[Defeated] Standards On Police Accountability

[Bananaistan]

1. ...
c. a "law enforcement officer" is defined as an employee of a police force—

i. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions;

ii. who is authorized by their employer to carry deadly weapons; and

iii. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarcerating any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.
...

5. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall require local police forces within their domains to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

"Regarding 1cii. Not all police forces are armed. It would appear that unarmed law enforcement are completely exempt from this proposal.

"5 is terrible policy. You'd be much better off outlawing this rather than requiring it. Local people will bring local knowledge and local grudges.

"Also, the General Fund is not a bottomless money pit. Bananaistan will oppose this frivolous expenditure. "

Edit: "Also 2b is overbroad. There's a huge range of harm that can be caused between assault and homicide. Good officers getting a bit rough with the people's enemies should not be kicked off the force on account of one slip up which might amount to no more than a tight hold on a suspect's arm causing a bruise given that there's no definition of assault and the fact that police officers have reasonable cause to lay hands on people and civilians do not."

[Foril]

IC: “The Forilians fully support this resolution draft and will be voting FOR if/when it comes to vote.”

[Isaris]

"I thank the ambassador from Foril for their support, as well as the ambassador from Bananaistan for their feedback on our draft. Isaris intends to publish a new draft by the weekend to share in this hall and I hope it will address at least most of the issues brought up thus far."

Edit: Early the next day...

"Isaris has submitted its new draft and invites its fellow member states to inspect it."

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

The Nationian ambassador commends the efforts of this proposal and hopes to see its passage.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The current draft has around 5200 characters, but the character limit is 5000, so you need to cut down on length somewhere.)

[Isaris]

(OOC: The current draft has around 5200 characters, but the character limit is 5000, so you need to cut down on length somewhere.)

OOC: Thanks for letting me know! I hadn't realized! I may implement the suggested acronym for law enforcement officers, then, if I can't find another way to cut it down enough. I imagine that phrase is taking up quite a bit.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

(OOC: The current draft has around 5200 characters, but the character limit is 5000, so you need to cut down on length somewhere.)

OOC: Thanks for letting me know! I hadn't realized! I may implement the suggested acronym for law enforcement officers, then, if I can't find another way to cut it down enough. I imagine that phrase is taking up quite a bit.

Such as 3 and 4, 5,6 and 10 you can combine them into one clause.You don't have to be so wordy about similar things.

at 2:In addition, the police should accept more important punishment for the crimes of injury and murder.There is even a need for special legislation to regulate the scope of police self-defence and the use of weapons.Because the police represent public power, higher requirements are needed

[Isaris]

OOC: Thanks for letting me know! I hadn't realized! I may implement the suggested acronym for law enforcement officers, then, if I can't find another way to cut it down enough. I imagine that phrase is taking up quite a bit.

Such as 3 and 4, 5,6 and 10 you can combine them into one clause.You don't have to be so wordy about similar things.

at 2:In addition, the police should accept more important punishment for the crimes of injury and murder.There is even a need for special legislation to regulate the scope of police self-defence and the use of weapons.Because the police represent public power, higher requirements are needed

OOC: Thanks so much for your feedback! I didn't use all of your suggestions but I definitely factored in your point on 2, and merging some things down. I believe the draft is under the limit now.

[LollerLand]

Lollerland would like to voice its unequivocal support for this well written and timely proposal!

[Isaris]

Lollerland would like to voice its unequivocal support for this well written and timely proposal!

"Isaris offers its thanks to the delegation from Lollerland for its statement of support."

OOC: Unless any glaring problems are brought up with this proposal before then, I plan to submit it on Friday.

[Ideal Britain]

"Authorised to use deadly weapons"
Could you define deadly weapons? What weapons are not deadly?

Also assault could be defined as "unlawful physical contact without the participant's consent or with intent to cause physical injury"

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's no need to keep repeating 'Member states shall' and not move everything into a sub-list.

[Isaris]

There's no need to keep repeating 'Member states shall' and not move everything into a sub-list.

This is my stylistic choice. I recognize there is not a need to do this. I'm not going to change it.

"Authorised to use deadly weapons"
Could you define deadly weapons? What weapons are not deadly?

Also assault could be defined as "unlawful physical contact without the participant's consent or with intent to cause physical injury"

I don't think I have the character space to define either one of those things and I think the term "deadly weapons" is self-explanatory, as well as readily defined in many national laws already. I'd also rather leave it up to nations to define what assault is in their own national laws, which I imagine most have already done.

[Ideal Britain]

There's no need to keep repeating 'Member states shall' and not move everything into a sub-list.

This is my stylistic choice. I recognize there is not a need to do this. I'm not going to change it.

"Authorised to use deadly weapons"
Could you define deadly weapons? What weapons are not deadly?

Also assault could be defined as "unlawful physical contact without the participant's consent or with intent to cause physical injury"

I don't think I have the character space to define either one of those things and I think the term "deadly weapons" is self-explanatory, as well as readily defined in many national laws already. I'd also rather leave it up to nations to define what assault is in their own national laws, which I imagine most have already done.

Well ok with the assault thing but with deadly weapons:
many US police forces use the term less-lethal weapons as opposed to the term non-lethal weapons because it's a fine line.

Also in some IRL countries such as the UK and Sweden police are not routinely issued with firearms

[Isaris]

Well ok with the assault thing but with deadly weapons:
many US police forces use the term less-lethal weapons as opposed to the term non-lethal weapons because it's a fine line.

Also in some IRL countries such as the UK and Sweden police are not routinely issued with firearms

OOC: I really can't stress enough how close to the character limit I am (I was previously over the limit by 200 characters and already had to cut it down) but I don't think something like a taser or a baton would be designated as a "deadly weapon" by any reasonable interpretation, if that's what your concern is. Also, there are so many different items that can be designated as deadly weapons, especially when factoring in different technology levels, I think that is better left up to member states' own terms.

If there is a need to define what can be designated as deadly weapons and what cannot in this Assembly, I think it would be better addressed by separate legislation. I don't think that this issue is a large enough one concerning this proposal considering there is a complete lack of any GA legislation regarding police accountability in general. In regard to police forces which do not issue deadly weapons, the clause would then make no impact, since they already don't issue deadly weapons anyway. Such police forces are why a previous clause defining a law enforcement officer as someone who may be authorized to carry deadly weapons was removed; some may be, some may not be.

Edit: I broke up my paragraph so it's a little easier to read.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Stylistic or not, repeating "member nations shall" eats up tons of characters.

[Isaris]

OOC: Stylistic or not, repeating "member nations shall" eats up tons of characters.

If there is something of substance to add, I'll consider changing it; however, I don't see the current style as being a glaring issue with the proposal.

Edit: I have submitted this to see what kind of support there is. I will not be conducting a major telegram campaign this weekend.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Stylistic or not, repeating "member nations shall" eats up tons of characters.

If there is something of substance to add, I'll consider changing it; however, I don't see the current style as being a glaring issue with the proposal.

Edit: I have submitted this to see what kind of support there is. I will not be conducting a major telegram campaign this weekend.

You should though. Delegates rarely check the proposals page so its not a reflection of the true support.

[Isaris]

If there is something of substance to add, I'll consider changing it; however, I don't see the current style as being a glaring issue with the proposal.

Edit: I have submitted this to see what kind of support there is. I will not be conducting a major telegram campaign this weekend.

You should though. Delegates rarely check the proposals page so its not a reflection of the true support.

I intend to submit it again if it should fail to reach quorum and then campaign. I'm not campaigning over Father's Day weekend. It already has 18 approvals without me doing much besides sending a few private messages. I appreciate your advice very much but I know precisely what I'm doing!

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

We stand opposed to this proposal for the two reasons outlined below.

Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and LEOs for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

The Holy Empire does not see why it is not a legitimate choice to limit the access to recourse to either individual officers or police departments, instead of both.

Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras, and provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technologies are available to the member states.

Many states, like the Holy Empire, have no significant police brutality/misconduct problem. Because of this, we believe that the violation of privacy that body-worn cameras and onboard cameras bring outweighs the potential benefit in our Holy Empire.

--Saint Michael the Archangel, patron of the military and police
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

[Isaris]

We stand opposed to this proposal for the two reasons outlined below.

Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and LEOs for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

The Holy Empire does not see why it is not a legitimate choice to limit the access to recourse to either individual officers or police departments, instead of both.

Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras, and provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technologies are available to the member states.

Many states, like the Holy Empire, have no significant police brutality/misconduct problem. Because of this, we believe that the violation of privacy that body-worn cameras and onboard cameras bring outweighs the potential benefit in our Holy Empire.

--Saint Michael the Archangel, patron of the military and police
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

"Ambassador, I think you may have misread the clause concerning recourse. I fail to see how you've arrived at your current interpretation. With regard to your concerns about privacy, I must simply disagree. Equal justice and protection from police misconduct are of much greater importance than whatever violation of privacy such cameras may represent. We are overjoyed to hear that this issue is not one which plagues the Holy Empire; however, many other nations are not so fortunate or are even deliberately apathetic to the situation."

OOC: There has been some push for me to campaign on this this weekend and I have received a donation of stamps to run a telegram campaign. Therefore, I am changing my mind on the decision to not campaign this weekend. WADs should expect to receive a telegram from me later today asking for their approval of this proposal.

[Maowi]

Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and LEOs for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

The Holy Empire does not see why it is not a legitimate choice to limit the access to recourse to either individual officers or police departments, instead of both.

"I for one can certainly think of situations in which recourse against one would be more appropriate than against the other; it would be nonsensical and restrictive to only provide access to recourse against one category in all cases.

Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras, and provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technologies are available to the member states.

Many states, like the Holy Empire, have no significant police brutality/misconduct problem. Because of this, we believe that the violation of privacy that body-worn cameras and onboard cameras bring outweighs the potential benefit in our Holy Empire.

"I'd have to disagree with you there, Mr ... uh ... Saint. There is no mandate for your government to monitor or share the content recorded by the cameras if it values its officers' and citizens' privacies, unless for a criminal investigation, in which case I believe the violation of privacy is warranted."

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

We stand opposed to this proposal for the two reasons outlined below.

The Holy Empire does not see why it is not a legitimate choice to limit the access to recourse to either individual officers or police departments, instead of both.

Many states, like the Holy Empire, have no significant police brutality/misconduct problem. Because of this, we believe that the violation of privacy that body-worn cameras and onboard cameras bring outweighs the potential benefit in our Holy Empire.

--Saint Michael the Archangel, patron of the military and police
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

"Ambassador, I think you may have misread the clause concerning recourse. I fail to see how you've arrived at your current interpretation. With regard to your concerns about privacy, I must simply disagree. Equal justice and protection from police misconduct are of much greater importance than whatever violation of privacy such cameras may represent. We are overjoyed to hear that this issue is not one which plagues the Holy Empire; however, many other nations are not so fortunate or are even deliberately apathetic to the situation."

OOC: There has been some push for me to campaign on this this weekend and I have received a donation of stamps to run a telegram campaign. Therefore, I am changing my mind on the decision to not campaign this weekend. WADs should expect to receive a telegram from me later today asking for their approval of this proposal.

OOC: Let's take an actual country as an example here: the Netherlands. In 2018, there were 27 incidents where the police used their firearm, of which 3 were deadly. There is rarely more than one incident in a year where the families of the victims acuse the police of misconduct (of which some are valid, and some invalid). I would say that does not weigh up against 40,000 bodycameras and I don't know how many onboard cameras.

Many states, like the Holy Empire, have no significant police brutality/misconduct problem. Because of this, we believe that the violation of privacy that body-worn cameras and onboard cameras bring outweighs the potential benefit in our Holy Empire.

"I'd have to disagree with you there, Mr ... uh ... Saint. There is no mandate for your government to monitor or share the content recorded by the cameras if it values its officers' and citizens' privacies, unless for a criminal investigation, in which case I believe the violation of privacy is warranted."

OOC: Regardless of whether the police shares the footage, it can still be a violation of privacy. Otherwise, mass surveillance would not be an actual problem to be concerned with.

[Maowi]

"I'd have to disagree with you there, Mr ... uh ... Saint. There is no mandate for your government to monitor or share the content recorded by the cameras if it values its officers' and citizens' privacies, unless for a criminal investigation, in which case I believe the violation of privacy is warranted."

OOC: Regardless of whether the police shares the footage, it can still be a violation of privacy. Otherwise, mass surveillance would not be an actual problem to be concerned with.

OOC: I'm not just talking sharing. There is nothing in this proposal that means the police have to even look at the footage unless there's an allegation of some sort of crime. With these measures in place, your nation could even pass a law forbidding anyone from viewing the footage except in those cases, and still be compliant.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC: Regardless of whether the police shares the footage, it can still be a violation of privacy. Otherwise, mass surveillance would not be an actual problem to be concerned with.

OOC: I'm not just talking sharing. There is nothing in this proposal that means the police have to even look at the footage unless there's an allegation of some sort of crime. With these measures in place, your nation could even pass a law forbidding anyone from viewing the footage except in those cases, and still be compliant.

OOC: Besides the fact that it seems like the proposal doesn't even mandate that the cameras be set to record anything (or am I misreading it?), there is - regardless of current legislation - a significant risk of abuse w.r.t. privacy. In some countries, that may be worth it (e.g. the US) because the cameras provide a significant benefit, but in other countries like the one I mentioned, the marginal benefit does not outweigh (the risk of) infringing privacy.

This is an attempted one-size-fits-all solution where the solution evidently doesn't fit all.