Pac. Aids prevention act.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

The Pacific AIDS Prevention Act of 2014:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor:Gov. Cranberry.
Amendment by:Devin.

[Cranberry]

Thank you for opening the thread, Devin. I'm sorry for immediately starting to nitpick, but could you put the act into a quote? It's custom standard and looks nicer that way Plus, it's custom to include the sponsor of the bill after the quote.

Anyways, I introduced this bill after the latest Regional News Report of our GM declared that HIV infections started to increase in the Pacific prisons. This bill aims to combat that trend, and I thought we could also include a section that will help combat AIDS (and other STDs) in the "free world".
Any opinions, critiques, stuff?

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Thank you for opening the thread, Devin. I'm sorry for immediately starting to nitpick, but could you put the act into a quote? It's custom standard and looks nicer that way Plus, it's custom to include the sponsor of the bill after the quote.

Anyways, I introduced this bill after the latest Regional News Report of our GM declared that HIV infections started to increase in the Pacific prisons. This bill aims to combat that trend, and I thought we could also include a section that will help combat AIDS (and other STDs) in the "free world".
Any opinions, critiques, stuff?

Sorry about that.

[Cranberry]

Don't worry, it's no big deal

[Never]

Overall, this looks like a good proposal. My one reservation is about loosening the restrictions on spousal visitations, simply because of security reasons. Is it possible to limit spousal visitations to, say, once every 30-90 days? Based on my reading of Section 1, it seemed that individual administrations might be able to allow any number visitations at any time, which might not be a good idea.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Overall, this looks like a good proposal. My one reservation is about loosening the restrictions on spousal visitations, simply because of security reasons. Is it possible to limit spousal visitations to, say, once every 30-90 days? Based on my reading of Section 1, it seemed that individual administrations might be able to allow any number visitations at any time, which might not be a good idea.

I settled on 60 days. Anything else?

[Cranberry]

To come back to your "60 days" deadline, I think it is far better that the respective administrations allow visitations. They will of course allow noone to meet his/her spouse every day, but for example if one commited a "lighter" crime and has three months or so left, that one should be able to see his/her spouse more often than a three-time murderer. I think the individual administrations can determine this best, as they know the guy, know him/her, know how often it is suitable to see his/her spouse. After all, prisons shouldn't be punishment, but rather "education".

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

To come back to your "60 days" deadline, I think it is far better that the respective administrations allow visitations. They will of course allow noone to meet his/her spouse every day, but for example if one commited a "lighter" crime and has three months or so left, that one should be able to see his/her spouse more often than a three-time murderer. I think the individual administrations can determine this best, as they know the guy, know him/her, know how often it is suitable to see his/her spouse. After all, prisons shouldn't be punishment, but rather "education".

I honestly don't see the problem with letting those with a lesser crime seeing their spouse once a week, but I agree that we should aim to make prisons to become more "educational".

[Cranberry]

Yes - that's why we shouldn't be imposing strict rules that are just an act of despotism, cause were all good and "tough on crime", but instead use spousal visits as educational measures: if they behave good - you gotta see her every Sunday, partner; if not - say goodbye to her till next fall! Easy as that, I'd say.

By the way Devin, the amendment you offered is just an offer until now. As my (the sponsor's) feedback is hostile, you have to conduct a vote on the amendment to see it passed, of you want it in the final version. Remember when we always had an amendment vote at PJ's bills? That was because he wasn't there to tell us of he's ok with the amendments or not. 

[Never]

I suppose that spousal visits could be used as a carrot and stick method; perhaps my idea was a bit harsh and lacking in flexibility. I just want to say that I lean towards supporting this proposal regardless of whether the limits on spousal visitations are included in the amendment. I initially thought that the second part of the first section could use some slight tweaking, but it is solid overall.

[Cranberry]

Yeah, that's my main concern with that phrasing - it just seems so harsh and unflexible.
Alright then, so you're okay with the original phrasing of the clause? If yes, then we can proceed to a final vote, Devin.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Councillors a final vote is now open on this legislation. Please vote Aye,Nay,or Abstain.

[Cranberry]

Since the amendment was not approved on by the council, this final vote is on my original version, without the 60 days rule. Just to let you know, please strike that part again.

[Never]

Aye.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Aye

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

With the final vote having expired, and two votes in the aye this bill is declared passed.

[Cranberry]

Thanks, Devin, I signed this bill in my office thread. I'll do this from now on there, always.