[At Vote] [ga] Civilian Prisoner Transfers

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Civilian Prisoner Transfers

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Simone Republic

The World Assembly (WA),



Believing that prisoners' prospects upon release, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they return to serve their sentence in their home state instead;



Believing that this may allow prisoners to benefit from matters such as removing cultural barriers, easing contact with family members, social support, and starting post-release activities more quickly,



Desiring a coordinated approach for transferring prisoners between WA states;



The WA hereby enacts as follows:

1. Definitions. 
   1. Civilian offence" means an offence not related to: 
      1. national security, or
      2. service in a military, government, or diplomatic capacity, or
      3. piracy.
      
      
   2. "Custodial sentence" means, for convenience, all of the following: 
      1. confinement at a correctional facility; or
      2. release to half-way houses or day releases; or
      3. parole.
      
      
   3. "Home state" means the WA state for which a prisoner is a citizen of at the time a request for a transfer is made, and the destination preferred by the prisoner.
   4. "Host" means the WA state where the prisoner is held.
   5. "Prisoner" means anyone who is: 
      1. duly convicted of a civilian offence; and
      2. has exhausted or has voluntarily forfeited all avenues of appeal; and
      3. sentenced to a minimum custodial sentence of sufficient length to warrant a transfer, in the views of the WA states (and WA organs) involved.
      
      
   6. "WA organs" means all sub-divisions of the WA.
   
   
2. Transfers. So long as a host imposes custodial sentences for civilian offences: 
   1. A prisoner may, at any time after starting their sentence, requests the host to permit the prisoner to transfer ("transfer") from the host to the home state to serve their sentence (or any remainder thereof).
   2. A host must promptly consider such a request, and if granted, contact the home state, which must also promptly consider such a request, and if granted, promptly arrange for the transfer to take place.
   3. A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve their sentence according to the laws of the host, and subject solely to the pardon or parole laws of the host.
   4. A prisoner's transfer must be voluntary, and a prisoner may not be coerced by anyone to accept or decline a transfer.
      
      
      
      
   5. If a prisoner is also wanted for extradition to another WA state ("third state") for trial or for confinement, the host retains exclusive jurisdiction, over the extradition process (or whether the extradition takes place) after the prisoner is transferred.
   
   
3. Rejections and appeals. 
   1. A home state may not reject a transfer request, unless it reasonably believes it is incapable of fulfilling such a request, such as a lack of prison space or differing levels of technological development.
   2. A host may not reject a transfer request, unless it reasonably believes that: 
      1. The home state does not offer comparable rights and welfare for those in custodial sentences compared to the host, or
      2. The home state may mistreat the prisoner, or
      3. The home state does not have adequate facilities to confine the prisoner.
         
      
      
   3. Appeals on the rejections in clauses (3a) and (3b) are to the state that made the said rejections, subject to due process.
   4. A prisoner who is rejected for any reason may re-apply if there is a significant change in circumstances.
   
   
4. Assistance and fees. 
   1. WA organs shall render such assistance as the home state deems necessary to transfer the said prisoner, such as helping to transit the prisoner through a warzone.
   2. The transfer is free of charge to the prisoner. The prisoner is not liable for food, lodgings and travel costs.
   3. If assistance from WA organs is required, it shall be paid for by the WA General Fund.
   4. If a prisoner is a citizen of more than one WA state, the citizen may request for transfer to any one of the WA states for which that prisoner is a citizen (and that WA state receiving the request is deemed the home state).
   
   
5. Clarifications. Subject to extant resolutions: 
   1. A home state may not strip a prisoner of citizenship merely for applying for a transfer.
      
   2. The host must provide the full criminal records of the prisoner in the host to the home state if a prisoner is transferred.
   3. This resolution does not apply if: 
      1. the prisoner is convicted of an offence that is a crime in the host but not the home state;
      2. if the home state and the host are in a formally declared state of war;
      3. the prisoner is subject to quarantine.

This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Jabberwocky]

Believing that prisoners' prospects upon release, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they return to serve their sentence in their home state instead;

It begins with an assumption that it not necessarily true. In many cases, the home state might be more harshly punitive than the foreign state.
That assumption flavors the language throughout. For example, 2c.
A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve their sentence according to the laws of the host, and subject solely to the pardon or parole laws of the host.

What if the offense is not a crime in the home state? Or, another example, the foreign state wants capital punishment, but the home state forbids it. Is the prisoner still required to serve their sentence? Article 3 addresses some of this, but not to my satisfaction. Therefore AGAINST.

[Astrobolt]

Jan 13, 2024 16:49:13 GMT -5 Jabberwocky said:

Believing that prisoners' prospects upon release, if they are locked up in a foreign state, may be better off if they return to serve their sentence in their home state instead;

It begins with an assumption that it not necessarily true. In many cases, the home state might be more harshly punitive than the foreign state.
That assumption flavors the language throughout. For example, 2c.
A prisoner transferred to a home state is still required to serve their sentence according to the laws of the host, and subject solely to the pardon or parole laws of the host.

What if the offense is not a crime in the home state? Or, another example, the foreign state wants capital punishment, but the home state forbids it. Is the prisoner still required to serve their sentence? Article 3 addresses some of this, but not to my satisfaction. Therefore AGAINST.

Capital punishment is banned in all member states, 5c indicates this doesn’t apply if something is illegal in one member state but not the other.

[Jabberwocky]

By golly, it seems you're right.

[Pantso]

Seems like this resolution would be extremely easy to abuse by bad actors. If one nation sent villains to a rival's country to start trouble, commit nuisance crimes, or simple sabotage, they could simply request them back after prosecution in the host nation and let them "serve out their sentence" in relative ease. The host country can't reject a transfer on the grounds that the convict will be treated well. And "escapes" are easy to arrange under these circumstances as well.

Any nation not interested in seriously treating crimes committed by their own citizens against a foreign country can use this resolution to almost entirely mitigate a punitive sentence passed by the host nation.

As I understand it, there are already good resolutions guaranteeing prisoners' civil rights and well-being; this particular resolution adds little and invites abuse. The Republic of Pantso recommends Against.