[GA - Failed] Restricting Solitary Confinement

COGNIZANT that solitary confinement is often used to prevent a dangerous person from harming their companions;

SHOCKED at the devastating psychological effects of solitary confinement, such as suicidal tendencies, self-mutilation, hallucinations, psychosis, paranoia and hypersensitivity;

ASSERTING that solitary confinement is realistically unlikely to improve the behaviour of a person;

APPALLED that, despite the above, solitary confinement is used as a measure attempting to discipline prisoners;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. DEFINES “solitary confinement” as the involuntary confinement of any person without the ability to see or communicate with another person for a duration of time proven to cause problems in an otherwise healthy individual.
   
   
2. MANDATES that solitary confinement is illegal in all member nations, whether within a prison system or not, unless the person subject to solitary confinement is clearly likely to harm other people or be harmed by other people and there is no other reasonable way to prevent this occurring.
   
   
3. RULES that all member nations must provide or make available effective treatment or therapy for people with mental disorders or illnesses caused or exacerbated by solitary confinement.
   

Click to expand...

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

I feel like a lot of this is covered in other resolutions. Not sure how to feel about this.

Going with against it is

Against
- Author doesn't seem to understand the difference between protective custody and solitary confinement. Why on Earth one would legislate that a person who is at risk of being hurt by others be placed in solitary confinement, under any circumstances, defies logic. This is something that would never be considered, but would now be legal under certain circumstances, under this deeply flawed legislation.
- Don't really like the whole of clause 2, it's a mess, and leaves a massive loophole by the use of the word 'reasonable' that potentially undermines everything else this proposal tries to achieve. 'Reasonable' could mean: Just don't have the space, just don't have the guards, just don't want the liability, etc, etc as justification to continue to lock people up in isolation. Further, the vagueness around 'clearly likely to harm other people' opens up the potential for even the most simple assault to become grounds for solitary confinement, as this clause is written.
- Clause 3 essentially mandates that all nations must provide mental health support to all, regardless of whether they've been in solitary or not. Any mental illness could be 'exacerbated' by solitary confinement, so everything must now be covered under this proposal. Again, just a badly crafted sentence that ends up meaning something other than what was intended..

Exceedingly vague. However, I once wrote a similar proposal in the same vein, and really believe that this kind of legislation is needed. The idea that once someone is sent to prison that they're no longer humane or deserve to be treated as such is a sign that our society is not quite civilized. I think this is just as valid in the WA as it is IRL. That said, while good intentioned and an innovative approach, I feel it could be better written.

I'm so conflicted, I will simply be Present.

I agree with Fiji. I believe that legislation like this is needed but it's very vague.
For now, I'm voting Against. I'll keep reading other peoples views though and I might change it.

I vote For then ^^
NPA deployed WA https://www.nationstates.net/nation=princess_yuno

Against

All for solitary confinement legislation, but not this.

I'm having to vote for this. Apologies but I can't support there being no control of solitary confinement. From my reading it seems that this has reasonable protections and seems fairly safe to vote for.
My vote is:
For

I too am conflicted. I believe there needs to be some legislation to ban or limit solitary confinement. But the notion of "reasonable" is indeed ripe for abuse. I am also unclear on why those who need to be protected should be subjected to solitary confinement.

As of now, I lean Against.

For

WA: New Bremerton

3-5

Closer than I originally anticipated, by clearly enough for Against

For

Nation: [The Most Fabulous SC Member of] Francis Francis the First of France

For

Well it’s 5-6-0-1 (throwing in my own vote against.

Vote remains Against.

Against.

Sundred

against