We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Stricter Punishments
Details
Submitted by[?]: Voter Apathy Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: January 2226
Description[?]:
| If you commit the crime, you should expect punishment not a vacation courtesy of the government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy with respect to the death penalty.
Old value:: The death penalty is illegal and is never to be applied.
Current: The death penalty is illegal and is never to be applied.
Proposed: The death penalty is applied for capital crimes.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The terms of extradition.
Old value:: Extradition to nations with capital punishment or with cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects and convicts is not allowed.
Current: Extradition to nations with capital punishment or with cruel or inhumane treatment of suspects and convicts is not allowed.
Proposed: The law does not limit the power of the government to pursue extradition treaties.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Education in prisons.
Old value:: An education plan for prisoners is provided to improve rehabilitation.
Current: An education plan for prisoners is provided to improve rehabilitation.
Proposed: Prisoners are not given any form of education.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Prison policy concerning prisoner labor.
Old value:: Prisoners can do certain jobs in prison, voluntarily, for a small wage.
Current: Prisoners can do certain jobs in prison, voluntarily, for a small wage.
Proposed: Able-bodied prisoners have to work during the day.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:33:15, May 11, 2006 CET | From |  Communist Party of Saridan | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | This country is rapidly sprinting back into the medieval era. Not on our watch. |
| Date | 04:22:42, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Voter Apathy Party | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | This country will eventually stop being the hippy paradise that you made it and become a respectable country once again. |
| Date | 09:41:35, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Communist Party of Saridan | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | Yes, Saridan will be very respected once we started injecting chemicals into the institutionalized people... |
| Date | 15:26:27, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Democrats | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | Not educating prisoners makes no sense. Prison is a chance to stop criminals re-offending and help them get their lives together for everyone's benefit. Article 3 punishes society as a whole and not just the criminals you intend to punish. |
| Date | 15:34:50, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Voter Apathy Party | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | Education for prisoners does NOTHING. They all think it's a joke. When you go to prison it should not be a vacation to make money and get an education. Prision should be seen as a deterrent. |
| Date | 11:39:25, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Anti-Revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | PD, think about it. This is a story I received from a constituent, who shall be voting NWP, but used to vote LSA. Jon and Paul both went to the same failing school in a poor area. Both left education at 16,17,18 (not sure of leaving age in saridan yet), both totally failed their final exams and left with no qualification. However Jon managed to get a job as a nightwatchman (security guard) at a printing firm. Paul didn't get a job. Jon got just enough pay to be able to afford to leave home and rent a small flat, with his girlfriend and their small baby. They had to scrimp and save, sometimes Jon went hungry so his girlfriend and daughter had enough to eat. Paul stayed at home. Jon worked hard and saved up so that he could afford some luxuries, a television, a microwave etc. Paul, still without a job, was jealous of Jon, and stole his newly bought luxuries. Jon and his girlfriend were naturally distraught, so Jon worked even harder, and continued to go without meals, so that he could save enough to afford those same luxuries, along with the essentials, for his family. Paul on the other hand was caught and sent to prision. At prison he was given the opportunity to do two things. Firstly earn a wage, a wage that was larger than Jons. Secondly Paul was given an education, he left prison several years later with several qualifications, qualifications he could have got at school, but didn't. So Paul came out and, with the help of a generous scheme created by the LSA, was able to get a well paid job, working as a salesman at a printing firm. When he clocks of at night he passes his former mate Jon, who is just about to start his night shift. Jon is bitterly resentful. He thinks to himself "I have worked hard since leaving school, I have been honest and I have scrimped and scraped to save a few pennies for a better day. I have been law abiding, and added something to the community by protecting a business. But despite being law abiding, it is difficult for me to get promoted, because I have no qualifications. That bastard Paul has never worked hard. Since leaving school he has been a petty criminal, a detriment to the community, taken their goods and passing them on. Then he went to prison and was given opportunities I never had. He was paid a better wage than me, despite him being a criminal. He was given three years extra education over me, despite him being a criminal. He has come out of prison in a better position than me, despite the fact I am law abiding. How is that fair? How can that possibly be justified? Why the fuck am I now in a worse off position than a piece of trash? Tell me how can a system that benefits criminals so much be allowed, when there are so many law abiding poor people who simply get on with life no matter how miserable? Its simply unfair." |
| Date | 12:52:39, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Democrats | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | VAP: Our aim is to reform as many prisoners as possible to reduce the number of re-offenders. Simple as that. The PDs agree that many prisoners will see it as a joke. The VAP will surely agree that there will be some who will make use of the system and try reform themselves. We believe that it is worthwhile to provide prisoners with this opportunity to mend their ways, rather than condemning them and us to their lives of crime. Your "no education/rehabilitation" policy harms society as a whole. NWP: A couple of points about your fable.... 1. The PDs don't see people as good and evil as the NWP seems to. If someone commits a crime and is rightly sent to prison, then reforms themselves by (i) working hard to earn an education, (ii) serving their time in prison and (iii) leaving prison and taking up a job as a law-abiding citizen (as your Paul did) then we applaud them and ourselves for providing the system to allow that to happen. We don't see them as evil or, in your words, "a piece of trash". They have mended their ways, served their time and deserve respect for that. People can change, if you can't believe that, then we feel sorry for you. 2. The NWP have a very unrealistic impression of what can be achieved by a prison education system. If what the NWP claims is possible then the PDs suggest we send all our kids to prison instead of school! I wish our current prison education system could, on a regular basis, achieve what the NWP claim it has for Paul. It simply doesn't. Our aims are much lower: the rehabilitation of criminals. If some go on to achieve what Paul has, then is that a bad thing? Furthermore, if a prisoner like Paul earns such good qualifications, it is unfair for Jon to say "that bastard Paul has never worked hard". He would have worked harder than most in life. 3. The NWP attitude to this bill highlights their outdated ideology and resulting flawed approach to law-making. If the NWP's aim is to see everyone to share the same quality of life then the PDs suggest that instead of trying to break the functioning parts of our system to bring everyone DOWN to the same level, the NWP should aim to introduce laws which improve the quality life for those less well off in order to bring them UP to the level of the rest of society. If Jon is unhappy that Paul has got ahead in life, try make Jon happy by introducing laws to help him instead of trying to make Paul equally unhappy. |
| Date | 14:03:48, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Anti-Revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | 1: You do understand that education is fully state funded? You do understand that the state has given criminals 15 years of free education. If someone decides to pay society back by stealing from them, we do not see why it is the governments responsibility to given them a helping hand afterwards. The government has done more than its fair share for the person, criminals should not be rewarded for their anti-social behaviour. However may I ask why you think we see criminals as evil, or where the NWP said that criminals were a piece of trash. 2: We are sorry, we assumed that education in prison meant, er, education, Would the PD like to define education? The NWP are trying to point out exactly that PD. Good honest people do not understand why criminals are being given better opportunities than their children, it makes no sense. The current education system in prisons is excellent, because on average they receive more funding for their education than the average child does. Education and rehabilitation are entirely different. Is it a bad thing? You tell me, is it a good thing that a criminal is given a better opportunity than someone who is law abiding? Explain how Paul has worked harder than most in life? Getting a lavish education in prison is not working hard, getting a cushy job because of 'rehabilitation' schemes to help ex-convicts is not hard work. 3: You rightly point out that our aim is to see everyone share the same quality of life. Hence we shall support massive investments in education after the next election. However your argument is insane. Dragging everyone down to the same level? You cannot be serious in suggesting you have no problem with criminals being pushed forwards? These aren't children going to private schools being given a better opportunity, these are people who have so far contributed nothing being given a better opportunity because they committed a crime. It is highly entertaining to suggest the rest of society should be brought up to the same levels as those of ex-convicts. Jon is unahppy because Paul got ahead in life, because he was a criminal. What do you not understand about that? Why should Paul be rewarded for his crime, yet Jon is not rewarded for working hard? Why should prisoners be able to earn a wage that is often better than law abiding persons? |
| Date | 14:08:03, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Anti-Revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | Bearing in mind the PD is willing to vote in avour of helping criminals, but is unwilling to vote in favour of things such as a minimum wage and cheap energy, why are you so willing to push criminals forwards, but not the law abiding? |
| Date | 15:46:57, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Democrats | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | If someone commits a crime, we want them not do it again when they are released. That's the basis of our argument. We see your stricter punishment of criminals as punishment of society because it ensures re-offending, lifelong criminals. We see helping criminals as helping society by reducing crime. Referring back to this paragraph will help you understand my comments. We realise that the PDs and NWP have very opposing views on how to deal with criminals and crime and we appreciate the NWP's right to their views. We doubt that we'll come to agreement on these issues, but we're replying because it helps to try understand what the other party thinks. Now to deal with your individual comments: "1. You do understand that education is fully state funded? You do understand that the state has given criminals 15 years of free education. If someone decides to pay society back by stealing from them, we do not see why it is the governments responsibility to given them a helping hand afterwards. The government has done more than its fair share for the person, criminals should not be rewarded for their anti-social behaviour." Crime happens, indicating that our fully state funded education system does not work for everyone. We could say that we've done our fair share for criminals and not attempt to rehabilitate them. The result would be criminals who re-offend when released. This hurts society. We see rehabilitation as a second chance for us to create a law-abiding citizen, thus reducing crime. See paragraph 1. "However may I ask why you think we see criminals as evil, or where the NWP said that criminals were a piece of trash." You quoted Jon's thoughts: "That bastard Paul" and "Why the fuck am I now in a worse off position than a piece of trash?" I assumed that you agreed with these comments. If you didn't I would have expected you to point that out, otherwise why would you quote him. As for you seeing criminals as evil... you don't seem to think that they can change and work hard to get an education. You seem to think that they have something inherently wrong or evil with them that can't or shouldn't be fixed. I apologise if this is not what you think. "2: We are sorry, we assumed that education in prison meant, er, education, Would the PD like to define education? The NWP are trying to point out exactly that PD. Good honest people do not understand why criminals are being given better opportunities than their children, it makes no sense. The current education system in prisons is excellent, because on average they receive more funding for their education than the average child does. Education and rehabilitation are entirely different. Is it a bad thing? You tell me, is it a good thing that a criminal is given a better opportunity than someone who is law abiding? Explain how Paul has worked harder than most in life? Getting a lavish education in prison is not working hard, getting a cushy job because of 'rehabilitation' schemes to help ex-convicts is not hard work." The law states: "An education plan for prisoners is provided to improve rehabilitation." Education and rehabilitation overlap. We see rehabilitation as a means of giving basic life skills to prisoners to help them reform themselves. Education overlaps then to provide work skills. Prisoners can continue beyond rehabilitation to pursue education to the same degree as those outside if they wish. We are happy with this. Prisoners would be given certification on the same basis as everyone else, for passing the same exams as everyone else. Paul would have to have worked very hard to achieve what he did, just as much as anyone outside because he would have to pass the same exams. However, given that he has to overcome his own attitudes to life and his criminal lifestyle, he would have to work harder and come further than anyone else. 3: "You rightly point out that our aim is to see everyone share the same quality of life. Hence we shall support massive investments in education after the next election." Good. We agree that education is important. "However your argument is insane. Dragging everyone down to the same level? You cannot be serious in suggesting you have no problem with criminals being pushed forwards? These aren't children going to private schools being given a better opportunity, these are people who have so far contributed nothing being given a better opportunity because they committed a crime." They are not being given a better opportunity. They have to pass the same exams as everyone outside to get the same certification. They are being given a second chance. We need them to give them this second chance as we need them to succeed so we can reduce crime. Back to my fundamental arguments of paragraph 1. "It is highly entertaining to suggest the rest of society should be brought up to the same levels as those of ex-convicts." You have to realise that Paul is an exception. Paul has used his second chance of prison to work very hard and get ahead of those outside. He has a high level of education because he has reformed himself and worked incredibly hard. We need to try bring everyone to a high standard of education. If an ex-convict has a higher standard of education because he has worked hard for it, then I don't have a problem with saying that we need to bring the rest of society up to his level instead of removing his opportunity to reach that level. Sorry if it's entertaining! You must remember though that he is the exception. "Jon is unahppy because Paul got ahead in life, because he was a criminal. What do you not understand about that?" As repeatedly stated, Paul got ahead due to his hard work on his education in prison, not due to a free certificate. Jon can be unhappy at the system for not helping him. His begrudgery of Paul's reformed and educated character is his problem. "Why should Paul be rewarded for his crime, yet Jon is not rewarded for working hard?" Paul wasn't rewarded. He was imprisoned, saw the error of his ways and took the opportunity to work hard and educate himself. Jon failed his exams and has a poorly paid job. We need to help educate him so can improve his situation. They are separate issues. "Why should prisoners be able to earn a wage that is often better than law abiding persons?" If ex-convicts earn an above average wage after gaining better qualifications through hard work on their education while in prison then I have no problem with that. They are better qualified and entitled to better pay. We need to help with further education for those "law abiding persons" who are struggling. (Remember that Paul is the exception!) |
| Date | 15:57:05, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Democrats | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | "Bearing in mind the PD is willing to vote in avour of helping criminals, but is unwilling to vote in favour of things such as a minimum wage and cheap energy, why are you so willing to push criminals forwards, but not the law abiding?" If by "cheap energy" you mean nationalising energy companies, then I'm glad to have been among those who ensured your bill was rejected. I'm not against a minimum wage, but also not in favour of the level of minimum wage you proposed. You'll remember that this bill was also rejected. Both those bills were entirely different issues to the one being discussed here. This is shown by the fact that they were rejected by the VAP, the only seat holding party agreeing with you on this issue. I don't see the point of you raising these issues here. I'm not in favour of "pushing forward criminals", just helping them help themselves. I'm equally in favour of providing those struggling with low pay the opportunity to educate themselves further. |
| Date | 22:40:05, May 12, 2006 CET | From | Anti-Revolutionary Party | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | "If someone commits a crime, we want them not do it again when they are released. That's the basis of our argument. We see your stricter punishment of criminals as punishment of society because it ensures re-offending, lifelong criminals." Making prisons horrible places to be is not an incentive to reoffend. Providing a facility for a wage and an education is a reason to get back into that place. Basically you are creating an environment in prisons that is just as pleasant, if not nicer than some parts of Saridan. 2You quoted Jon's thoughts: "That bastard Paul" and "Why the fuck am I now in a worse off position than a piece of trash?" I assumed that you agreed with these comments. If you didn't I would have expected you to point that out, otherwise why would you quote him." Because he is a constituent who is making a more than valid point. Why on earth would you expect us to point out where we disagree with a quote, that seems a pointless exercise. The fact is many do find it unfair that people who have often committed very vile acts are given better advantages than those who haven't committed vile crimes. "As for you seeing criminals as evil... you don't seem to think that they can change and work hard to get an education." As mentioned earlier, the state provides 15 years of ample opportunity to work hard. That is more than enough. Anything else the criminal can do in his own time. "You seem to think that they have something inherently wrong or evil with them that can't or shouldn't be fixed. I apologise if this is not what you think." Inherantly wrong or evil? Because we don't want criminals to be earning money whilst in prison? Because we see it as unfair that they are given opportunities those who haven't comitted crime aren't given. "Prisoners would be given certification on the same basis as everyone else, for passing the same exams as everyone else. Paul would have to have worked very hard to achieve what he did, just as much as anyone outside because he would have to pass the same exams. However, given that he has to overcome his own attitudes to life and his criminal lifestyle, he would have to work harder and come further than anyone else." In prison criminals are provided with a facility that they could not possibly get in the outside world. Very few adults would be given the time with which to persue an education. Very few have the finances to complete adult education. Criminals are being given an opporunity that is unavailable to any other adult. Does Paul have to work as hard, if he had the time and lack of financial worries to complete courses? "They are not being given a better opportunity. They have to pass the same exams as everyone outside to get the same certification. They are being given a second chance. We need them to give them this second chance as we need them to succeed so we can reduce crime. " As mentioned above, they are being given a better opportunity as they do not have the financial or time worries that others do. As mentioned earlier, making prison a pleasant environment which offers money and finances may not be as much of a deterrence as a place that does not provide these opportunities. "He has a high level of education because he has reformed himself and worked incredibly hard. We need to try bring everyone to a high standard of education. If an ex-convict has a higher standard of education because he has worked hard for it, then I don't have a problem with saying that we need to bring the rest of society up to his level instead of removing his opportunity to reach that level." Nope, he has that high education because he has the lack of financial and time worries that prevent others from doing the same. Criminals have the opportunity to reach level. 15 years of education, provided for free. "As repeatedly stated, Paul got ahead due to his hard work on his education in prison, not due to a free certificate. Jon can be unhappy at the system for not helping him. His begrudgery of Paul's reformed and educated character is his problem." As mentioned repeatednly, Jon did not receive the the financial and time freedoms that Paul had whilst in prison. Jon can be unhappy at a system that helps those who do wrong more than it helps those who do the right thing in life. "Paul wasn't rewarded. He was imprisoned, saw the error of his ways and took the opportunity to work hard and educate himself. Jon failed his exams and has a poorly paid job. We need to help educate him so can improve his situation. They are separate issues." Paul wasn't rewarded? He was given the time and lack of money worries with which to complete an adult education course. Why was he given these extra benefits? Because he had committed a crime. They are not seperate issues, the fact is more effort is put into helping criminals than it is into helping the poor. "If ex-convicts earn an above average wage after gaining better qualifications through hard work on their education while in prison then I have no problem with that." If ex-convicts earn an above average wage, because they were given better opportunities, becuase they committed a crime, then we have a problem with that. "If by "cheap energy" you mean nationalising energy companies, then I'm glad to have been among those who ensured your bill was rejected. I'm not against a minimum wage, but also not in favour of the level of minimum wage you proposed. You'll remember that this bill was also rejected." These bills were left to debate. Not one attempt was made by any party to suggest a more acceptable version. Thus naturally one assumes that those against were totally against any form of aid for the poor in these matters. "Both those bills were entirely different issues to the one being discussed here. This is shown by the fact that they were rejected by the VAP, the only seat holding party agreeing with you on this issue. I don't see the point of you raising these issues here." When you suggest a party should do more to help those in genuine need, rather than dragging criminals down, it made perfect sense perfect sense to point out that only one party has proposed measures to help the those in need in this parliament. "I'm not in favour of "pushing forward criminals", just helping them help themselves. I'm equally in favour of providing those struggling with low pay the opportunity to educate themselves further." By not doing anything? |
| Date | 13:01:07, May 15, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Democrats | To | Debating the Stricter Punishments |
| Message | "By not doing anything?" OOC In reply to this comment, I'm struggling time-wise to keep up with this game, so I apologise for not being able to propose bills right now to reflect all of my opinions. IC We've both now clearly stated our opinions on this and we should both now have a clear understanding of what the other thinks, however much we disagree with them. Hopefully we'll have a chance to debate on other issues in future. For now, I can't really reply to much of your comments without repeating my previous ones. There are definite flaws in my approach, some of which you've pointed out. I just think that on balance it's better than your approach. You think the opposite. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 237 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 513 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval. |
| Random quote: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." Nikita Khrushchev (1894 - 1971) |