family members, legal advisors and friends at least once a week.

May want to rephrase this to "visit". Otherwise, we would just show them pictures. We disagree with this point at any rate, except for the legal advisors.

15) Sexual harrasement of prisoners is strictly forbidden or any other punishment that is degrading to peoples race, religion or gender

Generally speaking, I agree with the sex. har. thing, though in certain cases we have adopted a position of "Karma Sucks, Don't It?"

There is a difference between a civil prisoner, and a prisoner of war. The latter's rights are already protected under the Wolfish Convention.

really? I have not seen this I did look through a good bit. I'll go find this. thanks

really? I have not seen this I did look through a good bit. I'll go find this. thanks

UNR #30 (IIRC), Wolfish Convention on POWs

Let me clear this up as I think the initial proposal has good points in it but due to the opening wording have to object to it. That being reference to prisoners being citizens and having rights. They lost those rights as citizens one the judge passed sentence on them and they became prisoners... here criminals. That is what I objected to in the first draft of this.

As from what have seen on past proposals like this they tend to forget the victums of these former citizens now prisoners or criminals.. have in most cases lost their rights while folks cry foul because we might be taking some right from the one who took anothers right to same.

However in the following draft that reference has been removed and they are refered to as prisoners which we can live with.

The only thing we object to in the new draft is mandating that prisoners have anything given to them. Here they must earn privilages by following the rules and doing required work placed on them. Failure to do this and no privilages. This can be from getting to use the library or watching TV or even going outside for a time. In prison we control them in an effort to protec them from themselves and each other. Those that are considered hard criminals are not allowed in with minor criminals and this is not based on race or other factor but on how the individual criminal behaves in society. This tends to see all criminals as equals when they are not. Thus each is dealt with according to their crimes not what race they might be.

Also we agree with the parts about our guards performing their duties according to set standards and hold them to those but also believe they have a right to go home safe at the end of their work day. So if our prisoners/criminals get abusive we do what is needed to protect our citizens those guards working and honest days labor.

As for having visits from legal folks.. Here once they are sentenced they have no need for legal assistance anymore all repeals are over. Those that are to hang are fitted for a rope and a tree found in two days. The others settle in to do their time and follow the rules placed on them while in prison..

Under this new draft and what the old draft meant to say :) (i think it did technically). You are allowed to take away those library privalages tv ones and anything else actulay none of that was ever mentioned. Though going outside you can take it away as long as it does not go below once a week.

MANDATING That no prisoner may be treated differently based on their ethnicity, appearence, gender, opinion or beleifs.

That says nothing about what crime they did does it?

I have a new part to add and i want to see what some of you guys think about it first and also highlight it before i add it.

MANDATING The only gun gaurds are aloud to have is a handgun.

EXCLUDING The following mandate excludes all gaurds that are working outside the premisis of the prison and are not in a 10 foot radius of the inmates.

The exclusion is for help in jail breaks. Just in case

Alright, a few comments.

1) The use of the term citizens was my idea. I was trying to find a term that equated to "human" but wasn't species-limited. Considering the disaster that was sapient rights, "sapient beings" would be waaaaay too complex. I'd love for someone to give an alternate suggestion.

2) I indicated to the author when he showed me his initial draft that I disliked the definition of prisoner but could not think of a good replacement. I would love to ask the General Assembly to suggest a suitable alternative and advised the author to seek their suggestion.

3) While I see that it has gotten a rather sub-par response, I also disliked the wording for #10. The intention was to make it so that the prisoner was afforded standard tradition for the dead, but a good way to word it failed me. I would again as the General Assembly to provide their advice on the matter.

I would like to thank everyone for their civil tones used thus far in this debate - newfoundcanada has been a member of Aberdeen for a total of two days, this is his second draft and has shown great promise. I am thankful that there was no attempt to drive him off.

A number of nations will oppose this resolution in as much as they are probably in major non-compliance with the resolution as written. I tend not to favor some of the more radical suggestions on criminals but I'm probably sure I'm in violation of one or more of the resolutions.

Never the less, I really like this resolution. It's a nice fundamental right, it's somewhat international in scope because sometimes foreign nationals wind up behind bars and it's just one of those things that doesn't have major flaws as was the case with several resolutions that managed to achieve quorum.

Hey Btw an attempt to drive me off is more likly to get me to work even harder :). Only because I am really stubborn to do something like that. Anyway I would like to say that I knew about some problems in the draft before I sent it out but forgot to say that. I did mean to put in the fact about the really bad definition of prisoner there was a couple of others but they where actualy fixed in the second draft and I just left that alone.

Under this new draft and what the old draft meant to say :) (i think it did technically). You are allowed to take away those library privalages tv ones and anything else actulay none of that was ever mentioned. Though going outside you can take it away as long as it does not go below once a week.

MANDATING That no prisoner may be treated differently based on their ethnicity, appearence, gender, opinion or beleifs.

That says nothing about what crime they did does it?

We can live with this one as it's shaping up and since you removed the main objection we had refering to them as citizens. As you probably noted others have about the same objection as they see prisoners/crimials as just that with not rights..

We do believe each crime deserves different punishments based on the degree of the crimes and as we read this more can see it don't hinder us from separating the
'bad criminals' (rape, armed robbery, assault on a minor that sort of thing) from the
'low criminals' (shoplifting, speeding, jaywalking that sort of thing)..
Murder is a simple sentence.... you hang. Also rape of more than one person gets you a nice rope... to hang from.

Two format suggestions.... First, all of the operative clauses should begin with active verbs: DEFINES, DECLARES, MANDATES, EXCLUDES. They should be preceded by "The United Nations" (right after the NOTING clause).

Please number the operative clauses. When there are so many of them, that makes it much easier to keep straight which one's being discussed.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

ooc: you should note Zeldon is in favour of Guantanamo :rolleyes:

ic: first off, spell checker ;)

I see many nations make no distinction between political prisoners, prison as punishment, and protecting the public through imprisonment.

Although Randomea has no need of prisons any more we believed in high standards when we did have them and are glad to see this attempt to prevent the more gross practices.

MANDATING That all prisoners have the right for their bodies to be returned to their loved ones and/or family for a proper burial/funeral right. As well as that their corpses be sanitarily disposed of in the case nobody claims the corpse.
Perhaps add "RECOMMENDING disposal of unclaimed corpses be in accordance with their beliefs."

You should probably mandate suitable clothing as well, you don't want prisoners dieing because they've been supplied with thin gowns in Antarctica for instance.

MANDATING That no prisoner may be beaten, tortured, r caused significant pain or greif except in cases of self defense.
This could be problematic with that phrasing, isolation is an accepted punishment for disruptive behaviour as a prisoner, which of course causes mental 'grief'.

ooc: you should note Zeldon is in favour of Guantanamo :rolleyes:No we are not in favor of Guantanamo.. Because it's a failure since folks know what's going on there. Or think they do. We prefer something else... but will not say what... to keep it out of news.

I see many nations make no distinction between political prisoners, prison as punishment, and protecting the public through imprisonment.We know the difference between a jaywalker and murder or rapist here. Also the difference between somebody trying to make needed changes under the political system in place and just being terrorists and destroying any political system or disrupting it to be doing it.

Although Randomea has no need of prisons any more we believed in high standards when we did have them and are glad to see this attempt to prevent the more gross practices.So we will not venture to ask what you do with those who break the laws in your nation.. Here we would like to just hang them all but know that would take up too many trees and a lot of rope. So we give them other options depending on the crimes they are charged with and found guilty of. Also it's fine that your citizens are good folks who follow the laws of your nation.. but you do deal with other nations I would think.. and thus must come in contact with some criminal elements that you have to deal with.

Also what is 'the more gross practice' to rape or kill a person; or to hang somebody for it, or lock them away for rest of their lives?

Perhaps add "RECOMMENDING disposal of unclaimed corpses be in accordance with their beliefs."What's wrong with notifing the family to come get them and if they don't in a set time feeding them to the sharks. After all they need to eat if they are to serve to guard the shores around our prison...

You should probably mandate suitable clothing as well, you don't want prisoners dieing because they've been supplied with thin gowns in Antarctica for instance.Why not? As there are no trees in Antarctic so would solve where to hang ropes for them. Also if they are held inside all the time out of the weather then they have no need for clothing to protect them from weather. Thus should they try to escape it would be another item they must get before they try it.

This could be problematic with that phrasing, isolation is an accepted punishment for disruptive behaviour as a prisoner, which of course causes mental 'grief'.Who cares if they suffer a little..? Do you think their victums do? All this concern for criminals and forgetting their victums.. who still suffer from their crimes. Why continue to make citizens victums of criminals over and over again by adding to the funding to support them in prison.

A criminal don't need a $100 pair of shoes as many are in prison because they tried to steal a pair of them. So why give them what they took from somebody else? Give it to their victums or the families effected by the crimes. Better yet let the citizens keep their added taxes they would pay to support high class prisons and use it on what they need. Make prisons just that not a luxury hotel.

*sighs*
Community service etc. Our crime rates are officially 0%, although obviously you get the odd bit of foolhardy actions that result in death - but usually the grief you caused someone's death is sufficient. You don't realise how nice Randomeans are. They all take lifesaving courses voluntarily, a large number are vegetarians and have no desire to take soporific drugs. It is sometimes questioned what some of the remoter tribes do with some of the rainforest plants but it is harmless and they are generally left alone.
Obviously there is sometimes a bit of trouble with the tourists but nothing that a lot of being nice and/or a fine can't heal.

ooc: you should note Zeldon is in favour of Guantanamo :rolleyes:


OOC: Yay! Let's drag Gitmo into this! :rolleyes:

OOC: Yay! Let's drag Gitmo into this! :rolleyes:
Hey if we can drag a nation from one region to another, I'm sure we can drag Gitmo almost anywhere. Perhaps next week we can drag it into Home Schooling? :p

Hey if we can drag a nation from one region to another, I'm sure we can drag Gitmo almost anywhere. Perhaps next week we can drag it into Home Schooling? :p


OOC: Yeah! That's it! Beautiful PR move! Gitmo's not a prison. It's an experimental magnet school. :D

The people of Airatum are in general support of this proposal. We applaud the author for a good first draft, and for being so willing to receive criticism.

We would like to point out that the clause,

MANDATING That no prisoner may be treated differently based on their ethnicity, appearence, gender, opinion or beliefs.

may need to include an exception if such treatment is required for the safety of prisoners. One example would be when a prisoner is incarcerated where the large majority of prisoners would be hostile to them because of their ethnicity, thus requiring seperation from the general body of prisoners for their own safety.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

Well I don't think that is treating them on there ethnicity if people are trying to hurt them then they are being treated based on trying to protect the person.

BTW:I added the Recomedation.

The people of Airatum are in general support of this proposal. We applaud the author for a good first draft, and for being so willing to receive criticism.

We would like to point out that the clause,

MANDATING That no prisoner may be treated differently based on their ethnicity, appearence, gender, opinion or beliefs.

may need to include an exception if such treatment is required for the safety of prisoners. One example would be when a prisoner is incarcerated where the large majority of prisoners would be hostile to them because of their ethnicity, thus requiring seperation from the general body of prisoners for their own safety.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

The representative of Airatum makes an excellent point. There are many cases in which prisoners may have to be segregated from the general population for their own safety or the safety of other prisoners. And the factors listed in the clause are exactly those which often produce the danger. An exception such as he suggests in necessary.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

This exception I will put in because yes it is true I have added in. (Wow this resolution has changeed alot is actualy getting close to the limit in size)

The representative of Airatum makes an excellent point. There are many cases in which prisoners may have to be segregated from the general population for their own safety or the safety of other prisoners. And the factors listed in the clause are exactly those which often produce the danger. An exception such as he suggests in necessary.

I'l like to point out that wasn't exactly illigal either, to define it one way or another is always good...but it doesn't say anything about soitary confinement, so long as the guy gets out now and then (when all the other prisoners are gone or whatever) to have toom to exercise.

I note that previously, the ability to segregate based upon concern for personal safety of the prisoner or one of his/her fellow inmates was not outlawed - including the possibility the concern is based upon one of those features listed.

Actualy he only needs to have the option. This is better because some people want to sit in a jail cell. For example if the mafia want to kill you personaly I would want solitary confinement and not go out.

EXCLUDING: The last Mandate is excluded by people who are being segregated to protect others from them. This is only done when there is good reason to believe that this is necessary.

The people of Airatum thank the author for including this exception, though it could probably be more concisely worded, and include cases where it is needed to protect the individual.

We would also like to suggest protection for prisoners' religious beliefs.

We would also like to suggest a clause acknowledging that prisoners have the right to expect reasonable protection from other inmates in the case of forced sexual contact and bodily harm.

We heartily thank the author for their continued work on the resolution and openness to ideas.

Yoash Uriel
Airatum Ambassador to the UN

MANDATING That all prisoners have the right for their bodies to be returned to their loved ones and/or family for a proper burial/funeral right. As well as that their corpses be sanitarily disposed of in the case nobody claims the corpse.

I believe it's funeral rights

MANDATING Prisoners have adequate clothing and shelter for there situation.

their

Looks good.

Perhaps something about investigating any crimes committed by one prisoner against another.

I believe it's funeral rights


Funeral rite or rites.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Funeral rite or rites.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

And that's why I never could meet the "excellent" level in English.

We would also like to suggest protection for prisoners' religious beliefs.
This could well be the reason some end up in prison as they do something in the name of a religion and thus murder or rape others. So we would not want to allow them to practice fully their religion only those parts of it that don't involve murder and rape.. Thus if you must add something it should only be allowed if it's not what got them in prison or would give cause to extend their stay if they practice that part of their religion.

Also it could go to the part of protecting other prisoners from them... as they could well without permission try to involve others in some barbaric act and call it religious worship.

Alfred Sweynsson MD rises to his feet and speaks:

"The goverment of St Edmund -- Oops, I mean "of the St Edmundan Antarctic" -- does not regard this topic as one that should be handed by UN legislation.
We note the suggestion that this is an 'international' matter because some people may get imprisoned in nations other than their native ones, but consider this an inadequate justification because that same principle could be used to make just about everything a matter for the UN rather than for national jurisdiction: After all, those people would presumably have been imprisoned after trial under local law, might have spent money to buy goods in those countries beforehand and might have been in danger if those countries' defences had failed to repel any attacks, so if we accept the argument that their imprisonment makes prison standards an 'international' matter then we would have to say that all laws, currency, local trade and all aspects of national defence matters were also 'international' in scope which is a viewpoint that my government rejects and that I think many of the other governments represented here would also reject.
We also note the suggestion that it this should be considered 'international' simply because it is a 'Human Rights' matter, but are of the opinion that it is a significantly lesser right than the right to have a say in how one's native country is governed, which the UN not only will not guarantee but can not guarantee -- under its core rules -- and has unfortunately proven unwilling, quite recently, even to consider encouraging...

Before continuing I must mention that this proposal wouldn't really affect the St Edmundan Antarctic at all, because almost all of our people still live within St Edmund and are therefore subject to St Edmund's own rules on the matter, and there aren't actually any prisons at all within our own territories. Nevertheless, in the interests of the UN's resolutions being as well-written as possible, I will give you my detailed analysis of this proposal..."


NOTING With regret the lack of legislation regarding the rights of prisoners.

Where? We certainly have such legislation in St Edmund… Do you mean “the lack of UN legislation”?

That should probably be a lower-case ‘w’ at the start of “with”, and the initial letters of the second words in each of the following clauses should probably be lower-case too.

DEFINING For the purposes of this resolution a prisoner as a person detained and/or held in captivity.

DEFINING For the purposes of this resolution a prison as a place where prisoners are detained.

These definitions are too broad. As written they would cover anybody who was being detained temporarily, even for just a few minutes out in the street (which this proposal would therefore define as “a prison”) while the police questioned witnesses to find out what had been happening… Also, what about psychiatric patients & other mentally infirm individuals and the ‘homes’ in which they are being kept?

DECLARING That no prisoner may be killed unless they pose an immediate and significant threat to another prisoner, civilian, police officer, or prison employee/staff member, and cannot be halted with non lethal methods.

Seems okay.

MANDATING That no prisoner may be beaten, tortured, or caused significant pain or grief except in cases of self defense.

What if simply imprisoning them causes them grief? What if sadists and rapists feel grief because they’re deprived of more victims? Perhaps changing this to “unnecessary grief” might be better?

EXCLUDING From the above two clauses the above court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.

Probably okay… but is the second “above” necessary?

MANDATING That prison employees/staff members may not be intoxicated while on duty, as this inhibits their ability to think critically and react to a situation properly.

Okay.

MANDATING That prisoners must be allowed the right to reasonably hygienic living conditions and proper hygiene, including some form of effective body cleansing at least once per month, as well as personal hygiene items such as soap, and dental health items. These items may be altered for safety purposes.

I’d drop the comma from after “soap”, but otherwise probably okay.

MANDATING That all prisoners have access to proper waste removal facilities (toilets) as well as an appropriate supply of clean drinking water, no less then 1.5 liters per day.

Water requirements vary by species, size and climate, so I’d drop the specified minimum and just insert the word “adequate” in front of “clean drinking water”.
We do already have a resolution guaranteeing this drinking water to non-prisoners don’t we?

MANDATING That all prisoners have access to at least two healthy, sanitary meals per day, and are not starved.

What about putting them on bread-&-water diets as a punishment?
Nations don’t necessarily guarantee their law-abiding nationals such meals, and I’m opposed to granting convicted criminals rights that their law-abiding co-nationals don’t have…

MANDATING That no prisoner may be treated differently based on their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs.

Other people have already pointed out some problems with this clause. I’d replace “differently based on” with “unfairly because of”, to allow for situations like only allowing convicts to modify prison uniforms if they actually follow religions whose rules require specific clothing (such as turbans), or only offering special diets to people whose religions’ rules specifically require these instead of having to make them available for all convicts even if they’re more expensive than the standard menu & it’s obvious that the other people who order them are only doing so to be awkward…

EXCLUDING: The last Mandate is excluded by people who are being segregated to protect others from them. This is only done when there is good reason to believe that this is necessary.

If you adopt my suggested change to the previous clause then this one might not be necessary.

MANDATING That all prisoners be provided the opportunity, at least once weekly, to exercise and maintain proper physical fitness levels.

If they’re going to be released eventually, yes, but if they’re going to be executed – and maybe if they have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of release, too -- then this seems unnecessary.

MANDATING That all prisoners be provided access to proper medical care in the case of an injury, illness, or other medical emergency.

Probably reasonable.

MANDATING That all family members, children and spouses have the right to communication of some form with prisoners, and vice-versa. As well, all prisoners have the right to full and private communication with their appointed legal advisor.
Reasonable considering the loopholes whose limits it leaves for national governments to define.

MANDATING That all prisoners have the right for their bodies to be returned to their loved ones and/or family for a proper burial/funeral rite. As well as that their corpses be sanitarily disposed of in the case nobody claims the corpse.

RECOMMENDING Disposal of unclaimed corpses is in accordance with their beliefs.

The governments of St Edmundan Antarctic and of St Edmund itself feel that treating the bodies of dead convicts in this way is inappropriate in the following categories of situation:
1/. They have been sentenced to death, and executed, in which case having forfeited the right to life they have also forfeited the lesser right to have any control over what happens to their remains which (in St Edmund) are usually sent to the medical schools for dissection.
2/. Releasing their remains would pose a threat to national security (because, for example, they have ‘classified’ information tattooed onto their skin), public health (because, for example, they are infected with a virulent disease) or public safety (because, for example, they belong to a cult whose members’ bodies tend to become animated as some kind of ‘undead’: There was a small revolutionary group in St Edmund, about twenty years ago, which practised this…)

MANDATING All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be properly trained to handle any situation, including hand to hand combat, as well as weapons training.

Okay

MANDATING Prisoners have adequate clothing and shelter for there situation.

Should be “their” rather than “there.

MANDATING That all prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be supplied non-lethal self-defense devices, and that these be used in the place of lethal weapons in all but the most extreme cases.

MANDATNG That no prison employees/staff may provide prisoners with weapons, nor engage in sexual acts with prisoners.

MANDATING That no prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner.

Basically okay.


Oh, and I'd suggest separating the clauses that give the prisoners rights directly out from those that cover the training & behaviour of their guards, too.

I am currently working on fixing those problems shown by you. You had some very good points but some are hard to fix without very long and wordy clauses that are going to end up making many other mistakes or making very big loopholes.

We note the suggestion that this is an 'international' matter because some people may get imprisoned in nations other than their native ones, but consider this an inadequate justification because that same principle could be used to make just about everything a matter for the UN rather than for national jurisdiction: After all, those people would presumably have been imprisoned after trial under local law, might have spent money to buy goods in those countries beforehand and might have been in danger if those countries' defences had failed to repel any attacks, so if we accept the argument that their imprisonment makes prison standards an 'international' matter then we would have to say that all laws, currency, local trade and all aspects of national defence matters were also 'international' in scope which is a viewpoint that my government rejects and that I think many of the other governments represented here would also reject.

It has nothing to do with it being outside there home country at all in my opinion. So this entire part is completely gone and doesn’t even seem to make much since. This is a matter of human rights that is why it is in that category.

We also note the suggestion that it this should be considered 'international' simply because it is a 'Human Rights' matter, but are of the opinion that it is a significantly lesser right than the right to have a say in how one's native country is governed, which the UN not only will not guarantee but can not guarantee -- under its core rules -- and has unfortunately proven unwilling, quite recently, even to consider encouraging...

Well whatever that says I am just going to say this is a very important human rights issue. It allows the country itself to run on how it likes in most cases. This is not being very specific at all just attempts to stop torture of prisoners. If you are trying to say you are against the UN ruling on human rights I suggest you start working on alot of repeals.:D


Edit here are some things I did not fix yet


Water requirements vary by species, size and climate, so I’d drop the specified minimum and just insert the word “adequate” in front of “clean drinking water”.
We do already have a resolution guaranteeing this drinking water to non-prisoners don’t we?


Well I am still thinking about this one but anyway we may have one for non-prisoners. But in many country’s prisoners aren’t citizens. Also they are in an entirely different situation then other people. (I probably will put in adequate)


What about putting them on bread-&-water diets as a punishment?
Nations don’t necessarily guarantee their law-abiding nationals such meals, and I’m opposed to granting convicted criminals rights that their law-abiding co-nationals don’t have…

I would like to say that law-abiding nationals can work to get food and people in prison cannot. I understand the point very well but if you have the ability to starve them to death that is almost as good as torture. Do you have any idea how painful starving to death is? Anyway when you are in the city you can get money in many ways and if you are very poor attempt to beg but in jail you need to be fed or otherwise you are going to die.


If they’re going to be released eventually, yes, but if they’re going to be executed – and maybe if they have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no chance of release, too -- then this seems unnecessary.

I am inserting that if they are to be executed but not on life because such people can be let out for one and also if you don’t move then you will get very sick and die of that. Exercise is not all about not being fat.

The governments of St Edmundan Antarctic and of St Edmund itself feel that treating the bodies of dead convicts in this way is inappropriate in the following categories of situation:
1/. They have been sentenced to death, and executed, in which case having forfeited the right to life they have also forfeited the lesser right to have any control over what happens to their remains which (in St Edmund) are usually sent to the medical schools for dissection.
2/. Releasing their remains would pose a threat to national security (because, for example, they have ‘classified’ information tattooed onto their skin), public health (because, for example, they are infected with a virulent disease) or public safety (because, for example, they belong to a cult whose members’ bodies tend to become animated as some kind of ‘undead’: There was a small revolutionary group in St Edmund, about twenty years ago, which practised this…)

I am working on a proper way of doing this. Also one of the issues you can get is do you want complusary organ donation.(I happen to have it for the purpose of liberalising my country.) anyway I agree this clause should be edited I think I used to have a way but i forget it now.

I just updated it again. ForggottenLands edited it with format and sentence arangment but it is essentialy the same thing. Soon to be submited as a proposal.

This is a matter of human rights that is why it is in that category. Well whatever that says I am just going to say this is a very important human rights issue. you are trying to say you are against the UN ruling on human rights.We just noted that this is Human Rights is there some place that gives rights to those who are not HUMAN? Or do we just assume that they are inculded in with the Humans.

WE don't consider criminals to have the same rights as honest citizens do.. thus we do not send citizens to prison we send criminals there.. as when they are tried and found guilty and sentenced they loose all rights but to serve their time or if it is the sentence; to have a tall tree and good rope waiting for them.. The first Human Right is to obey laws and not lose your other rights or take them from another person.

NOTING, with regret, the lack of legislation regarding the rights of prisoners.Then I would suggest that you start with your own nation and pass such legislation.. Then not try to push your views on us in regards to the treatment of criminals...



MANDATING that:

1) No Prisoner may be killed unless the pose an immediate and significant threat to another person and cannot be halted with non-lethal methods or is the carrying out of a court-approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.We can agree with this because or the final clause that respects our hanging criminals who commit certain crimes.

2) No prisoner may be beaten, tortured, or caused significant pain or grief except in cases of self defense or is part of the carrying out of a court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.Agree with this..

3) Prison employees/staff members may not be intoxicated while on duty, as it inhibits their ability to think critically and react to a situation properly.Agree with this also

4) Prisoners must be allowed the right to reasonably hygienic living conditions and proper hygiene, including some form of effective body cleansing at least once per month as well as personal hygiene items such as soap, and dental items. These items may be altered to address safety concerns.Since we require them to take baths at least once a week we can live with the once a month here noted.

5) All prisoners shall have access to proper waste removal facilities (toilets) as well as an appropriate supply of clean drinking water, no less than 1.5 liters per day.They are taught to dig their own latrines and maintain them.. They get the same water rations as anyone might get here.. from the same sources.

6) All prisoners must have access to at least two healty, sanitary meals per day, and are not starved.We only eat one meal a day thus they will only get one meal... they will not get special consideration over our citizens.

7) No prisoner may be treated differently based upon their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs unless the treatment is in the form of segregation to protect others from this prisoner. This shall only be done if there is good reason to believe it is necessary.Here we separate genders for the usual reasons in our prison system.. also certain crimes bring segregation from the main prison polulation based on the crime.. Thus we can see no poblem with this since the final clause allows this.

8) All prisoners must be provided the opportunity, at least once weekly, to exercise and maintain proper fitness levels.If they do the work required of them they will not need any exercise as they will get that while working... and we will not take a day off for PT...

9) All prisoners must be provided access to proper medical care in the case of injury, illness, or other medical emergencyThey get the same level of care as is available to all our citizens.. thus no problem here.

10) All family members, children and spouses have the right to communication of some form with prisoners, and vice-versa. Additionally, all prisoners have the right to full and private communication with their appointed legal advisor.This is where we can't agree on. They are criminals and have no family... Also once they are in prison they have no more legal options so no need for legal advisors.. We feel they needed to check out the laws before they did the crimes not after they broke them and have been sentenced to prision for that..

11) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners are to be properly trained to handle any foreseeable situation, including hand-to-hand combat as well as weapons training.Agree

12) Prisoners shall be granted adequate clothing and shelter for their situation.Agree

13) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be supplied with non-lethal, self-defensive devices and instructed to use these in place of lethal weapons in all but the most extreme cases.Understand the issue and agree...

14) No prison employee/staff may provide prisoners with weapons nor engage in sexual acts with prisoners.Those who do and are caught end up serving time right along with those they guarded.

15) No prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner.Fine line on what is abuse and not abuse but we can deal with each issue as it comes up since this sets nothing to be done if they do.

RECOMMENDING Disposal of unclaimed corpses is in accordance with their beliefs.If the family don't claim them within five days of notice then they feed the sharks..

Other than the areas noted we like this...

This draft was orginaly written by me but then reworded and edited by Dancing Bananland. any quotes to this that don't make since are becuase of the change of the old draft. No draft EVER said anything against capital punishment

This is a draft of a prison quality Un proposal does anyone have suggestion?

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

NOTING, with regret, the lack of legislation regarding the rights of prisoners.
Okay...that looks alright.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a prisoner as a person detained and/or held in captivity.Good.
No problem with that.

[quote]MANDATING that:

1) No Prisoner may be killed unless the pose an immediate and significant threat to another person and cannot be halted with non-lethal methods or is the carrying out of a court-approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.Grammar errors, but otherwise okay.

2) No prisoner may be beaten, tortured, or caused significant pain or grief except in cases of self defense or is part of the carrying out of a court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.Hmm...I don't know about the "court approved execution". I think that goes against "Cruel and unusual punishment".

3) Prison employees/staff members may not be intoxicated while on duty, as it inhibits their ability to think critically and react to a situation properly.
Does the UN really need to legislate on that?

4) Prisoners must be allowed the right to reasonably hygienic living conditions and proper hygiene, including some form of effective body cleansing at least once per month as well as personal hygiene items such as soap, and dental items. These items may be altered to address safety concerns.You expect nations to pay for society's lowest's life expenses when there are innocent civilians who are starving to death? It's a waste of tax dollars/pounds/etc.

5) All prisoners shall have access to proper waste removal facilities (toilets) as well as an appropriate supply of clean drinking water, no less than 1.5 liters per day.This line is fine.

6) All prisoners must have access to at least two healty, sanitary meals per day, and are not starved.I say one meal per day should be the minumum.

7) No prisoner may be treated differently based upon their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs unless the treatment is in the form of segregation to protect others from this prisoner. This shall only be done if there is good reason to believe it is necessary.Doesn't this clause prevent gender specific prisons?

8) All prisoners must be provided the opportunity, at least once weekly, to exercise and maintain proper fitness levels.Okay.

9) All prisoners must be provided access to proper medical care in the case of injury, illness, or other medical emergencyOkay.

10) All family members, children and spouses have the right to communication of some form with prisoners, and vice-versa. Additionally, all prisoners have the right to full and private communication with their appointed legal advisor.No. Nations should determine if they allow prisoners to communicate with family themselves.

11) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners are to be properly trained to handle any foreseeable situation, including hand-to-hand combat as well as weapons training.Okay.

12) Prisoners shall be granted adequate clothing and shelter for their situation.Okay.

13) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be supplied with non-lethal, self-defensive devices and instructed to use these in place of lethal weapons in all but the most extreme cases.No. If Quaon wants to outfit our prison guards with guns and not tazers, we will do so.

14) No prison employee/staff may provide prisoners with weapons nor engage in sexual acts with prisoners.Okay.

15) No prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner.Freedom of speech violation.

RECOMMENDING Disposal of unclaimed corpses is in accordance with their beliefs.Fine.

While Quaon is in favor of all of these clauses, we believe in national soviergnity.

Except for the obvious grammatical errors, there are three points the People's Republic of Imroon objects to:

1) No Prisoner may be killed unless the pose an immediate and significant threat to another person and cannot be halted with non-lethal methods or is the carrying out of a court-approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.

In Imroon, directors of correction and labour camps may order executions where deemed neccesary to maintain camp security. Lethal force may be used in all penetentiary institutions to qualm uprisings and the like. In the case of attempted escape, guards may open fire at their own discretion.

We believe these measures are in the interest of national security, and will oppose any propasal that does not allow for these conditions.

10) All family members, children and spouses have the right to communication of some form with prisoners, and vice-versa. Additionally, all prisoners have the right to full and private communication with their appointed legal advisor.

This is slightly impractical, given the nature of our correction and labour camps. Is there a possibility of stripping 'private' from this clause?

15) No prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner.

We feel a 'good cops bad cops' approach is an important part of interrogation, that allows us to extract information we would otherwise only have gained through less pleasant measures (though torture is of course no option).


We agree with the idea behind this draft, and would certainly support it on the UN floor, provided points 1 and 15 are altered.

Thumbs up!

This is the first part of my going over I have some suggestions in changes and reasons I think things should stay in there. I am breaking down the 3 of your work and will soon send another reply on the rest of it.
article 1

In Imroon, directors of correction and labour camps may order executions where deemed neccesary to maintain camp security. Lethal force may be used in all penetentiary institutions to qualm uprisings and the like. In the case of attempted escape, guards may open fire at their own discretion.

We believe these measures are in the interest of national security, and will oppose any propasal that does not allow for these conditions.

If I added in that this excluded prisoners trying to escape would that be ok.
article 10

No. Nations should determine if they allow prisoners to communicate with family themselves.


This is slightly impractical, given the nature of our correction and labour camps. Is there a possibility of stripping 'private' from this clause?


This is where we can't agree on. They are criminals and have no family... Also once they are in prison they have no more legal options so no need for legal advisors.. We feel they needed to check out the laws before they did the crimes not after they broke them and have been sentenced to prision for that..

This is very important only when talking with lawyers. This process is the main way of getting the information of what prisons are violating the basic human rights in this resolution. The prisoners complain to lawyers and the prison officals don’t know so cannot punish them. If it is found to be a widespread complaint then it is looked into. This is very essential.
Also a lot of prisoners are in prison because they never made bail and the court procedures are still going on.
The family part may not be necessary but legal advisors are.
article 15

We feel a 'good cops bad cops' approach is an important part of interrogation, that allows us to extract information we would otherwise only have gained through less pleasant measures (though torture is of course no option).


I am trying to find a way to fix this at the current time I can get rid of it but it would be preferable to only change it. Maybe if I added something using the word unreasonable or something to make it more of a court matter to solve. This way extreme cases would be taken to court but in most cases the guard would be doing fine. Also there is a difference between guards and policemen I could define that. This way policemen could do the good cop bad cop and the guards would still have to follow this.

Article 15: How about your nation distinguishes between prison officials/guards and police interrorgators? This proposal needs no changes to accomodate for that interrogation tactic.

I did the one meal per day and the part about verbal abuse.

article 3


Does the UN really need to legislate on that?

Yes intoxication of guards cannot be allowed. Such people with dangerous weapons as they should have are a risk as they have lowered aim and may shoot and hit the wrong person (including guards) and also will get angry and hit or beat inmates without cause.

You expect nations to pay for society's lowest's life expenses when there are innocent civilians who are starving to death? It's a waste of tax dollars/pounds/etc.

article 6

We only eat one meal a day thus they will only get one meal... they will not get special consideration over our citizens.


I say one meal per day should be the minumum.

Well I would like to remind you first that as I said before other citizens can get food in other ways but I will agree with this that one meal a day is ok.

Article 8


If they do the work required of them they will not need any exercise as they will get that while working... and we will not take a day off for PT…

I never said a day and if the required work is enough then that would count as a opportunity and you would not need to have any more exercise time.

Nay on one meal a day. I really think 2 should be the minimum. Some nations will disagree but considering we're trying to bring a set of standards to prisons, that assumes there are people who have standards that are below what the UN expects.

I will look into how bad one meal a day is now. So at the end of this internet search I'll come back with some kind of conclusion on it.

EDIT: I have looked into it and found people need more food then I orginaly thought to survive. I did this on a calorie basis relying on different sites and during any at all extended time people are going to need 2 meals a day. I expected that it would say something much lower then what I found. I would also like to note that compared to the cost of stopping them from escape letting them eat 2 meals a day is a very small requirment. Also because there is no need for high quality food you can easily give this to inmates for a very low price. Remember people outside a prison can go to food banks, beg, friends, get jobs but this is not likly to get inside jail. So there is a difference. Starving someone is a very painful thing and should be kept on the list.

I'd prefer to see a statement regarding humane disposal and execution of criminals on death row; meaning... Beating them to death into a bloody pulp outlawed.

I'd prefer to see a statement regarding humane disposal and execution of criminals on death row; meaning... Beating them to death into a bloody pulp outlawed.

Covered by UNR #41: End Barbaric Punishments.

Don't change the lethal force clause to include escapees. While inside a prison, lethal force should not be administered because a prisoner wanders too close to the walls. Outside the prison, that's up to the nations. This proposal is to be sure that conditions in prisons are livable, and granting the right to shoot on sight someone who appears to be attempting an escape is much too harsh. Unless your prisons are walled off by hedges and a white picket fence, an escapee who gets caught while attempting it is not going to have an easy enough time escaping to warrant an execution. It's not hard to round up someone who's dumb enough to get caught while escaping (and in order for someone to shoot him, he has to get caught, right?). Once outside the walls, it's the government's choice, however they deal with fugitives.

I cannot believe you are discussing giving "rights" to these animals. Our opposition to a proposal has never been stronger than it is to this one.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Animals? This coming from a nation that happily gloated about how they executed doctors that performed abortion. There are certainly animals inside the Gruenberg border, but they are not the people within the walls of Gruenberg's prisons.

Animals? This coming from a nation that happily gloated about how they executed doctors that performed abortion. There are certainly animals inside the Gruenberg border, but they are not the people within the walls of Gruenberg's prisons.
Yes, animals. You don't think murderers, and paedophiles, and rapists, and pornographers, and trade unionists, aren't animals deserving of death and little else? I am glad my children aren't raised in the barbarism of your country.

This proposal is an anathema. It seeks to give rights to those who have announced they do not abide by the law of rights. It wishes to give the same rights to people who have taken those rights from others. It is wrong, and we shall not stomach it.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

We're barbaric? At least we choose to believe that a person can be redeemed, that a person who has shown little concern for other beings can be given the ability to feel such empathy. Your nation gives up on those who have shown societal failings and the more you treat them like animals, the less interested they are in aligning themselves with that society. How a nation as your own is stuck with such primitive thinking is beyond me - apparently Wena does not approve of intelligence.

That said, I find it interesting that you would put "murders" and "deserving death" on the same line.

We resent that apparent implication that animals are beneath humans. I've never heard of a species that tortures its own, and renders large sections of the planet uninhabitable (Chernoble, for example) outside of the human one. Animals are not nearly as savage and cruel as the civilized human.

Most prisoners are low, yes, but they didn't have far to fall.

The UN seeks to better human rights. Gruen, if your nation strips people of the name of their own species because they enter a prison, then that's most unsettling, and it is precisely the reason this proposal is being drafted. Humans don't become not human because they broke laws that other humans made. They are outlaw humans at most, but they are no less a part of the Homo Sapien species, and thus deserving of the rights to acceptable living conditions we so fervently advocate for any other humans.

They are outlaw humans at most, but they are no less a part of the Homo Sapien species, and thus deserving of the rights to acceptable living conditions we so fervently advocate for any other humans.
Yes, they are deserving of lesser rights.

Firstly, their crimes require punishments. To effect these punishments, their rights must be violated. Bloody retribution always trumps abstract notions of "liberty" or "rehabilitation" or "not being castrated with no anaesthetic".

Secondly, their crime is an announcement that they do not recognise the rule of law, the principle of rights. I quite agree with you that all people have certain basic rights (the right not to be killed, the right not to be tortured, the right not to be gay; the right to bear arms, the right to own property, the right to censor indecency) but criminals don't agree with this. And so, when they are treated as lower than worms, they are not being victimised: they are being taken on their own terms. In a sense, our system is incredibly liberal: adjusting our whole society just to suit their perverse sense of morality.

And I shall not be further replying to Secretary MacDougall before she withdraws her scandalous blasphemy.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Criminals need not all be lumped into one category, a man in jail for the premeditated murders of a family is not equivalent to a man in jail for reckless endangerment. So I will employ the principle of charity and speak on the level of people who commit the most heinous of crimes.

The rights that should be granted to any human being are rights to grant subsistence at the bare minimum, and rights to inhabitable conditions. Comforts and liesurely ammenities? Well that may be something left to individual nations to decide. Cruel and unusual punishments (your aforementioned unanesthitized castration, for instance) are as deserving of the adjective "criminal" as the people the punishments are meant for.

Prisons are meant to punish, and they should do so. They should do so, however, under the notion that the people keeping the prisoners are not to be committing acts that on the outside would be considered hienous and cruel.

All of this seems to come down to pushing very narrow sets of moral and cultural values onto a very broad range of societies. Your ideas on what prisons "should do" are all well and dandy for the liberal communist cesspits of Norderia, but they simply don't work in countries where all sense of morality has not yet been blown away. There is no international element to this proposal, there are not even basic rights being espoused. Prisoners are being granted privileges by this proposal that those who are capable of living within the law do not have! I expect to see crime rates soar across the UN as people flock into the centrally-heated, jacuzzi-laden, whipping-chamber-free luxury hotels you would have us fritter our valuable budget away on.

This is rank cultural imperialism, and given our culture is better than yours, we oppose this very strongly.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Well, that's just fine. When your people manage to escape your mine-laden borders with guard towers, search lights, shoot-to-kill orders and flock to my open ones to escape the smothering, corporate dildo-up-the-ass, puritanical, police state, hail to the Party quagmire, I won't say "I told you so." :p

Tommo the Stout;
Cold Shores of Norderia
The socialist Delegate of the North Sea

Well, that's just fine. When your people manage to escape your mine-laden borders with guard towers, search lights, shoot-to-kill orders and flock to my open ones to escape the smothering, corporate dildo-up-the-ass, puritanical, police state, hail to the Party quagmire, I won't say "I told you so."
Don't worry, they won't try to defect. The penalties for such are appropriately severe.

All of this seems to come down to pushing very narrow sets of moral and cultural values onto a very broad range of societies. Your ideas on what prisons "should do" are all well and dandy for the liberal communist cesspits of Norderia, but they simply don't work in countries where all sense of morality has not yet been blown away. There is no international element to this proposal, there are not even basic rights being espoused. Prisoners are being granted privileges by this proposal that those who are capable of living within the law do not have! I expect to see crime rates soar across the UN as people flock into the centrally-heated, jacuzzi-laden, whipping-chamber-free luxury hotels you would have us fritter our valuable budget away on.

This is rank cultural imperialism, and given our culture is better than yours, we oppose this very strongly.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"


Crime rise I am sure it bascaly means you are not going to get tortured it never said that food was good it never said you talk to other people. It never said you have anything other then a cell really and that you don't get tortured. Why don't you make a reason that you think it is extravagent I would like to hear it or is there none? That's why you just say it is a great place to live then stop.

About that "jacuzzi-laden" this is quite laughable concidering they only have to wash once a mounth when you probably get a wash once a day and most people can at least get to a river.. Also when it says adequte that normal only means that if people start having serious problems is the only time it could stand up at all as a complaint.

Criminals need not all be lumped into one category, a man in jail for the premeditated murders of a family is not equivalent to a man in jail for reckless endangerment. So I will employ the principle of charity and speak on the level of people who commit the most heinous of crimes.

The rights that should be granted to any human being are rights to grant subsistence at the bare minimum, and rights to inhabitable conditions. Comforts and liesurely ammenities? Well that may be something left to individual nations to decide. Cruel and unusual punishments (your aforementioned unanesthitized castration, for instance) are as deserving of the adjective "criminal" as the people the punishments are meant for.

Prisons are meant to punish, and they should do so. They should do so, however, under the notion that the people keeping the prisoners are not to be committing acts that on the outside would be considered hienous and cruel.

This can only protect people from torture basicaly for a good reason. If the UN starts doing catagorizing otherwise then it is a very big mess.

Don't worry, they won't try to defect. The penalties for such are appropriately severe.

(OOC: Ahahahahahaha! I'm so glad I checked this thread.)

Crime rise I am sure it bascaly means you are not going to get tortured it never said that food was good it never said you talk to other people. It never said you have anything other then a cell really and that you don't get tortured. Why don't you make a reason that you think it is extravagent I would like to hear it or is there none? That's why you just say it is a great place to live then stop.

About that "jacuzzi-laden" this is quite laughable concidering they only have to wash once a mounth when you probably get a wash once a day and most people can at least get to a river.. Also when it says adequte that normal only means that if people start having serious problems is the only time it could stand up at all as a complaint.
OOC: Sorry, and I don't mean to offend, but I don't understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase a little?

OOC: Sorry, and I don't mean to offend, but I don't understand what you are saying. Could you rephrase a little?

Likewise for me NFC you have to put a lot more punctuation in to seperate your thoughts so we aren't reading a single strand that goes on and doesn't stop stopping is important or else it looks like this this is not a good way to write it makes it difficult to see do you understand my point? (Not trying to insult, just illustrate.)

This does not in anyway give people a great life.
-It lets them get a wash ONCE A MOUNTH. not exactly a luxery
-it lets them have egough food to live(not nessasarily to make them stuffed though) but I didn't say anything about taste.
-When was stopping sexual abuse ever a luxery.
-Heating does not need to be good it means as somebody stated earlier that you arn't in antartica naked. Remember you need a good case to go to court. Also murder's complaining arn't exactly looked at well by a jury:D
-I don't really need to go on do I?

I went through some random ones just because you never said witch ones you had problems with.

-It lets them get a wash ONCE A MOUNTH. not exactly a luxery
Opposed. Point one: normal law-abiding citizens do not have this right guaranteed. We should give it to criminal scum before them?

Furthermore, we think their state of besoilment is appropriate, as it reminds of how their crimes have dirtied others.

-it lets them have egough food to live(not nessasarily to make them stuffed though) but I didn't say anything about taste.
Again, this is not a right guaranteed to non-criminals. Why should criminals be given food, when our citizens capable of not breaking laws are not?

And opposed on the grounds that starving them makes them less likely to escape. (The prisoners in Gruenberg's work prisons are however reasonably well-fed.)

When was stopping sexual abuse ever a luxery.
WHEN IT IS NOT A RIGHT AFFORDED TO OTHER CITIZENS.

Do you understand that you are giving criminals a right that ordinary citizens, who are arguably entitled to greater rights, do NOT HAVE?

-Heating does not need to be good it means as somebody stated earlier that you arn't in antartica naked.
Problem for us. We maintain a prison in Antarctic Oasis, where indeed the prisoners are naked.

Oh, and that's right - heating not guaranteed to normal citizens. But by now I've given up any hope of you dropping your stance that sub-human brutalisers should be given privileged status over hard-working, law-abiding citizens.

Remember you need a good case to go to court. Also murder's complaining arn't exactly looked at well by a jury
No idea what this means.

-I don't really need to go on do I?
No, you don't.

I went through some random ones just because you never said witch ones you had problems with.
"The whole proposal" wasn't a clue?

Opposed. Point one: normal law-abiding citizens do not have this right guaranteed. We should give it to criminal scum before them?

Furthermore, we think their state of besoilment is appropriate, as it reminds of how their crimes have dirtied others.

Law abiding citizens no matter how poor they are can always go to rivers. Also if you washed once a month I think you might find yourself pretty dirty:D.

Again, this is not a right guaranteed to non-criminals. Why should criminals be given food, when our citizens capable of not breaking laws are not?

And opposed on the grounds that starving them makes them less likely to escape. (The prisoners in Gruenberg's work prisons are however reasonably well-fed.)

Well maybe again you should try to go without food for a short while it is alot worse then you can imagine. This is a common way of torture actualy.

WHEN IT IS NOT A RIGHT AFFORDED TO OTHER CITIZENS.

Do you understand that you are giving criminals a right that ordinary citizens, who are arguably entitled to greater rights, do NOT HAVE?

So you let rape happen in your country???!?

Problem for us. We maintain a prison in Antarctic Oasis, where indeed the prisoners are naked.

Oh, and that's right - heating not guaranteed to normal citizens. But by now I've given up any hope of you dropping your stance that sub-human brutalisers should be given privileged status over hard-working, law-abiding citizens.

Normal citizens don't need to live in the middle of the artic. Also why don't you just kill the prisioners it is the same thing. So you are going to say to me you have a prison built to kill people. Now that's a waste of money if I ever saw one.

Bloody retribution always trumps abstract notions of "liberty" or "rehabilitation" or "not being castrated with no anaesthetic".

One must truly wonder how your society functions. Perhaps it doesn't - perhaps it simply continues to exist with no definable functionality. If bloody retribution always trumpts liberty, shouldn't Joe Schmoe be permitted to execute his friend for cheating at poker? But wait - wouldn't that be murder? Or do you permit that and thus allow sore losers to rule Gruenberg

Oh wait, I'm speaking with JiffJeff

In a sense, our system is incredibly liberal: adjusting our whole society just to suit their perverse sense of morality.

False. You create an alternate society to toss those with whom you are incapable of understanding into. You force a barbaric society on those whom you fail to understand. Liberal is hardly the term for it. Bigoted, perhaps. Narrow minded, absolutely. Ah, the barbarism flows freely.

And I shall not be further replying to Secretary MacDougall before she withdraws her scandalous blasphemy.

You wishes shall not be met. Your refusal to defend your own religion merely proves my earlier point.

Prisoners are being granted privileges by this proposal that those who are capable of living within the law do not have! I expect to see crime rates soar across the UN as people flock into the centrally-heated, jacuzzi-laden, whipping-chamber-free luxury hotels you would have us fritter our valuable budget away on.

Well when you give little in the way of rights to your citizens and treat them with zero dignity, it is hardly a surprise that actually having rights would be considered a bonus. Perhaps it is a failing of your societal structure, not the prison standards which you consider so attrocious.

[QUOTE=Newfoundcanada]7) No prisoner may be treated differently based upon their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs unless the treatment is in the form of segregation to protect others from this prisoner. This shall only be done if there is good reason to believe it is necessary.
QUOTE]

What about the case of protecting prisoner in question from the other prisoners? (conditions should be reciprocated in this situation)

Now that you mention it, that thought was going through my head as I re-organized it.

Wow lol that got screwed up as I remember we were not even talking about the prespective of protecting others. We where talking about protecting that person. Anyway I fixed the problem thanks. Well I don't like the sentence though I think it could be better worded.

I think the representative of Newfoundcanada has missed my point. I am not saying it is right to rape or starve prisoners (I happen to think it is right to do so, but that's not my point). Even the liberals who think we should wuv prisoners and give them teddy bears must surely concede that protection against rape, starvation, disease, and so on, are rights that should be afforded to all citizens. In fact, that's the premise of this proposal, isn't it - that you're making sure prisoners aren't denied rights? But in doing so, you are giving prisoners rights that, and I can't spell this in big enough caps, are NOT GUARANTEED TO ALL CITIZENS. There is no article of international law requiring us to prevent our people from starving. Should this pass, there would be no article of international law requiring us to prevent our people from starving...unless they're criminals.

This hardly seems an equitable arrangement to me.

One must truly wonder how your society functions. Perhaps it doesn't - perhaps it simply continues to exist with no definable functionality. If bloody retribution always trumpts liberty, shouldn't Joe Schmoe be permitted to execute his friend for cheating at poker? But wait - wouldn't that be murder? Or do you permit that and thus allow sore losers to rule Gruenberg
Well, such a scenario for the courts to rule on. In Gruenberg vs. Nardigan, it was upheld that that it was lawful to kill another in retaliation for material losses, under certain circumstances. The one you present is somewhat contrived, but cheating carries a heavy stigma in Gruenberger society, so I don't imagine we would look too unfavourably upon the assailant.

However, I fail to see the relevance of this to the topic of hand, which is that prisoners are unhuman filth.

False. You create an alternate society to toss those with whom you are incapable of understanding into. You force a barbaric society on those whom you fail to understand. Liberal is hardly the term for it. Bigoted, perhaps. Narrow minded, absolutely. Ah, the barbarism flows freely.
Your words are no doubt intended as rebuttal, but I find myself fully behind them. I am proud that I am incapable of understanding criminal psychotics. I would not wish to share their mentality. Are you suggesting you are more in tune with the way they think, and act? Careful with that axe now...

You wishes shall not be met. Your refusal to defend your own religion merely proves my earlier point.
Shameful. Why should I defend my religion, when it needs no defence? Everyone knows Wenaism is the one true path - all others will die in flames.

And it does not "prove" your earlier point. Intelligence is a very valuable and valued commodity in Gruenberg, as all rare commodities are.

Well when you give little in the way of rights to your citizens and treat them with zero dignity, it is hardly a surprise that actually having rights would be considered a bonus. Perhaps it is a failing of your societal structure, not the prison standards which you consider so attrocious.
I disagree. The way we treat prisoners does not necessarily reflect the way our society is structured. There are some nations of a degree of social conservatism you would no doubt find distasteful that would nonetheless comfortably accommodate the provisions of this proposal. There are shining examples of very free societies, where offenders meet merciless recrimination. Justice is not necessarily a function of society. Certain values will be shared between assorted systems, no doubt, but I don't think it is fair to make so great an assumption as a stock response.

Tell me: will the prisoners in Forgottenlands be served the '94 Chianti with their five-course meals, or will they have to make do with the far less distinguished '93?

I think the representative of Newfoundcanada has missed my point. I am not saying it is right to rape or starve prisoners (I happen to think it is right to do so, but that's not my point). Even the liberals who think we should wuv prisoners and give them teddy bears must surely concede that protection against rape, starvation, disease, and so on, are rights that should be afforded to all citizens.

So by what you just said your nation does not give normal citizens protection against rape...:eek: that is just plain scary. Especialy that rape would also is a type of assult so you must not belive in assult... so if someone dies in an assult then you do not care... so you don't care about murder... clearly this means that you do not need prisons because you have nobody to lock up:D.

So unless you actualy belive that I suggest not bringing up rape again when talking about things normal citizens don't have.

On the point of starvation if you do not give your citizens food. you are asking why inmates should get it. I personaly would not do this, but I'll look at your side. Why don't you give everyone food? The normal reason is to urge them to work for it themselves right? This way they work for a higher standard of living.

This makes in itself some since, but applying that to prisons makes no since. Economicaly prisons are like communism where you have to be given everything by the government. Can you imagine a communist government that never gave out food or a way of getting food? No, because it would make no since people in prisons need to be given there food otherwise they will starve to death. People outside may be able to work.

No. Here is what I am saying (let's really grind those brain-gears on this one):

1. "The UN has not ensured these various rights to all citizens"
2. "After this proposal, the UN will still not have ensured these various rights to all citizens"
3. "Unless they're criminals"

Do you understand now? What it boils down to is this: there is no international law requiring us to provide two sanitary meals per day to our citizens. Yet we would be required to provide such to prisoners.

However, I don't think you understand. As such I will try a different tactic. As you know, I am a legal aide, and I will now exercise my fullmost legal experience:

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, the representative of Newfoundcanada would certainly want you to believe that all this proposal does is ensure a few basic rights for prisoners. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, I have one final thing I want you to consider.

http://www.artstooge.com/artists/jasen/Images_off_site/Chewie.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this proposal? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this proposal! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm acting as my nation's ambassador, attempting to argue against a proposal most damaging to our nation's penal system, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that assembly room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Wolfish Convention, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must oppose! I yield to the Chair.

That was the least comprehensible argument I have ever heard. I do not have any idea what you where saying.

from what I read in the first paragraph(the one I understood) Maybe gruenberg you should say something different other then just that one thing. Especialy that you hate the entire Submission. If you hate that clause why don't you suggest it is taken out. You would not do that because it is your only chance of having any rational argument against the proposal.

So for another time I am going to explain the starvation thing.

What is the reason you don't give out food to everyone?
Because it encourages them to be lazy... right?

People outside a prison can work can't they? People outside a prison can get things from charity right? People outside a prison can beg right? People outside a prison can find food if nessasary normaly right?

Which of these can people inside prisons do? none! They NEED the government to give them food or they are going to die. They are not being lazy because they have no opertunity to get food.

Or maybe you think it costs too much to give them food... that would be just silly because it is about 1$ a day because I never specified the food. that's 365$ in a year. That is nothing compared to the at LEAST $25,000 you spend to secure they stay in prison. Most places it cost MUCH more then that.

BTW: all those figures are based on real world numbers the US prisons cost 100,000$ a year on average by the way.

That was the least comprehensible argument I have ever heard. I do not have any idea what you where saying.
For once, we agree.

OOC: I'm sorry, I know I should be constructive, and I'm sure Hirota will barge in in a moment and lecture me on why I'm TOTALLY RUINING the UN with my negativity, but I don't understand anything you write, and you don't seem to understand the point I'm making either, so we're never going to reach accord. Suffice it to say, ICly, my nation firmly opposes this. Guess I'm done for this.

Also: there is such a thing as a joke. Even if it's shamelessly stolen, you're still allowed to take it not-100%-seriously.

ooc: you should note Zeldon is in favour of Guantanamo :rolleyes:[OOC: And so is Kenny. :rolleyes:]

That was the least comprehensible argument I have ever heard. I do not have any idea what you where saying.Honestly, you don't get it?

This heathen must be stoned! :eek:

No. Here is what I am saying (let's really grind those brain-gears on this one):

1. "The UN has not ensured these various rights to all citizens"
2. "After this proposal, the UN will still not have ensured these various rights to all citizens"
3. "Unless they're criminals"

Do you understand now? What it boils down to is this: there is no international law requiring us to provide two sanitary meals per day to our citizens. Yet we would be required to provide such to prisoners.

You know what.....I thought about it......I don't care. Yes, these rights have not been guaranteed for any member of society. However, there are two reasons why I would see why this resolution should pass anyways

1) Every member of society that isn't being incarcerated has the ability to actively seek out opportunities to improve their life. Those that are incarcerated find there is a wall sitting in the way.
2) If your society is so outrageously bad that a large portion of your nation would be willing to enter prison to escape it to the point that your society would collapse, the only thing I would do is grab a bag of popcorn. I have stated time and again that the Empire of Forgottenlands does not change its position on any resolution or repeal to save a stupid nation from itself. I even don't care if they enter such a lifestyle knowing full well they're going to die - it should be their right to be euthanized in such a manner and we are happy that they could find the most luxurious lifestyle the UN was able to arrange for them for their final days of life.

Yes, these rights aren't guaranteed to other citizens, perhaps the UN should look into it as a future proposal (honestly don't think it has a chance to pass), but in the meantime, let's at least make ONE place that's humane, and let's do it in an area that the fluffies will be able to understand without having to explain to them that backwater nations who falsely claim that Wena is anything greater than a heretic, like Gruenberg, exist.

However, I don't think you understand. As such I will try a different tactic. As you know, I am a legal aide, and I will now exercise my fullmost legal experience:

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, the representative of Newfoundcanada would certainly want you to believe that all this proposal does is ensure a few basic rights for prisoners. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, I have one final thing I want you to consider.

http://www.artstooge.com/artists/jasen/Images_off_site/Chewie.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this proposal? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this proposal! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm acting as my nation's ambassador, attempting to argue against a proposal most damaging to our nation's penal system, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that assembly room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Wolfish Convention, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must oppose! I yield to the Chair.

OOC: Second. Best. Post. Ever

(Losing only to the gandalf post)

OOC: Second. Best. Post. Ever

(Losing only to the gandalf post)

OOC: Yeah. It had me laughing for quite some time.

Wonderfully intense debate. I love it. Wish I had checked back in here earlier to engage in some of the more fascinating points. Alas, I shall simply have to add my two cents in now that some of the fire has left the scene.

To begin, noting some of the alterations that have been made to the proposal from its original form, I commend NFC for being willing to make some alterations to their work. I don't believe it is enough yet to garner our support, but the attempt shows some promise.

I will attempt to avoid socio-ethical or moral judgements until after actually analyzing what we see in the text.

A few concerns...

In the event of a jail break shooting is also allowed.

There are those who do not use firearms for various reasons. Simplify to the use of lethal force.

No prisoner may be beaten, tortured, or caused significant pain or grief except in cases of self defense or is part of the carrying out of a court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.


Should specify physical pain etc, as being incarcerated could be construed as emotional or psychological torture or grief, thus outlawing the prison entirely.

clean drinking water, no less than 1.5 liters per day.

I believe it was mentioned before, water requirements will vary from area to area. Leave it as an adequate supply for survival.

No prisoner may be treated differently based upon their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs unless the treatment is in the form of segregation to protect the prisioner from others or others from that prisioner. This shall only be done if there is good reason to believe it is necessary.

That last bit is unnecessary and leaves room for governmental abuse.

All family members, children and spouses have the right to communication of some form with prisoners, and vice-versa

Denied. There are many prisoners whose contact with the outside world must be limited. This would also guarantee them the right to contact their families whether said families wanted contact or not.

No prison employee/staff may provide prisoners with weapons nor engage in sexual acts with prisoners.

What if the staffer is married (or otherwise emotionally involved) with said prisoner? Why not allow them conjugal visits?

There are a few other points, but they are fairly minor at this time. Now then....

Gruen has a point. Whether he, or I, or anyone else, guarantees their citizens food, water, clothing, shelter, freedom from sexual abuse, torture or what all is irrelevant. This proposal would be making the statement that we will internationally legislate to guarantee these things to convicted felons before we make the attempt to do the same for law-abiding citizens. Whether these rights should be guaranteed or not isn't even at issue for us. The fact that we would guarantee them first to those who flout the very legislative bodies that would protect them is.

To take the middle ground on the treatment of prisoners debate, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Randomea has mentioned that there are no prisons there and they enjoy a nil crime rate as a result of the very compassionate, nice system of things there. Good. Here in Kivisto, we are exceptionally severe in our punishment of criminals. We also enjoy a complete lack of crime. I'm sure that there are many who fall into the middle of the spectrum that have accomplished the same. To say that one way is better than the other is . . . (I won't say silly, I won't say silly, I won't say silly) subjective to the ethical and moral background of the speaker.

Moving along, FL and Norderia have some merit to the arguments that being a convicted criminal doesn't make them less than human. It could be argued that society is to blame. I, myself, don't necessarily argree with that in general, but I can see how, in certain cases, such could potentially be true.
Does fear of incarceration work as a deterrent? Yes. Can rehabilitation programs work? I suppose.

Do we believe that the decision which one to utilize should be left to individual nations to choose for themselves?

YESSSSSSSSSS.....

Furthermore, look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!

Did anyone see where I put that bowling ball?

What if the staffer is married (or otherwise emotionally involved) with said prisoner? Why not allow them conjugal visits?

For the sake of the security of the prison and a variety of other concerns, I would argue that the staff member and the prisoner should not be at the same prison. Yes, I'm aware that means the prisoner might get shipped across the country, but surely you can see the security risk of having such a situation.

Law abiding citizens no matter how poor they are can always go to rivers.

Not in Antarctica!

(and Gruenberg was located in the region called 'Antarctic Oasis', which is only one of several 'polar' regions currently in existance, when last I checked...)

For the sake of the security of the prison and a variety of other concerns, I would argue that the staff member and the prisoner should not be at the same prison. Yes, I'm aware that means the prisoner might get shipped across the country, but surely you can see the security risk of having such a situation.

Agreed.
But doesn't shipping the prisoner across the country, if they don't consent to this, violate their rights under resolution #6? ;)

Don't change the lethal force clause to include escapees. While inside a prison, lethal force should not be administered because a prisoner wanders too close to the walls. Outside the prison, that's up to the nations. This proposal is to be sure that conditions in prisons are livable, and granting the right to shoot on sight someone who appears to be attempting an escape is much too harsh. Unless your prisons are walled off by hedges and a white picket fence, an escapee who gets caught while attempting it is not going to have an easy enough time escaping to warrant an execution. It's not hard to round up someone who's dumb enough to get caught while escaping (and in order for someone to shoot him, he has to get caught, right?). Once outside the walls, it's the government's choice, however they deal with fugitives.

Agreed, as long as we're only talking about civilian prisoners, but as currently worded this proposal would cover POWs too (Note to self: check the wording of the Wolfish Convention for possible clashes...) and different rules could reasonably be applied in their case

All of this seems to come down to pushing very narrow sets of moral and cultural values onto a very broad range of societies. Your ideas on what prisons "should do" are all well and dandy for the liberal communist cesspits of Norderia, but they simply don't work in countries where all sense of morality has not yet been blown away. There is no international element to this proposal, there are not even basic rights being espoused. Prisoners are being granted privileges by this proposal that those who are capable of living within the law do not have! I expect to see crime rates soar across the UN as people flock into the centrally-heated, jacuzzi-laden, whipping-chamber-free luxury hotels you would have us fritter our valuable budget away on.

This is rank cultural imperialism, and given our culture is better than yours, we oppose this very strongly.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

Alfred Sweynsson turns to face whoever's sitting next to him, unless that's Lori Jiffjeff herself or one of her staff, and murmurs _

"Whenever anybody in St Edmund complains that the government isn't liberal enough, or doesn't do enough for its people, we like to remind those people that they could be living somewhere like Gruenberg instead..."

7) No prisoner may be treated differently based upon their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs unless the treatment is in the form of segregation to protect others from this prisoner. This shall only be done if there is good reason to believe it is necessary.What about the case of protecting prisoner in question from the other prisoners? (conditions should be reciprocated in this situation) Wow lol that got screwed up as I remember we were not even talking about the prespective of protecting others. We where talking about protecting that person. Anyway I fixed the problem thanks. Well I don't like the sentence though I think it could be better worded.

I'd suggest that simply replacing Clause #7 as it currently stands with one saying7) No prisoner may be treated unfairly because of their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs; would allow not only for isolating certain prisoners to protect them from other prisoners (and vice versa) but also for the gender-segregated prisons whose continued legality some people have suggested this clause would threaten, and also for some of the points that I raised earlier...

Alfred Sweynsson turns to face whoever's sitting next to him, unless that's Lori Jiffjeff herself or one of her staff, and murmurs _

"Whenever anybody in St Edmund complains that the government isn't liberal enough, or doesn't do enough for its people, we like to remind those people that they could be living somewhere like Gruenberg instead..."

MacDougall turned back and muttered "You still aren't liberal enough - lunatics don't count."

I fixed the problems that people raised... I think. Well the ones that are fixable anyway. I can't exactly fix people not liking it in general:) .

I don't care
*shrugs*

There was a time when people were willing to defend proposals.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

I fixed the problems that people raised... I think. Well the ones that are fixable anyway. I can't exactly fix people not liking it in general:) .

NOTING, with regret, the lack of legislation regarding the rights of prisoners.

"legislation in some nations"?

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a prisoner as a person detained and/or held in captivity.

DEFINING, for the purposes of this resolution, a prison as a place where prisoners are detained.

These definitions would still seem to include those psychiatric patients & mentally infirm individuals who've been placed in secure 'homes' by officialdom... and you've lost the clause excluding POWs from this proposal's scope.

Some typoes to correct & suggested re-wording further down...

1) No Prisoner may be killed unless the pose an immediate and significant threat to another person and cannot be halted with non-lethal methods or is the carrying out of a court-approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.

"unless they pose an"
"or this is part of a court-approved execution for the crime for which they have been incarcerated."

In the event of a jail break lethal force is also allowed.

Presumably only against those involved in the jailbreak? And not if national law forbids this?

2) No prisoner may be beaten, tortured, or caused significant physical pain except in cases of self defense or is part of the carrying out of a court approved execution for the crime by which they have been incarcerated.

I think that the bit about self-defense needs re-wording, and see above about executions...


6) All prisoners must have access to at least two healty, sanitary meal per day, and are not starved.

"healthy"
"and are not to be starved."

7) No prisoner may be treatedunfairly because of their ethnicity, appearance, gender, opinion or beliefs.

Space missing between "treated" & "unfairly"...

8) All prisoners must be provided the opportunity, at least once weekly, to exercise and maintain proper fitness levels.

Unless they have been sentenced to death?

11) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners are to be properly trained to handle any foreseeable situation, including hand-to-hand combat as well as weapons training.

"any reasonably forseeable situation"?

13) All prison employees/staff tasked with guarding prisoners be supplied with non-lethal, self-defensive devices and instructed to use these in place of lethal weapons in all but the most extreme cases.

"are to be provided"

14) No prison employee/staff may provide prisoners with weapons nor engage in sexual acts with prisoners.

and/or, neither/nor...

15) No prison employee/staff member may consistently verbally abuse or harass a prisoner. This does not in any way retrict policemen.

"restrict"

RECOMMENDING Disposal of unclaimed corpses is in accordance with their beliefs.

"RECOMMENDING that the disposal of dead prisoners' corpses should be in accordance with their beliefs."

*shrugs*

There was a time when people were willing to defend proposals.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Acting Ambassador
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair of "Mothers Against Weird Shit"

There was a time when people read the entire argument before assuming that it wasn't a defense

EDIT: Bah, who am I kidding

I did defend it. The entire rest of the post explains exactly why I felt your argument was not relevant, and why the proposal should press ahead regardless of your argument.