Prohibition of Private Prisons, Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners and Minimum Standards for Correction Officers Act
-
Dear councillors thank you for your feedback so far, allow me to adress Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe first. Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, your concerns do not make excuse for torture, which prolonged solitary confinement certainly is, due to its negative effects on mental health, safety of inmates can be guaranteed by other ways than torture and more effectively, as damaging one's mental health decreases the chance of successful rehabilitation. You could in the same fashion advocate for cutting of hands to increase safety within prisons, yet it would be absurd, just as advocacy for prolonger solitary confinement is.
Furthermore, there are no good slavers and there are no good private prisons, your advocacy for forced labour is most certainly interesting and I think each of the potential employees of Roscoes' businesses should consider what working place they can expect from an advocate of forced labour. I would like to point out that I only forced labour in private prisons would be forbidden by the act, together with the private prisons, no individual might be forced to work against their will for somebody else's profit. Service to society and helping to pay for their accommodation in prison by working is an entirely different thing than working for profit of some individual, I hope we can agree on that.
Now to address your concerns, in light of your comments about how the proposal was written, I would like to first focus on your proposed Amendment V.: "II. All prisoners are expected to supply all prisoners with a bed and restrooms. Prisons may not deny access to restrooms as a form of punishment.", How do you expect checking if each and every prisoner supplied all the other prisoners with bed and restrooms? Would workshops be required for each and every prisoner to teach them how to create beds and restrooms? Where would you even put all these beds and restrooms, since each prisoner has to supply all the others? Are you really so unmovable with your proposed amendments that you wouldn't accept prisons providing each of their inmates with beds and access to the restrooms instead of all the prisoners?
Now to the more important issues. Where do you see me implying that publicly owned prisons can't cause harm to the prisoners? I have never implied that, what I did say is that private, for-profit prisons have interest in having the maximum amount of people incarnated, it generates profit for the owner. Just as it is in the interest of shoe seller to sell shoes. Thus, it is not in the interes of private prisons to contribute to successful rehabilitation of prisoners, which is harmful for the society. We don't want released prisoners to commit more crimes.
Regarding your wording of Section II., you claim that implantability is important for you, but on the contrary your Amendment makes implantability much harder, if not impossible. By changing men and women into gender, we would create a number of problems. Would each state have to construct prisons just for third, fourth and so on, genders? Now how about a person of a certain gender from country A being incarnated in country B, which does not recognize said gender, to which prison should such person go? Or should all member states in the entirety of the Union construct and maintain prisons for each and every gender recognized by any member state in the Union? That would be an extremely costly endeavor and at the end you would have some prisons empty or nearly empty, while others would be overcrowded. Does that seem realistic to you?
Now could you explain to me the following questions? Why do you consider prolonged solitary confinement to not be a form of mental torture of the prisoners? Why do you think denying access to healthcare is beneficial for the prisons? If a pandemic breaks out, is it not in the general interest to make sure it doesn't spread within the prison and outside of its barriers? Is it not in general interest that the prisoners are healthy and eat healthy food in order to not decrease their productivity and chance of successful rehabilitation? Why do you think correction officers, who are working in a very dangerous and mentally demanding job, do not deserve access to healthcare facilities and pensions for their service to the society? Let's not forget they are putting their lives at risk and are responsible for the safety and lives of others. And finally, why do you consider the creation of the European Union Prison Standards Committee necessary?
Finally, to address both of you, fighting against slavery and torture of inmates is not an ideological point in the slightest, which is the aim of this proposal. Thank you.
Sofie Čikarová
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
I would like to point out I did say it should be the last option used but your wonderful world of idealism doesn't exist in reality. The reality is there are prisoners who if mixed in with others in the jail population will be a risk to life or be at risk of being potentially killed themselves. Would you wish prisoners to die because of your supposed kindness. I Know that its not pleasant but the world is not black and white.
And onto your point private prisons are always bad , that is not always the case we have given contracts to mental health, youth and disability focused companies and charities, the same companies and charities also have been given contracts running care homes, ex-con community homes and services in the community for ex-cons that get used once a member gets out with contracts specifically designed in a fashion to ensure providers lose their license if they fail to reach a high desistance of criminal activity target. You can have private specialist providers running services including the prisons with better results and better service offered that is why we do it yet you just say in a blanket statement they are automatically bad for prisoners , it is ideological your opposition to private prisons and all solitary confinement and just because you believe it doesn't mean its reality. You are quite frankly dangerous to many prisoners and your law if enacted would result in deaths of prisoners such as police officers and sex offenders and some of the most vulnerable prison population and result in an increase in extremism and the threats to the general population.
I would also address you on claiming I support forced labour I don't but this could also outlaw unpaid community service to reduce prison sentence time. Once again in trying to be a do gooder you ignore reality and harm many prisoners who you are trying to help. I am sorry if reality is not black and white but thats reality , you can deny it push ahead without changes and blowing off our concerns about protecting a system designed with police, the government and support groups in the Duchies or listen and actually help the prison population in a genuine way . The choice is yours , and how I vote will depend on how concerns are addressed if they are not I will vote against and I warn you this level of control over countries justice and penal systems could also push many nations out of the EU further causing damage. Be careful how you proceed as this if it passes in its current form could be used as ammunition for many exits from the EU in many nations who are already sick of the EU consistently trying to butt into social issues where it is not wanted at the expense of national sovereignty .
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
Firstly, on the subject of the legislation itself:
In regards to Section I, I don't find it necessary to prohibit all private prisons. The issue, in my mind, is necessarily profitmaking - that is the real force which drives abuses. To ensure maximum support, might it be better to merely prohibit prisons operating on a for-profit basis?
In regards to Section II, for what reason are sports specifically specified, especially in light of the previous mandate for the establishment of prison libraries? It might be better, in my opinion, to expand this, as Cllr. Zachary suggested, to all forms of leisure.
In regards to Section III, I find the reference to spas fairly bizarre, and would prefer that it be removed.
Turning to Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe - I don't understand what your point is. No one here, as far as I can understand, has suggested that private prisons are "always bad." I will quote Cllr. Čikarová: "private, for-profit prisons have interest in having the maximum amount of people incarnated, it generates profit for the owner. Just as it is in the interest of shoe seller to sell shoes. Thus, it is not in the interes of private prisons to contribute to successful rehabilitation of prisoners." There is no one who can deny that private prisons do not have a significant incentive to keep the largest number of people possible incarcerated, and it is that, not whether they act on that incentive, which is at debate here.
Torture is also not an acceptable solution to any problem in society, in my opinion. In the schools there are also children who misbehave and threaten other children, but our solution is not to waterboard them into obedience; why should it be any different in the prisons?
Turning to Cllr. Zachary, as a Councillor, not the Speaker, I have to say that your rhetoric borders on conspiratorial. In regards to the amendments you have proposed:
Amendment VI suggests firstly that it would be legal to keep prisoners in a constant state of hunger so long as they can subsist. Over a long period of time, this is beyond inhumane. It further suggests that prisoners will not be entitled to, but merely "qualified," to receive time for leisure. I find this vaguely ominous, but would in any case like to know what exactly it would entail.
Amendment VII would permit abuse on the part of correctional officers, and could, more worryingly, open the path for a permanent bondage of prisoners. In theory, it could allow prisons to charge prisoners for necessary services but prevent them from working to pay for them, and therefore indebt them, under certain laws perhaps allowing them to remain in prison indefinitely. This is an unpleasant state of affairs, to say the least.
Amendment IX would effectively make the act unenforceable, by preventing litigation for what is surely to be the vast majority of violations, and is therefore completely unacceptable to me.
I will be proposing several amendments at a later time.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Councillor Čikarová, thank you for noting the typo in the fifth amendment. It has been fixed.
Liam Zachary, Councillor for the State of Elthize
-
Now that we have fixed the misunderstanding in the fifth amendment, which indeed was one of the reasons why I added "unless there are exceptional reasons" at the end, something Councillor Čikarová conveniently left out just to have a cheap laugh but failed as she seemingly thought it was my Duchian colleague that wrote it, I mean, I don't recall her referring to me, I would love to respond.
It is fascinating how Čikarová claims I said she implied something she didn't, and then, under the same breath, acts as if me tidying this trainwreck of a bill by removing unnecessary articles equates to me somehow supporting the exact opposite of what those articles suggest.
Like, no, I do indeed consider prolonged solitary confinement to be a form of mental torture of the prisoners, not sure where that comes from, and no, I am also not someone that doesn't support free healthcare for all, as I have repeatedly voted for expanding public healthcare during my time as an Elthic assemblymember whenever possible. The amendment removes that part because it is too vague and may conflict with other member states' healthcare systems.
Again, I was a member of the National Assembly of Elthize from 2012 to 2018, not sure if you have the same experience, and, as far as I know, you do not make a bill more effective by making it overly specific, things like this should be left to the member states of the European Union so that they have more freedom of choice under their specific circumstances. Same reason why the sixth amendment exists, or the seventh one.
We dictate every single decision that member states make like this and the EU gets further and further fragmented. All in the name of "basic human decency"- a phrase that people like Čikarová love to use to get back at people who opposed them, like me, as if we don't know it, intentionally keeping it vague under agreeable statements such as "fighting against slavery", which my second amendment already covers, and "torture of inmates", which is something that Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe discusses, not me. He disputes the 15-day limit, which I agree with. I removed the "last resort" part because I want correction officers to decide when to use it, depending on the severity of the action that requires it. I guess I have to withdraw my comments on my amendments not being moveable and edit my amendment to restrict solitary confinement even further.
I wonder which one of us makes it easier for correction officers, you with your utopian proposals that will have the states further indebted, or me with my pragmatic proposals that are easy and universal to enforce. Also, if your concern was preventing torture and slavery in prisons, you and Councillor Tilkanas wouldn't oppose the creation of a committee which would publish reports on the status of the prisoners of the European Union.
Lastly, it is the member state's choice whether to establish prisons on genders beyond male or female. The inmate's citizenship doesn't matter, the only thing that does is the law of the member state. Likewise, it is the responsibility of the member state to keep these inmates safe, which they certainly will not in a binary prison system. There is no need for a third, fourth or fifth category of prisons specifically for every identified gender ever- the openness of the article allows member states to just have an "other" category where these inmates may be safely transferred.
Liam Zachary, Councillor for the State of Elthize
Unless stated otherwise, all content is fiction and does not represent any person, group of people or entity whose imagery or likeness may be used. If possible, images will be attributed.
-
I propose the following amendments
Ammendment 1:
ProhibitionRegulation of Private Prisons and Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners and Minimum Standards for Correction Officers ActSECTION I. -
PROHIBITION OFRestrictions on PRIVATE PRISONS
I. Forced labour in private prisons is recognized as a form of slavery. This shall be defined as free labour or labour that is mandatory and not part of a scheme to provide community service or paid work in aid of gaining skills or granting a reduction in sentence length.
II. Buidling of new private prisons is prohibited from the day of entry of this legislation into forceII. Private prisons must provide education , services and facilities that aid in rehabilitation of prisoners.
III. Placing prisoners in private prisons is prohibited from the day of entry of this legislation into force.
IV. All existing private prisons are to be transferred into public ownership no later than six months after the entry of this legislation into force.
III. Private prison companies are prohibited by law from lobbying government or getting involved in politics in any wayAmmendment 2:
SECTION II. - MINIMUM RULES FOR TREATEMENT OF PRISONERSI. Different categories of prisoners shall be kept on separated premises.
II. The categories referred to in Article I. of Section II. consist of:
a. Men and women
b. Young offenders and adult offenders
c. Convicted prisoners and untried prisoners
d. Civil prisoners and persons imprisoned by reason of a criminal offence
III. Each prisoner is entitled to a bed and shall have access to restrooms.
IV. Under no conditions can a prisoner be denied access to restrooms as a punishment
V. Each prisoner shall have access to food and water that contain the necessary vitamins and nutrients for a healthy life.
VI. Under no conditions can a prisoner be denied access to food or water as a punishment.
VII. No prisoner can be held in solitary confinement for more than 15 consecutive days except for purposes of protection of the general prison population , in aid of the prevention of spread of extremist views or for protection and safety of the individual prisoner and only when other options have been exhausted.
VIII. Solitary confinement shall be used only as a last resort.
IX. Each prison shall have a library to which the prisoners should have access to. Prisons should encourage prisoners to access the library.
X. Each prisoner shall be guaranteed his or her right to work unless such a right is incompatible with protection of the general prison population , in aid of the prevention of spread of extremist views or for protection and safety of the individual prisoner
XI.Prisoners shall not be paid less than 75% of the lowest legal wage or living wage of state the prisoner is imprisoned in
XII. Prisonerswho are not employed outside of the prison facilityshall receive at least an hour for sports outside.
XIII. All prisoners shall be guaranteed free access to healthcare facilities including psychiatrists.
Ammendment 3:
SECTION III. - MINIMUM STANDARTS FOR CORRECTION OFFICERS
I. The wages of correction officers should not be lower than the average wage in a given member state.
II. All correction officers be guaranteed free access to healthcare facilities including psychiatrists.
III. Affordable housing should be provided for correction officers living long distance from their place of employment.
IV. Correction officers should be guaranteed at least six fully paid weeks of leave a year.
V. After, at most, 15 years of service correction officers should have a right to a service pension and offered 14 days stay in a spa or rehabilitation institution a year free of charge.Ammendment 4:
SECTION IV. - ENTRY INTO FORCEI. Without prejudice to dates set out in Section I. the rest of the requirements shall be fulfilled a year after the entry of this legislation into force.
II. This legislation shall create the Unified Minimum Prison Standards Organisation or UMPS
III. The agency shall be tasked with reporting on prisoners standards within each country , recommending any necessary changes for compliance with this act and if necessary implementing European Court of Justice cases to enforce the law.
IV.The head of UMPS shall be appointed by the Premier Commissioner and approved by a majority vote of the European Council every year.I present these ammendments to address your concerns over running of private prisons. This seems a sensible balance acknowledging reality and complex situations while ensuring minimum standards and effective enforcement of said standars
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor of United Duchies
-
Thank you, dear colleagues, for all your valuable input, allow me me start with the reasonings behind Sections II and III of the proposal. Outside sports were specified as it is an exercise, which is very important for the health of the inmates and the competitivness and teamwork required in large number of sports is very beneficial to the mental health and rehabilitation process, specifying sports makes it clear that prisons must have sports facilities accessible to the prisoners. However, if there is an overwhelming opposition to the inclusion of sports, I am willing to compromise on Mr. Zachary's proposed wording.
Regarding Section III., dear Ms. Tilkanas, could you please clarify to me why do you find the access to spa's free of charge bizarre? I don't see what is bizarre about granting correction officers, who have served a long time, free access to facilities that offer health treatments as a benefit. We should realize how physically demanding the work of the correction officers is and health treatment surely are beneficial. To have active or retired correction officers who served for a long-time suffering from, for example, leg pain, to which the service might have contributed, and not being able to afford spas would be an insult to their service and sacrifices. But I am of course interested to hear your opinions.
But when it comes to Section I., I must insist on prohibiting private prisons without exception. I am not in this Council to represent the interest of Roscoes' business empire, nor the private prison lobby, I am here to represent the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia and I am not ready to give up and accept Roscoes' and private prison lobby's demands. I can't accept private prisons because of their nature, which is fundamentally different from public prisons, just as I couldn't accept slavery and other injustice.
Since we are on the topic, Mr. Roscoe, your words are truly sickening. There is no justification for torture. If cutting of tongues would prevent one from spreading his or her ideas, which you consider extremist, it would not justify the practice of cutting of tongues. The cure is worse than the illness. What you claim is realism is nothing but very thinly masked sadism. Has the danger to other inmates, correction officers and society as a whole increased after mutilation as a punishment was forbidden? If not, why should it increase after this psychological torture would be banned? And I will continue to speak publicly against this torturous method until it is forbidden. To stop me you would have to put me into solitary confinement indefinitely or cut off my tongue.
Once again, I will repeat myself, the proposal in no way restricts community service, it seeks to prohibit only labour forced upon prisoners in private prisons. Community service is a completely different issue.
Now, Mr. Zachary, could you explain your words about potential conflict with member states' healthcare systems? Moreover, your proposed amendment wouldn't remove only guaranteed access to free healthcare, it would remove guaranteed access to any form of healthcare, including paid one, do you not see a problem in that? And that is not to say that, as we know, prisoners might not be able to afford access to a doctor, which is especially bad in a crowded place like prison.
Specifing that solitary confinement is a last resort measure, is important not to normalize it usage, when steps could be taken, and punishments be given to address the issue. It shouldn't be the first measure considered by the competent authorities. Are we in disagreement on this?
Regarding the issue of gender. I agree with you that it is more inclusive wording, and in almost any other case I would prefer your wording. But please not that your proposed amendment demands separation of prisoners of different genders, which would include any gender besides man and woman. It also doesn't clarify that it means recognized genders in given member states. And again, if we return to the issue of foreigner with a certain gender being imprisoned in a country, which does not recognize said gender, would it be up to the authorities of said member states to issue a gender to that person? Could they therefore place a biological female of a third gender, not recognized in this member state, into a prison for men, because they would issue that gender to this person? Is that not problematic from your perspective?
As you can see number of issues arises from this wording, and since we are only talking about minimum rules using the universally accepted and biological categories of man and woman is preferrable as it obliges member states to separate male and female prisoners while leaving the other issues of gender solely in their hands.
Satisfying the demands for nutrients and vitamins is crucial for a healthy life, could you please explain to us why this is problematic for you?
And could you also provide us with explanation of why you consider the creation of PRISCOM necessary? And why should it be placed under the EDA, which has no relation to the issue of prisons? Do you consider the mechanisms and authorities inside the member states to be insufficient? Or do you consider them not trustworthy? For what reason? I have the same question for you, Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, and a question of why you consider creation of the Unified Minimum Prison Standards Organisation preferrable to the proposal of Mr. Zachary and why do you see the Section titled "Entry into force" as a proper place for the placement of those articles.
Also, Mr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, didn't you say you agree with solitary confinement only being used as a last resort? Why do you then feel that it is necessary to remove Article VIII. of Section II.? And since you want Articles I. and II. of Section II. also removed I have to ask you if you consider placing young offenders in the same premises as adult offenders acceptable. Does it not increase risk to the young offenders? Or would you just throw a 15-year-old offender into solitary confinement for a number of years for his or her "protection" as you call it?
With that being said I propose the following amendment:
AMENDMENT XII.
SECTION II. - MINIMUM RULES FOR TREATEMENT OF PRISONERS
I. Different categories of prisoners shall be kept on separated premises.
II. The categories referred to in Article I. of Section II. consist of:
a. Men and women
b. Young offenders and adult offenders
c. Convicted prisoners and untried prisoners
d. Civil prisoners and persons imprisoned by reason of a criminal offence
III. Each prisoner is entitled to a bed and shall have access to restrooms.
IV. Under no conditions can a prisoner be denied access to restrooms as a punishment
V. Each prisoner shall have access to food and water that contain the necessary vitamins and nutrients for a healthy life.
VI. Dietary requirements of each prisoner shall be taken into account and appropriate food, containing the necessary vitamins and nutrients for a healthy life, shall be provided to such prisoners.
VII. Under no conditions can a prisoner be denied access to food or water as a punishment.
VIII. No prisoner can be held in solitary confinement for more than 15 consecutive days.
IX. Solitary confinement shall be used only as a last resort.
X. Each prison shall have a library to which the prisoners should have access to. Prisons should encourage prisoners to access the library.
XI. Each prisoner shall be guaranteed his or her right to work.
XII. Prisoners who are not employed outside of the prison facility shall receive at least an hour for sports outside.
XIII. All prisoners shall be guaranteed free access to healthcare facilities including psychiatrists.
This amendment takes into account that some prisoners might be for example vegetarian or vegans, or that they might have food allergies or that their religion prohibits them from eating certain types of food. These poisoners shall be provided with alternatives that fulfill the necessary demand on nutrients and vitamins. I hope we can all agree on the necessity of this amendment.
I would also like to hear opinions of other Councillors; your feedback is always greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Sofie Čikarová
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
I support this legislation in its entirety, including its goal to eventually end private prison systems, its restriction of solitary confinement, and its aim to end the practice of slavery in which inmates are exploited. All dimensions of this proposal have my strongest approval.
The legislation has quite a few grammatical mistakes, missing pieces of punctuation, at least one spelling mistake, and some issues with open ended language – for instance, “entry of this legislation into force” should probably say something like "upon the passage of this Act" instead, since legislation isn’t actually entered into force once its passed, so that’s a whole different story. I’ve prepared some amendments to fix all these minor problems, but I don’t see any point in putting them forward with the countless other amendments which have been put forward, which may alter the scope of the legislation completely. Even with these mistakes, I’ll support this legislation anyway.
A lot of unserious amendments and arguments being made in this Chamber which I don’t even know how to begin to address. Anyway, good work so far Comrade Sofierce.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista
The Most Blessed State of Inquista
Archbishop Mikaela Kligenberg
Chief Bishop Secretary Edward Firoux
Councillor Karinn Lallana -
Cllr. Čikarová, it is simply that I have generally associated spas with pseudoscience and general quackery, with the few benefits they bring able to be satisfied in more scientific ways. However, I may be wrong in this respect.
Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, let us say that a hypothetical government subsidized the use of oil. Now of course, some companies using oil might use such a subsidy in a conscientious way - perhaps to transition off of oil in the long term - but from an objective point of view, it would serve as an incentive, and would therefore probably increase the use of oil on the macro-scale. Profitmaking prisons are no different. For every prisoner they receive, they gain profit; they therefore have an incentive to increase their population as much as is possible. If we are to establish true justice, it therefore follows that we must remove the incentive - again, profitmaking - that quite necesssarily perverts it in this way. We can speak as much as we like about the supposed altruism of the private prison owners in the United Duchies, but that will not change this fact.
Moving on, I propose the following amendment:
AMENDMENT XIII
Replace all references to "private prisons" to "prisons operating on a for-profit basis"
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
I would say to you I did include wording of last resort in my amendments so its not removed and it is only used as the last resort if there are no other options to ensure safety of other prisoners , the prisoner or to stop the spread of extremism for example by a neo-fascist who could recruit other members to the ideology for example. You may not like reality but sometimes its just not possible to safely mix a prisoner with other prisoners so solitary cells are the only option in the case of the worst and most dangerous criminals. We do as a policy mandate tv's with freeview and all other basics in the cells and an individual bathroom even in such circumstances so its not like we abolish human rights.
Again I reiterate its not for the EU to ideologically impose state owned and run prisons as the only option. You'll note my ammendment mandates to keep a contract a private provider would have to offer rehabilitive services and hit targets for that so that should adress your concerns unless you are acting ideologically which I rather suspect you are by trying to impose your views of socialism on all nations systems. I invite you personally to visit a private run prison in the Duchies for people with mental health and for disabilities as well as a general one to see the gold standard services on offer using the organisations specialist strengths . They have improved outcomes for both prisoner and the state dramatically. Should I tell prisoners because of your ideological obsession with the state running everything they have to go back to being in the inferior outcome system we had previously where a state with less idea on mental health provision and disability needs is providing care with less expertise. You need to consider there are other models available such as our partnerships and contracts with specialist organisations to provide prison facilities with specialist care that the state is not specialised in.
I would also say it should be up to states how they mix the prisoners as once again this is a top down solution on your part. There is no reason one should have to seperate women and men in many cases as long as the prison can provide all needed health care and needs of security. Same as there is no reason there cannot be youth wings in a general prison which this act would forbid. I would also say we do not throw 15 year olds into solitary confinement in Duchies they are mandated to have full access to education and all facilities unless the risk of violence or to the inviduals safety is so high as for it to be reckless to mix them in general population much like adult prisoners.If the ammendments do not pass I must vote against this act as it would cause harm to prisoners and the system in my country which has developed strong partnerships with charities and specialists in disability , mental health and youth rehabilitation giving them partnership in running prisons with contracts . I will not vote to remove what works to suit some anti-private agenda. I accept the need for minimum standards but as long as prisons meet those minimum standards does it matter if they are private or public if they cannot also lobby or donate into politics as is present in my amendments. I have to ask why do you think it is acceptable for the EU to force states to adopt a certain prison model just because you dislike private corporations.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
Ok, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, but this is beyond the point. Prisons operating on a for-profit basis, regardless of the altruism of their owners, will have a powerful incentive to increase the number of prisoners by as much as is possible. What is your proposal to deal with this fact?
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
They will not be able to lobby government or provide donations to political parties under my amendments to this act so that issue there is solved. It is an ideological assumption that all private prisons have an incentive to increase number of prisoners. If you structure the contracts right as has been done in United Duchies you can avoid the issue by seeking 80-90% rehabilitation rates in contracts for example enforced by a target. That is how you deal with it not by banning private prisons on an ideological basis as is being proposed here. Whatever happened to national sovereignty and respecting how a country wishes to run their economy and public services including the justice system? The EU's role is not to force socialism on all member states its to increase cooperation .
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
-
For-profit prisons, by definition, will maximize profits. As with any other business, market forces will compel them to increase revenue and decrease expenses. Prisons are therefore given an incentive to maximize the number of the incaracerated, as this increases their revenue, as well as to degrade living conditions, as this decreases their total expenses.
It is this, the force of market logic, that is my central objection to private prisons as they exist today. It does not matter to me whether it is the state or a charitable foundation which manages the prisons, so long as their motivations are purely social in nature and thus these incentives removed.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Comrade Tilkanas, there are many health benefits associated with spa treatments. Spa treatments relieve stress - and stress in of itself is very taxing in many different areas of personal health - reduces blood pressure, and reduces muscle and joint pain. Most spa treatments also come with additional treatments, such as facial treatments or massage, which have their own or complementary benefits.
Moreover, how do you think I maintaing my complexion after all these years? Some say plastic surgery, I say weekly visits to Sapphire Spa on 17th Europolis Avenue. Can't recommend them enough. Come to my officer later and I'll provide you with a coupon.
Bp. Karinn Lallana
Councillor for Inquista -
Once again, just because something is not written in a bill does not mean the bill endorses the opposite of said thing. There are some things you can't regulate and laws you can't enforce unless you use draconian measures. If we are concerned that the removal of the free healthcare proposal would remove all healthcare access, I will propose the following amendment:
Amendment XIV
XII.
All prisoners shall be guaranteed free access to healthcare facilities including psychiatrists.Prisoners are entitled to equal access to healthcare facilities under the law of the member state in which they are incarcerated.
I also realize the concerns regarding the gender. While the wording is unspecific enough to be compatible with all jurisdictions, I assume that it is too vague for inter-jurisdictional situations. In order to make my amendments foolproof, I withdraw the fourth amendment and propose the following amendment:
Amendment XV
SECTION II. -
MINIMUM RULESGUIDELINES FORTREATEMENTTREATMENT OF PRISONERSRemove the first and second articles in Section II and replace them with the following:
I. Based on their status in their country's age of majority, their conviction status and the severity of convicted crimes, prisons are expected to keep prisoners on separate premises.
II. Prisoners are entitled to be kept in separate premises compatible with their gender under the law of the member state in which they are incarcerated. Furthermore, all prisons are expected to protect prisoners of all genders from sex-based and gender-based discrimination.
I also do not understand the concerns around the establishment of PRISCOM, nor do I understand the reason why Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe would establish an alternative to it. PRISCOM is not supposed to hinder nor put a shadow on the progress and reports of national investigation agencies- it is supposed to be an agency independent of national biases that will report on the conditions of prisoners and publicize it.
I have placed PRISCOM under the European Developmental Agency because I felt like it was the agency most compatible with the committee. However, upon re-evaluating, I have decided that these two institutions are not suitable, and thus, I withdraw my ninth amendment and propose the following:
Amendment XVI
SECTION IV - CREATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PRISON STANDARDS COMMITTEE
I. This legislation shall create the European Union Prison Standards Committee (acronym PRISCOM or EU-PRISCOM)
II. PRISCOM shall be responsible for constructing and publishing a report on prison standards across the European Union once every 18 months.
III. PRISCOM shall consist of a president and seven members from various EU member states, all directly appointed by the Premier Commissioner of the European Union.
IV. PRISCOM reports may not be used to initiate European Court of Justice cases.
V. PRISCOM reports may not be used as evidence in European Court of Justice cases.
Liam Zachary, Councillor for The State of Elthize
-
Dear Ms Speaker, considering that the discussions seem to be far from over and many Councillors haven't yet shared their opinion on the proposal, as well as the tight schedule I expect we are all currently on, I would like to formally request extension of the debate by a period not shorter than a week, which I feel would greatly help us find the best possible text of the proposed legislation. Many thanks.
Sofie Čikarová
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
Debate will be extended unil 23:59 GMT on 18 November 2022.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen -
Apologies for the delay, I honestly have to admit that I didn't know much of anything about the Duxburian prison system and thus had to consult with experts to get details and policy recommendations.
It's tough to follow all the amendments and past debate, especially when English is your third language, so I will address concepts from the original act first.
Thoughts on Section I:
The Union of Duxburian Dominions does not use for-profit private prisons, but some of our systems do use non-profit private prisons. Governments have money, but not necessarily the facilities or expertise to run a prison system, so some of them contract these out, especially more niche functions like diversion and education annexes. Thus, I must oppose most of this section unless an amendment allowing non-profit private prisons carries.Thoughts on Section II:
Clause II is unnecessary and too specific. It should be sufficient to use some form of Clause I and strike all of II. Those categories are going to vary by national justice systems. In the Duxburian system, 15 is a provisional adult and 20 is a full adult, so someone in the middle gets tried and accommodated as a prov, not as a juv or an adult. People awaiting trial or detained on suspicion of a crime never go into prisons, they belong in jails. It's an important distinction because they have not been found guilty of a crime (some have not even been charged with a crime yet and some never will) and thus must be treated accordingly. Likewise, we have no concept of civil prisoners - prisons are for criminals. What separates the definition of a criminal offense from that of a civil offense is whether one faces time as a consequence. Your national system might do these things differently, so the categories should be left up to member-states.
Clause V as others have commented is odd. It's a prison, not a boutique restaurant. The food should be sufficient for basic needs and the water should be clean. Other than that, if they want special things for non-medical necessity reasons, they should consider not committing the crime in the first place.
Clauses VII and VIII should be struck. Solitary confinement is an important tool for protection as well as punishment. If a clause must be kept, it should mandate solitary confinement not be used arbitrarily or for unreasonable lengths of time. Specifying actual times ties the hands of staff responsible for behavior management, particularly when dealing with violent and unstable prisoners.
Clause IX should be re-written. Courts hate this type of writing. Legislation is a bunch of rules that must be followed, there's no "should" or "encourage".
Clause XI should be a right to exercise, without specifics. The nature of time outside and the duration depends on a prisoner's behavior. This clause is particularly bad because it specifies the minimum is an hour...without a time frame. You could say a prisoner only gets one hour out for their entire life sentence.
Clause XII is unworkable, except in the case of emergency care.
Thoughts on Section III:
Clause I: Lower than the average wage of what? Duxburian industries set their own wage standards, there is no national standard since each field of thing is very different from others. Average is also a bad metric to use for a minimum wage, for obvious reasons. People being paid average wage for their industry put in the time to achieve the experience, title, and rank-in-title to get that.
Clause II is unworkable.
Clause III is unworkable. Provided housing is a private sector thing...and a military thing. Duxburian federal law also forbids this if you want to work for a local prison system run by a local government - you must live in the municipality you serve. It also wouldn't work if you want to work for a dominion-level prison system and the dominion is something like Nikoveria, which consists of just two cities.
Clause IV is a western country thing. We don't have weeks because we don't use your calendar, each industry decides how it wants to block out the days in a calendar year. Paid leave is negotiated per contract. If you have leverage and know how to use it, you get more. If you lack leverage or don't know how to negotiate, you get less.
Clause V...we're not socialist. None of this makes any sense.
Come to think of it, all of Section III should be struck and re-thought.
Thoughts on Section IV:
This is a strange way to do things rather than just use the standard legislative sync process most other acts use.
The act is salvageable, anything I didn't mention is agreeable to us. However, it does too much mono-culture leveling as-is. We're not a western civilization and aren't going to become one. That doesn't mean we don't want to have standards and guardrails...but the implementation of such still needs to make sense in our culture. The EU motto is "United in Diversity", never forget it.
I'm not prepared to propose amendments at this time since I still need to wade through all the amendments currently on the table.
Wesley Greene
Councillor-General of the Duxburian Union -
I once again thank all my colleagues for their comments. First of all, you are completely right Karin, but please raise the technical amendments, it is in the interest of the Union to have the text without mistakes.
Councillor Mizrachi-Roscoe, you claim that torture is alright as long as you provide prisoners with television? That television can replace human contact? Surely you can't be serious, please realize you are in a Council building, not a circus so please behave accordingly, you can't make torture humane. Your words have however moved me and I will certainly talk with my government about granting the United Duchies aid for developing countries, should they request it, to improve the, as you said, unsatisfactory situation in the Duchies' healthcare and administration.
You are also very correct Iras!
Councillor Zachary, I commend your work on the proposal, however, not that I would disagree, but stating that protection of discrimination is expected is a bit redundant, gender-based discrimination has already been banned and it applies even without the Act. Please understand that there of course are reasonable concerns about the establishment of PRISCOM, it is another agency, more bureaucracy which will be funded from taxes of the citizens of member states, so we need to understand what benefits it would bring, do I understand it correctly you consider national institutions unreliable, which is why you want to see PRISCOM established?
Finally, Councillor Greene, thank you for your valuable input, I completely agree with some of your comments, the word "should" should be changed to "shall". The word "encourage" is however not problematic, but if you come up with different wording I will consider it. Likewise, very good observation on Article XI. of Section II., this will indeed need to be amended to clearly state that it should be an hour a day, I can also agree with the hour being reserved for outside exercise, although I am of the opinion that we should ensure that the prisons are equipped with facilities for sports, are we in agreement on that?
Other than that, I however feel that perhaps you have not completely understood parts of the Proposal. Article II. of Section II. for example, I don't understand your concerns, especially since it seems that the Union of Duxburian Dominions already fulfils the requirements set by the Article. It already doesn't allow placing young and adult offenders in the same premises, it doesn't place convicted and untried individuals it the same premises and it doesn't place civil prisoners in the same premises as those who committed a criminal offense, thus the Union of Duxburian Dominions already fulfils these requirements and there would be no changes required if the Act passes.
Article V. of Section II. I could you please explain to me, what part of the article goes above the basic needs? Requiring the food and water to contain necessary nutrients and vitamins is to satisfy the basic dietary needs, and I understand that we agree that those should be guaranteed, so please explain what you find "odd" about the Article, because it seeks to do what you agree with.
To address the issue of housing, again Duxburian Union would not be affected by this, if what you are saying is factual, but you need to understand that not all places in Europe like having prisons with potentially dangerous criminals in highly populated areas, and reliance on local population could not satisfy the requirements for correction officers for those prisons, which gives the proposal its meaning. But if Duxburian Union prefers having prisons with potentially dangerous individuals in highly populated areas which can meet their demands for correction officers living close to their place of employment this act would not force it to change its system.
I am also not sure what is the issue with the nearly universal, not just western, units of time measurement. Surely, we understand what timeframe is meant by it and that is the important part, although I understand you disagree with the timeframe as well.
However, cultural traditions can't serve as an excuse for torture, cutting of hands, stoning or bride kidnappings are not acceptable because of being a tradition. Or do you disagree with me? And prolonged solitary confinement is proven to be a psychological torment. Not stating precise lengths of time would make the Articles meaningless. Do I also understand it correctly that Duxburian system places mentally unstable individuals in prisons instead of psychiatric hospitals? Such people can hardly consider not committing a crime, they are ill and require hospital treatment, not being placed in a place with mentally fit prisoners.
Regarding average wage means the national average, you can calculate it by counting all the incomes and look for the average number from them. It would not be an average for that sector, it would be the minimum in that sector. Could you explain to us why you consider that an issue Councillor Greene? Would you disagree with me, when I say that it is a demanding job, both physically and mentally, with high risks to the officer's health and life?
It is clear we already disagree on some points like banning private prisons. If your livelihood depends on the prisons having prisoners to fill them with it is in their interests that the prisons are indeed filled with prisoners, it thus can't remain in private hands.
Last comment, regarding your comments to Article V. of Section III., indeed socialism is great, as is demonstrated time and time again on the example of my homeland, but not all good things are necessarily socialism, which is also the case of this Article. You don't need to worry about socialism creeping to power in your state by providing people who have dedicated their life to their country and community and brought many sacrifices for it with pensions, the level of which would be left on member states to determine, and a spa or rehabilitation institution access.
With all of that said, I am looking forward to your amendments and further comments.
Sofie Čikarová
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
You are clearly missing the point where its necessary to do solitary confinement sometimes for the duration of the sentence. If you remove the option for solitary confinement for safety of the prisoners, prevention of spreading of extremism and to be able to confine the most dangerous prisoners I garuntee more deaths of prisoners who you are supposedly trying to protect will happen and that people will die from more terrorist attacks. I hope you can explain to the victims of increased attacks and their families how it all had to happen because all prisoners should have time with other prisoners regardless of risk and that their sons and daughters are worthy sacrifices to achieve the goal of no pernament solitary confinement. We don't in Duchies do it as a first resort but only when all options are exhausted yet you want to remove this option that is vital in protecting many prisoners either from the prison population or protecting the prison population from the most dangerous prisons. You will have the blood of every prisoner who dies from this do gooder but naive proposal and so will anyone who votes in favour of removing solitary confinement as an option for prisons as a protection policy.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
