NationStates

OOC: Draft of a proposal mandating the public disclosure of police and custodial officer records, with certain exceptions. The proposal would allow for the redaction of personal and potentially sensitive information, or where the public benefit of nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public benefit of disclosure. Any feedback is always welcome, especially regarding category and duplication.

Edit: Draft 2; reduced word count and streamlined some things in accordance with Tinhampton's suggestions.

Edit: Changed category from “Furtherment of Democracy" to "International Security".

Edit: Draft 3 is now up.

Edit: This failed to reach quorum because I resubmitted 3 hours before minor in the middle of the week like an idiot. I'll try and submit tomorrow or Sunday minor.

Integrity in Law Enforcement

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the fundamental role law enforcement officers play in ensuring the safety and security of nations and their peoples;

Noting that in order to support this mission, governments often empower law enforcement officers with extraordinary authority over their fellow citizens, such as the powers to detain and apply deadly force;

Concerned that the misuse of such authority can and does lead to grave violations of the law, the sanctity of life, and the public peace;

Understanding that the concealment of crucial matters such as inquiries into violent incidents and law enforcement officers' violations of civil rights compromises public faith in law enforcement, the public safety, and the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their essential duties, hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) as an individual acting in an official capacity to prevent or investigate potential offenses against a criminal law, with the powers to apprehend or detain individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against a criminal law, as authorized by a government;
   2. a "department" as an entity authorized to disclose records pursuant to this resolution;
   3. a "personnel record" as any file maintained by a department, which contains any information concerning:
      1. employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits; or
      2. complaints or investigation of complaints regarding an incident which an individual participated in or perceived, pertaining to their conduct with regards to said incident;
   4. a "final finding" as a final determination by an investigatory or determining body that the actions of an LEO are found to be unlawful or in violation of policy;
2. Declares:
   1. except as otherwise noted by law, the personnel records of any LEO, and any information obtained from such records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any investigation or proceeding, excepting investigations and proceedings concerning the conduct of said LEO;
   2. LEO personnel records must be made non-confidential and readily available for public consumption where they relate to:
      1. an investigation or findings regarding an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by a LEO, or an incident in which the use of force by a LEO resulted in death or severe bodily harm;
      2. an incident in which a final finding was made that a LEO initiated or attempted to initiate a sexual act through force or coercion, or under the guise of authority;
      3. an incident in which a final finding was made of dishonesty by a LEO in the course of their official duties;
   3. a department may only redact a personnel record disclosed pursuant to this resolution so long as said redaction serves any of the following purposes:
      1. to remove personal information, excepting work-related information regarding law enforcement officers;
      2. to maintain the anonymity of witnesses and complainants;
      3. to protect confidential information, so long as disclosure of such is specifically prohibited by international law or would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
      4. when the disclosure of certain information within said record could reasonably pose a significant physical danger to a LEO or other individual, or a significant danger to national security;
      5. when the disclosure of certain information would constitute a violation of prior World Assembly resolutions;
3. Clarifies:
   1. no part of this resolution shall be construed to limit the public’s right of access to information as established by other international law;
   2. a department may withhold disclosing a personnel record concerning an incident that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation or criminal enforcement proceeding, so long as disclosure of such could reasonably be expected to interfere with said investigation or proceeding.

OOC: How does this regulate the legal industry?

What you see in the spoiler below is a Rewrite(TM) of your first draft I've undertaken, which reduces the character count by 20% but does not actually remove anything of substance in your proposal - steal what you need from it, LOL:

LEO Personnel Record Disclosure

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Legal Reform

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that governments often empower law enforcement officers with extraordinary authority over their fellow citizens to allow them to fulfil their duty to keep nations and their citizens safe, such as the powers to detain and apply deadly force;

Concerned that the misuse of such authority can and does lead to grave violations of the law, sapient dignity, and public peace;

Understanding that the concealment of relevant and crucial information, such as inquiries into violence perpetuated by law enforcement officers, compromises public faith in law enforcement and its ability to perform its core duties effectively;

Hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) as an individual employed or contracted by a government or government entity, who acts in an official capacity to prevent, investigate, apprehend, or detain individuals suspected or convicted of violating a criminal law;
   2. an “agency” as the employer of a LEO;
   3. a “personnel record” as a file maintained under an individual’s name by an agency, which contains any information concerning:
      
      1. their personal life, including home address, employment history, background, family members, medical history, and similar information;
      2. employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits; or
      3. complaints (or investigation of complaints) regarding an incident which that individual participated in or observed, pertaining to their conduct during said incident;
   4. a “civilian” as an individual not employed by an agency, including any participant in a non-penal youth program affiliated with said agency;
   5. a “sustained finding” as a final ruling by an investigatory or determining body that the actions of a LEO violated agency policy or relevant law;
2. Declares:
   
   1. except as otherwise provided in Articles 2b-2d, all LEO personnel records are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any investigation or proceeding which does not concern the conduct of a LEO;
   2. LEO personnel records must be made readily available to the public where they relate to:
      
      1. an investigation or findings regarding an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by a LEO, or an incident in which the use of force by a LEO resulted in death or severe physical injury;
      2. an incident in which a sustained finding was made that a LEO initiated (or attempted to initiate) a sexual act with a civilian under the guise of authority or by using force or coercion;
      3. an incident in which a sustained finding was made that a LEO acted dishonestly in discharging their duties;
   3. an agency may only redact a personnel record disclosed under Article 2b if said redaction is made:
      
      1. to remove personal information, excepting employment-related information regarding LEOs;
      2. to maintain the anonymity of witnesses and complaintants;
      3. where disclosing the information redacted poses a reasonable risk of significant physical injury to any person, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, or is otherwise specifically prohibited by international law;
   4. an agency may withhold a personnel record concerning an incident that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation or criminal enforcement proceeding, where its publication could reasonably be expected to interfere with said investigation or proceeding;
3. Clarifies:
   
   1. no record shall be released pursuant to Article 2 if it is not independently subject to disclosure pursuant to this resolution;
   2. this resolution must not be read to curtail the application of other international law on freedom of information;
4. Urges member-nations to balance the need for law enforcement transparency with the need to ensure the safety of LEOs.

OOC:

I cannot see why an International Governing Organisation should have the right to enact a resolution that effectively encroaches on National Sovereignty and the right of the people that live within that nation.

Whilst it is a worthwhile cause to push for changes to how some nations utilise their Police Services, others have already more stricter regulations in place. This type of matter is something that should be enacted by the individual nation rather than an International Governing Organisation like the World Assembly

Keswickholt wrote:OOC:

I cannot see why an International Governing Organisation should have the right to enact a resolution that effectively encroaches on National Sovereignty and the right of the people that live within that nation.

(OOC: The WA has the right to do so because member nations voluntarily joined it.

Whilst it is a worthwhile cause to push for changes to how some nations utilise their Police Services, others have already more stricter regulations in place. This type of matter is something that should be enacted by the individual nation rather than an International Governing Organisation like the World Assembly

Nothing in this proposal restricts member nations from employing stricter regulations.)

Keswickholt wrote:OOC:

I cannot see why an International Governing Organisation should have the right to enact a resolution that effectively encroaches on National Sovereignty and the right of the people that live within that nation.

Whilst it is a worthwhile cause to push for changes to how some nations utilise their Police Services, others have already more stricter regulations in place. This type of matter is something that should be enacted by the individual nation rather than an International Governing Organisation like the World Assembly

OOC: That’s why I worded it the way I did. You’ll note that the proposal doesn’t actually regulate police departments more tightly, nor does it try to define what is and isn’t acceptable behavior or what should and shouldn’t be investigated. What it does do is set a baseline for transparency (which can be expanded upon by national governments), and mandate the disclosure of certain records, reports, and evidence in the interests of transparency and accountability. I’ll definitely incorporate some of Tinhampton’s suggestions, since the proposal could certainly be condensed a bit.

Terttia wrote:OOC: How does this regulate the legal industry?

Disclosure of records related to incidents involving members of the public would make it easier for people to hold officers accountable (through legal action). It cuts down on legal stuff that makes compensation for wrongdoing more difficult to obtain by individuals.

I know it isn’t a perfect fit, but I can’t really think of anything that works much better (given that the proposal doesn’t directly regulate law enforcement or officers’ conduct beyond disclosing records). Maybe Civil Rights or Furtherment of Democracy?

My opinion in editing this resolution;

In layman terms what is 3 a) actually trying to say?

I feel that might need some clarity as that could be interpreted according to how the reader wishes to interpret it.

Keswickholt wrote:My opinion in editing this resolution;

In layman terms what is 3 a) actually trying to say?

I feel that might need some clarity as that could be interpreted according to how the reader wishes to interpret it.

OOC: If there’s a record pertaining to a cop running a red light, this proposal doesn’t require said record to be released as character evidence for a later investigation of that cop using excessive force, unless if the red light thing independently meets this proposal’s conditions for needing to be released.

Honestly, it seems kind of redundant, and probably makes things less clear.

Edit: “This law doesn’t apply to things this law doesn’t apply to” feels increasingly unnecessary the more I think about it.

Cretox State wrote:OOC: If there’s a record pertaining to a cop running a red light, this proposal doesn’t require said record to be released as character evidence for a later investigation of that cop using excessive force, unless if the red light thing independently meets this proposal’s conditions for needing to be released.

Honestly, it seems kind of redundant, and probably makes things less clear.

Edit: “This law doesn’t apply to things this law doesn’t apply to” feels increasingly unnecessary the more I think about it.

OOC:
I deal with legislation every day for work, I do see a fair few contradictory sections and sections that are written so vaguely that it requires a whole lot of research to be able to understand why it has been written.

It could be reworded to better explain itself than removing the clause altogether.

Such as;
"No record shall be made available in pursuance of this resolution, unless it is related to the incident that the investigation is centred, and/or that the record has met the criteria of this resolution to do so."

Cretox State wrote:

Terttia wrote:OOC: How does this regulate the legal industry?

Disclosure of records related to incidents involving members of the public would make it easier for people to hold officers accountable (through legal action). It cuts down on legal stuff that makes compensation for wrongdoing more difficult to obtain by individuals.

The proposal does not affect the legal industry by my read.

Cretox State wrote: I know it isn’t a perfect fit, but I can’t really think of anything that works much better (given that the proposal doesn’t directly regulate law enforcement or officers’ conduct beyond disclosing records). Maybe Civil Rights or Furtherment of Democracy?

The “Civil Rights” category increases civil freedoms; the “Furtherment of Democracy” category increases political freedoms.

Terttia wrote:The proposal does not affect the legal industry by my read.

OOC: What would you recommend as a category?

OOC: Draft 2 is now up. I decided to remove 3(a), since it should already be covered under a good faith interpretation. I'm considering clarifying what types of records this resolution applies to.

Cretox State wrote:Area of Effect: Legal Reform

OOC: That AoE's effect is bad for legal industry (that means "the lawyers") and good for civil rights (which includes human rights). I don't really see how this is a fit for either effect currently. It limits police officer rights to privacy, which I think could be sold as Moral Decency, but I don't really see it increasing anyone's civil rights? And where's the "bad for legal industry" bit? (Actual anti-industry clauses.) Remember that police =/= legal industry.

Understanding that the concealment of crucial matters such as inquiries into violent incidents and law enforcement officers' violations of civil rights compromises public faith in law enforcement, the public safety, and the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their essential duties,

Do note that you're restricting people's (the police) civil rights while trying to, apparently, increase someone else's. So the net effect sounds about zero, on civil rights improvements.

a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) as an individual employed or contracted

Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but where has the recent obsession on making some weird disctinction between "employed" and "contracted", given in all civilized nations all kinds of employments are based on contracts, and that there's no way to be contracted without also being employed, I don't get the insistence on the distinction. If you just used "employed", sans any definition, it would be understood in the common English language use.

by a government or government entity

State =/= government. Normally police work for the state. In some monarchies they might work for the monarch directly (in which case government would be correct), but largely the employer is going to be the state, not the government.

who acts

Might just be my reading, but the "who" seems to refer to the "government entity" there?

in an official capacity to prevent, investigate, apprehend, or detain individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against a criminal law;

Police do a lot more than that, though. Or are you trying to restrict this to certain kinds of police activities only? Then be aware that a police officer might one day be a "LEO" as defined, and another day not.

an “agency” as the employer of an LEO;

...and you can't use "state" because of why?

a “personnel record” as any file maintained under an individual’s name by an agency, which contains any information concerning:

1. personal information, including home address, employment history, background, family members, medical history, and similar information;
2. employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits; or
3. complaints or investigation of complaints regarding an incident which that individual participated in or perceived, pertaining to their conduct with regards to said incident;

So taxation files (almost everything in the first bit), medical files (pretty much everything in the first bit), and probably any mailing list maintained by the employer... which I don't think is the intention necessarily? Maybe specify said info file is meant to be something to do with their job specifically.

a “civilian” as any individual not employed by an agency, including any participant in a non-penal youth program affiliated with said agency;

Why is the underlined bit included, given it's not mentioned anywhere else? Also, with the specification of LEO tasks and this definition, you're creating a grey zone of police officers whose job does not fit that of LEO, but because they're employed by the state, they're not civilians. Reason this is difficult, is that police-on-police brutality or sexual misconduct, etc., is relatively rare but existing, and you're currently putting some people (and all LEOs!) outside the protections provided otherwise. Given the only bit where civilian is even used is the rape bit, and that there is a resolution on sexual violence that makes no such distinction, I'm a bit confused.

a “sustained finding” as a final determination by an investigatory or determining body that the actions of an LEO are found to be unlawful or in violation of policy;

Why can't you just use "findings"? If it's a final determination, it's final, not sustained. Sustained suggests something that's ongoing. Also, if you're trying to save on character count, "findings" is shorter.

Throughout draft, btw, given LEO is pronouncable as a word, it should be "a LEO", not "an".

Declares:

I REALLY suggest using "mandates" instead. Declares doesn't have the same kind of "this is now the law and what you must do" kind of weight as mandates does.

except as otherwise noted by law, the personnel records of any LEO, or any information obtained from such records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any investigation or proceeding, excepting investigations and proceedings concerning the conduct of said LEO;

Which law? This one? Existing national ones? Existing WA ones? Future versions of either?

LEO personnel records must be made non-confidential and readily available for public consumption where they relate to:

1. an investigation or findings regarding an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by an LEO, or an incident in which the use of force by an LEO resulted in death or severe bodily harm;
2. an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an LEO initiated or attempted to initiate a sexual act with a civilian through force or coercion, or under the guise of authority;
3. an incident in which a sustained finding was made of dishonesty by an LEO in the course of their official duties;

Okay, several issues here.

Starting from, what does "public consumption" mean, given that personnel records - which contain sensitive personal information not just of the LEO but their family as well, as per the definition!!! - are not consumables, but are hopefully stable files either in electronic or physical form (or both)? Also, what does "public" even mean? A random uninvolved citizen on the street? The media? The involved citizens? All of the above?

Having the investigation - which is an ongoing unfinished process - made public, before any kind of verdict is arrived at, sounds dangerous. Imagine if in RL you made public an investigation of rape allegations against a police officer - even if the allegations were found to be nonsense cooked up by an ex partner jealous of the new spouse, you'd have effectively ruined the officer's reputation, and if the public can't trust a police officer, they might as well resign, as it's career-killing thing. Or imagine their home address being leaked, can you imagine having fanatical mob justice taken out on their home or family??? This would also create an easy weapon by people disliking a certain officer (maybe they busted them burgling a house or selling drugs) - just claim they did something bad, then the investigation conducted goes public, and the media will have done judge, jury and executioner, before the investigation ever concludes. Restrict that to the final findings, and leave personal info out of this ENTIRELY, no matter what the finding is (because seriously, their dentist's visits aren't anyone's business outside of them, their dentist and their boss).

Also, the whole clause needs a severe case of WHILE ON DUTY attached to everywhere, otherwise just being a police officer would strip you of all protections of law, including the "everyone is equal before the law" in CoCR, as even stuff you did on your spare time would be caught in this. Also, given that suicide by firearm is a thing, and this seems to mandate treating it as a suspected crime, you may have problems with the suicide decriminalization resolution. I would suggest ruling self-harm out of it entirely.

Given the resolution exists against unwanted sexual conduct (rape and other), not sure why the 2nd bit needs to even be here? Police are not immune to that resolution.

As for the third, what does "a sustained finding was made of dishonesty by an LEO in the course of their official duties" even mean?

an agency may only redact a personnel record disclosed pursuant to this resolution so long as said redaction serves any of the following purposes:

1. to remove personal information, excepting work-related information regarding law enforcement officers;
2. to maintain the anonymity of witnesses and complainants;
3. to protect confidential information, so long as disclosure of such is specifically prohibited by international law or would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
4. when the disclosure of certain information within the personnel record could reasonably pose a significant physical danger to an LEO or other individual;

May redact what? I mean, why does it need to be redacted when it's supposed to be private in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to require only specific kind of info (such as info avoiding the issues in the previous point) to be shared, rather than require it all be shared and then write a huge list of exceptions?

an agency may withhold disclosing a personnel record concerning an incident that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation or criminal enforcement proceeding, so long as disclosure of such could reasonably be expected to interfere with said investigation or proceeding;

See the problems of mob justice and character assassination by media, as mentioned before. Neither would "reasonably be expected to interfere with said investigation or proceeding", they'd just... be wrong.

Clarifies that no part of this resolution shall be construed to limit the public’s right of access to information as established by other international law;

International law or WA law? The two are not a 100% match. Also, given the list of limitations above, are you trying to say that this resolution does not actually matter a jot for the purpose of information security? I mean, if it rolls over for ANY future resolution, then it's best to not try to pass it as it's meaningless in large parts.

Urges member-nations to balance the need for law enforcement transparency with the need for ensuring the safety of LEOs.

You're really not leaving a whole lot of wiggle room here for nations, though.

OOC: Thanks for the comments! I'll try and address them:

Araraukar wrote:

Cretox State wrote:Area of Effect: Legal Reform

OOC: That AoE's effect is bad for legal industry (that means "the lawyers") and good for civil rights (which includes human rights). I don't really see how this is a fit for either effect currently. It limits police officer rights to privacy, which I think could be sold as Moral Decency, but I don't really see it increasing anyone's civil rights? And where's the "bad for legal industry" bit? (Actual anti-industry clauses.) Remember that police =/= legal industry.

My justification would be that making it easier for the public to get access to police records reduces barriers to legal action, and increases the civil rights of the greater population. I'm aware it's not a perfect fit, but it appears to be the best one thus far.

Araraukar wrote:

Understanding that the concealment of crucial matters such as inquiries into violent incidents and law enforcement officers' violations of civil rights compromises public faith in law enforcement, the public safety, and the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their essential duties,

Do note that you're restricting people's (the police) civil rights while trying to, apparently, increase someone else's. So the net effect sounds about zero, on civil rights improvements.

"Civil rights, guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics. Examples of civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to government services, the right to a public education, and the right to use public facilities" (source). I don't see how this proposal would diminish officers' civil rights specifically.

Araraukar wrote:

a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) as an individual employed or contracted

Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but where has the recent obsession on making some weird disctinction between "employed" and "contracted", given in all civilized nations all kinds of employments are based on contracts, and that there's no way to be contracted without also being employed, I don't get the insistence on the distinction. If you just used "employed", sans any definition, it would be understood in the common English language use.

Honestly, the wording there was lousy. I changed it to hopefully work better, and make it clear that it applies only to LEOs acting in an official capacity.

Araraukar wrote:

in an official capacity to prevent, investigate, apprehend, or detain individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against a criminal law;

Police do a lot more than that, though. Or are you trying to restrict this to certain kinds of police activities only? Then be aware that a police officer might one day be a "LEO" as defined, and another day not.

The proposal is intended to apply specifically to incidents occurring with LEOs authorized with the stated powers, even if they might be technically doing something else.

Araraukar wrote:

an “agency” as the employer of an LEO;

...and you can't use "state" because of why?

So that private police is still covered.

Araraukar wrote:

a “personnel record” as any file maintained under an individual’s name by an agency, which contains any information concerning:

1. personal information, including home address, employment history, background, family members, medical history, and similar information;
2. employment-related advancement, appraisal, discipline, or benefits; or
3. complaints or investigation of complaints regarding an incident which that individual participated in or perceived, pertaining to their conduct with regards to said incident;

So taxation files (almost everything in the first bit), medical files (pretty much everything in the first bit), and probably any mailing list maintained by the employer... which I don't think is the intention necessarily? Maybe specify said info file is meant to be something to do with their job specifically.

If the mailing list or tax form is directly related to one of the situations under which release would be mandated, then yes.

Araraukar wrote:

a “civilian” as any individual not employed by an agency, including any participant in a non-penal youth program affiliated with said agency;

Why is the underlined bit included, given it's not mentioned anywhere else? Also, with the specification of LEO tasks and this definition, you're creating a grey zone of police officers whose job does not fit that of LEO, but because they're employed by the state, they're not civilians. Reason this is difficult, is that police-on-police brutality or sexual misconduct, etc., is relatively rare but existing, and you're currently putting some people (and all LEOs!) outside the protections provided otherwise. Given the only bit where civilian is even used is the rape bit, and that there is a resolution on sexual violence that makes no such distinction, I'm a bit confused.

Good point. Removed the entire "civilian" bit.

Araraukar wrote:

a “sustained finding” as a final determination by an investigatory or determining body that the actions of an LEO are found to be unlawful or in violation of policy;

Why can't you just use "findings"? If it's a final determination, it's final, not sustained. Sustained suggests something that's ongoing. Also, if you're trying to save on character count, "findings" is shorter.

Specific language I've seen used with regards to complaints, mostly.

Araraukar wrote:Throughout draft, btw, given LEO is pronouncable as a word, it should be "a LEO", not "an".

Fixed.

Araraukar wrote:

Declares:

I REALLY suggest using "mandates" instead. Declares doesn't have the same kind of "this is now the law and what you must do" kind of weight as mandates does.

Does it really matter that much? Technically, "declares" would carry more of a connotation of "laying down the law," whereas "mandates" would imply "this is something to be enacted by member states," no?

Araraukar wrote:

except as otherwise noted by law, the personnel records of any LEO, or any information obtained from such records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any investigation or proceeding, excepting investigations and proceedings concerning the conduct of said LEO;

Which law? This one? Existing national ones? Existing WA ones? Future versions of either?

Any form of law; that's why it's nonspecific. This part is intended to enumerate a baseline for confidentiality, which national governments can modify to mandate even greater transparency. That's the idea of the proposal in general: to establish a baseline that governments can expand upon, not to be the final say in what can and cannot be disclosed.

Araraukar wrote:

LEO personnel records must be made non-confidential and readily available for public consumption where they relate to:

1. an investigation or findings regarding an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by an LEO, or an incident in which the use of force by an LEO resulted in death or severe bodily harm;
2. an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an LEO initiated or attempted to initiate a sexual act with a civilian through force or coercion, or under the guise of authority;
3. an incident in which a sustained finding was made of dishonesty by an LEO in the course of their official duties;

Okay, several issues here.

Starting from, what does "public consumption" mean, given that personnel records - which contain sensitive personal information not just of the LEO but their family as well, as per the definition!!! - are not consumables, but are hopefully stable files either in electronic or physical form (or both)? Also, what does "public" even mean? A random uninvolved citizen on the street? The media? The involved citizens? All of the above?

The sensitive information would be redacted. "Public consumption" just means "available to the general public"; I could change it, though. This proposal's goal isn't to define how records are to be released to the public, and that's better as a subject for a future resolution, or just for member nations to decide.

Araraukar wrote:Having the investigation - which is an ongoing unfinished process - made public, before any kind of verdict is arrived at, sounds dangerous. Imagine if in RL you made public an investigation of rape allegations against a police officer - even if the allegations were found to be nonsense cooked up by an ex partner jealous of the new spouse, you'd have effectively ruined the officer's reputation, and if the public can't trust a police officer, they might as well resign, as it's career-killing thing. Or imagine their home address being leaked, can you imagine having fanatical mob justice taken out on their home or family??? This would also create an easy weapon by people disliking a certain officer (maybe they busted them burgling a house or selling drugs) - just claim they did something bad, then the investigation conducted goes public, and the media will have done judge, jury and executioner, before the investigation ever concludes. Restrict that to the final findings, and leave personal info out of this ENTIRELY, no matter what the finding is (because seriously, their dentist's visits aren't anyone's business outside of them, their dentist and their boss).

The parts that would interfere with an ongoing investigation would be redacted. The "character assassination" part is why the sexual assault and dishonesty stuff only applies if a complaint is sustained. If there's a reasonable risk of certain information leading to physical harm, it would be redacted. The only other situation in which records must be disclosed is in the event of deadly force or firearm use, but information reasonably having a possibility of impacting an investigation would be redacted in those cases.

Araraukar wrote:Also, the whole clause needs a severe case of WHILE ON DUTY attached to everywhere, otherwise just being a police officer would strip you of all protections of law, including the "everyone is equal before the law" in CoCR, as even stuff you did on your spare time would be caught in this. Also, given that suicide by firearm is a thing, and this seems to mandate treating it as a suspected crime, you may have problems with the suicide decriminalization resolution. I would suggest ruling self-harm out of it entirely.

The definition of LEO specifically applies to LEOs acting in an official capacity; the revised draft should make it more clear. In any case, I wouldn't call it particularly relevant. The disclosure part only applies to incidents and sustained findings. The proposal doesn't actually define what should be investigated. If self-harm is not investigated, no records will be released.

Araraukar wrote:Given the resolution exists against unwanted sexual conduct (rape and other), not sure why the 2nd bit needs to even be here? Police are not immune to that resolution.

Mind you, the proposal doesn't actually define what should be investigated. It only mandates record disclosure in the case of a sustained finding.

Araraukar wrote:As for the third, what does "a sustained finding was made of dishonesty by an LEO in the course of their official duties" even mean?

Sustained findings of: Lying. False information. Perjury. That could be clarified, though this proposal leaves it up to member nations what they actually want to investigate.

Araraukar wrote:

an agency may only redact a personnel record disclosed pursuant to this resolution so long as said redaction serves any of the following purposes:

1. to remove personal information, excepting work-related information regarding law enforcement officers;
2. to maintain the anonymity of witnesses and complainants;
3. to protect confidential information, so long as disclosure of such is specifically prohibited by international law or would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
4. when the disclosure of certain information within the personnel record could reasonably pose a significant physical danger to an LEO or other individual;

May redact what? I mean, why does it need to be redacted when it's supposed to be private in the first place? Wouldn't it make more sense to require only specific kind of info (such as info avoiding the issues in the previous point) to be shared, rather than require it all be shared and then write a huge list of exceptions?

The offending information is to be removed prior to release. The logic behind the proposal's current structure is to catch records based on information contained, then provide for exceptions, rather than trying to define exactly which records must and must not be disclosed (which would be very rigid, not to mention nearly impossible).

Araraukar wrote:

an agency may withhold disclosing a personnel record concerning an incident that is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation or criminal enforcement proceeding, so long as disclosure of such could reasonably be expected to interfere with said investigation or proceeding;

See the problems of mob justice and character assassination by media, as mentioned before. Neither would "reasonably be expected to interfere with said investigation or proceeding", they'd just... be wrong.

That's why "sustained finding" was used. Also, character assassination regarding an investigation into firearm use or use of force could very well be considered to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

Araraukar wrote:

Clarifies that no part of this resolution shall be construed to limit the public’s right of access to information as established by other international law;

International law or WA law? The two are not a 100% match. Also, given the list of limitations above, are you trying to say that this resolution does not actually matter a jot for the purpose of information security? I mean, if it rolls over for ANY future resolution, then it's best to not try to pass it as it's meaningless in large parts.

International law. What that statement means is that future resolutions/international agreements can expand upon what is to be disclosed.

Araraukar wrote:

Urges member-nations to balance the need for law enforcement transparency with the need for ensuring the safety of LEOs.

You're really not leaving a whole lot of wiggle room here for nations, though.

Again, this proposal doesn't dictate what should be investigated, just that records must be released.

OOC: On mobile so no long reply yet, but let's say in IC Araraukar doesn't want to investigate its police forces at all. Not because they were perfect people, but because this proposal's requirement to publish everything regardless of if the result was internal disciplinary action or criminal trial (hint: only criminal cases should have anything to do with public info). So, now, does this proposal have ANY effect?

Also, remember in NS GA "civil rights" incorporates human rights while EXCLUDING political rights like voting. RL definitions do not apply. Remember the opposite is Moral Decency. You ARE reducing LEOs' civil rights (human rights and right to privacy at least) without specifically increasing other people's, so MD sounds like a better fit. And "legal industry" means LAWYERS specifically. Exactly what in the proposal is BAD for legal industry?

GA proposal categories ARE restrictive, which is why we keep saying "write to the category", meaning you should pick a category and write your proposal to fit it, not write a proposal and afterwards try to force it into one.

Now, what is the main problem you are trying to solve here? In three words or less.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: On mobile so no long reply yet, but let's say in IC Araraukar doesn't want to investigate its police forces at all. Not because they were perfect people, but because this proposal's requirement to publish everything regardless of if the result was internal disciplinary action or criminal trial (hint: only criminal cases should have anything to do with public info). So, now, does this proposal have ANY effect?

The purpose behind including internal investigations is that incidents of misbehavior by police often don’t lead to prosecution. Police departments regularly conduct internal investigations in response to complaints and incidents, which can easily turn into an opportunity to sweep misbehavior under the rug.

If a nation wants to not investigate incidents of alleged wrongdoing, I say it should be their decision if they want to (metaphorically) shoot themselves in the foot and give officers a free pass to murder citizens for sport. I firmly believe it isn’t the place of a GA resolution to dictate what governments must investigate, nor how they should investigate. The purpose of this proposal is to establish a baseline for transparency with regards to investigations into incidents of wrongdoing.

Araraukar wrote:Also, remember in NS GA "civil rights" incorporates human rights while EXCLUDING political rights like voting. RL definitions do not apply. Remember the opposite is Moral Decency. You ARE reducing LEOs' civil rights (human rights and right to privacy at least) without specifically increasing other people's, so MD sounds like a better fit. And "legal industry" means LAWYERS specifically. Exactly what in the proposal is BAD for legal industry?

GA proposal categories ARE restrictive, which is why we keep saying "write to the category", meaning you should pick a category and write your proposal to fit it, not write a proposal and afterwards try to force it into one.

How about “Furtherment of Democracy”? Being able to hold one’s government accountable is the cornerstone of democracy, after all.

Araraukar wrote:Now, what is the main problem you are trying to solve here? In three words or less.

Deficient police transparency.—> Which contributes to police brutality and lack of accountability.

Cretox State wrote:

Araraukar wrote:Now, what is the main problem you are trying to solve here? In three words or less.

Deficient police transparency.—> Which contributes to police brutality and lack of accountability.

OOC: So why are you forcing ridiculous amounts of transparency (if you don't think it's ridiculous, imagine requiring every student ending up in detention being made public records, along with all the grades and test results every kid has ever gotten at school) on nations who DO NOT have issues with police brutality? Or whatever you think accountability means in the context?

“I think clause 2b-i should also require a ‘sustained finding’, as with clauses b-ii and b-iii.”

Araraukar wrote:

Cretox State wrote:Deficient police transparency.—> Which contributes to police brutality and lack of accountability.

OOC: So why are you forcing ridiculous amounts of transparency (if you don't think it's ridiculous, imagine requiring every student ending up in detention being made public records, along with all the grades and test results every kid has ever gotten at school) on nations who DO NOT have issues with police brutality? Or whatever you think accountability means in the context?

OOC: How is it ridiculous? This proposal would only apply to investigated incidents of firearms use and use of excessive force, and sustained findings of sexual assault and dishonest behavior. Are you suggesting that raping a citizen or shooting an innocent person is equivalent to acting up in class? If a nation doesn’t have these issues with its police, it probably has more extensive policies already. If that’s not the case, this proposal would help prevent issues from developing.

OOC: Changed the category to fit better.

Kenmoria wrote:“I think clause 2b-i should also require a ‘sustained finding’, as with clauses b-ii and b-iii.”

“I’m not too certain about whether to require a ‘sustained finding’ or not. Investigations into incidents of firearms use and excessive force seem to be serious enough to warrant record disclosure regardless of the investigation’s outcome (to prevent findings from being buried).”

OOC: If there are no objections, I’ll look to submit this sometime later this week.

OOC: Some notes...

1.a. The list reads as though preventing (which is a scary word in this context) or investigating individuals, rather than their activities.

1.b. Why not "institution" or something, anything, else but what sounds like some spy movie word?

1.c.i. Just remove this, please? It's going to have to be removed from everything going public anyway, so why even have it in? The proposal won't suffer from it being left out. You would save in character count too.

1.d. Why not "final finding"? The word sustained suggests an ongoing process, not the final verdict of an investigation. Also, what is a "determining body"?

2.b.i. Uses "findings" - which findings are these? Final or non-final? Also, the bit about ongoing investigations being made public IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY unless you remove the investigations bit of it. That clause is also problematic because of the "use of force" bit. What if it wasn't use of force? What if it was a threat of use of force, and the weapon was fired by accident? Then it doesn't get included in this? Can a nation get around the entire bit just by saying all weapons firings are accidental?

2.b.ii. would seem to ban consensual BDSM play. Was that intentional? Could you add "while at duty" or similar to it?

2.b.iii. continues to be weird. If a police officer counters a crackhead's "I am Jesus, you can't imprison me!" with "Yeah, and I'm Abraham Lincoln", then they're breaking WA law? Is lying by omission allowed? Do you know how interrogation tactics work?

2.c.ii. Have you ever heard of the concept of a person being allowed to know who is accusing them of wrongdoing? If you're forcing police forces to out every possible investigation, no matter how fictional the claim turned out to be (think like revenge by an ex-partner), why are the ones filing the complaints supposedly untouchable? If it goes to a trial (like lawbreaking should), then the defence has the right to know the witnesses of prosecution anyway.

2.c.iii. The last bit, yeay, none of the bits prior actually applies, since who's accused of what isn't anyone else's business!

2.c.iv. Why physical danger only? Property damage, anyone?

2.d. Internal contradiction with 2.b.i.

3. So these "other international law"s can limit it further?

4. Why does this clause even exist, given you're taking away all the rights of the member nations to decide for themselves?

Araraukar wrote:1.a. The list reads as though preventing (which is a scary word in this context) or investigating individuals, rather than their activities.

Fixed.

Araraukar wrote:1.b. Why not "institution" or something, anything, else but what sounds like some spy movie word?

Changed to "department".

Araraukar wrote:1.c.i. Just remove this, please? It's going to have to be removed from everything going public anyway, so why even have it in? The proposal won't suffer from it being left out. You would save in character count too.

Removed.

Araraukar wrote:1.d. Why not "final finding"? The word sustained suggests an ongoing process, not the final verdict of an investigation. Also, what is a "determining body"?

Changed to "final finding". A "determining body" is any body that makes a determination as to the LEO's conduct, such as an internal review board.

Araraukar wrote:2.b.i. Uses "findings" - which findings are these? Final or non-final? Also, the bit about ongoing investigations being made public IS AN ISSUE THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY unless you remove the investigations bit of it. That clause is also problematic because of the "use of force" bit. What if it wasn't use of force? What if it was a threat of use of force, and the weapon was fired by accident? Then it doesn't get included in this? Can a nation get around the entire bit just by saying all weapons firings are accidental?

Intent wouldn't matter, given that the firearm was still discharged by the LEO. The proposal doesn't actually require that any of these things be investigated. If a nation wants to not investigate use of force or incidents involving the discharge of firearms, that's for that nation to decide.

Araraukar wrote:2.b.ii. would seem to ban consensual BDSM play. Was that intentional? Could you add "while at duty" or similar to it?

The definition of LEO already implies being on duty.

Araraukar wrote:2.b.iii. continues to be weird. If a police officer counters a crackhead's "I am Jesus, you can't imprison me!" with "Yeah, and I'm Abraham Lincoln", then they're breaking WA law? Is lying by omission allowed? Do you know how interrogation tactics work?

The proposal doesn't actually outlaw lying, interrogation, or any other form of "dishonesty".

Araraukar wrote:2.c.ii. Have you ever heard of the concept of a person being allowed to know who is accusing them of wrongdoing? If you're forcing police forces to out every possible investigation, no matter how fictional the claim turned out to be (think like revenge by an ex-partner), why are the ones filing the complaints supposedly untouchable? If it goes to a trial (like lawbreaking should), then the defence has the right to know the witnesses of prosecution anyway.

Araraukar wrote:2.c.iii. The last bit, yeay, none of the bits prior actually applies, since who's accused of what isn't anyone else's business!

Those things don't have to be redacted, hence the use of "may". What information gets disclosed during a trial or investigation is entirely up to a nation to decide. "[E]xcepting investigations and proceedings concerning the conduct of said LEO."

Araraukar wrote:2.c.iv. Why physical danger only? Property damage, anyone?

How can you distinguish between "risk of physical harm" and "risk of property damage" when deciding whether to redact something?

Araraukar wrote:2.d. Internal contradiction with 2.b.i.

Changed to be a clarification.

Araraukar wrote:3. So these "other international law"s can limit it further?

A treaty, resolution, etc. can require that additional things be disclosed.

Araraukar wrote:4. Why does this clause even exist, given you're taking away all the rights of the member nations to decide for themselves?

Removed. It was filler anyways.

Section 2, Subsection b;

LEO personnel records must be made non-confidential and readily available for public consumption where they relate to:

Section 2, subsection b, clause i;

an investigation or findings regarding an incident involving the discharge of a firearm by a LEO, or an incident in which the use of force by a LEO resulted in death or severe bodily harm

So a Terrorist incident has happened, Police have shot the suspect who is believed to belong to an international terrorist organisation and by releasing any documents in relation to this shooting could potentially be detrimental to national security.

This wording of the subsection and clause would allow such documents to be released non-confidentially and potentially puts lives in danger.