NationStates

What Follows is the working draft of "Cop Conundrum"

Recently, a young woman was pulled over by a cop for going 1.2 miles per hour over the speed limit. The issue with that was, the cop was supposed to be pursuing an elusive drug lord. His actions allowed the thug to get away and now an assorted group of individuals have managed to make it into your office, demanding action.

#1

“How ridiculous” cries, @@randomname1@@, the woman who was pulled over. “I was't going a more than mile or two over the speed limit, meanwhile, a hardened criminal was allowed to escape because some cop wanted to go for the easier payout! I demand action. Any cop who bails out of a normal assignment to get off a quick ticket should be tried for shirking duty!"

Outcome #1
pulling over someone for recess driving and shirking duty are synonymous in @@nation@@

#2
“Do you know how fast she were going?” @@randomname2@@, the cop who pulled @@randomname1@@ over inquires. Before @@randomname1@@ have a chance to answer he exclaims, “Too fast, I’m sorry but you did the crime, you will have to serve the time. It is regrettable that the drug lord escaped but alas, this woman was speeding, and the law is the law." At that he slaps a ticket onto the ground and begins to walk towards the door.

Outcome #2

Cops seem find speeding to be a more egregious crime than mass murder


#3

Your introverted secretary nervously pipes up, “I don't think we should let @@randomname1@@ off the hook completely, nor do I think he should be overly penalized. He isn't the problem, the problem is the system. It incentivizes cops to lie in wait for people and to snag them going one mile over the speed limit or all together abandon their post to snag someone who ran a red. If they didn’t have quotas to meet, they might but their time into taking down actual criminals, like the drug lord!

Outcome #3

Cops spend more time sleeping in their cars than driving them.

#4

Finally, your Science Minister, who, incidentally, owns a large robotics company, joins in the discussion, “The issue isn’t with quotas, it is just an issue with humans. They don’t do their jobs efficiently enough. Just buy some AI cops from a mechatronics company. Then problem solved. No quotas to fill, they don’t even have to be payed, and they are completely incorruptible. If we had AI cops, that drug lord would be behind bars! Of course, there is that little issue of price, and upkeep, but in the name of preserving the law, it’s worth it. Plus, I’ll throw in one free one with every purchase of 50,000 or more RobotCop 250’s.” Your minister winks and climbs back into the limo.

Outcome #4

The government spends ever more money on batteries for an ever growing fleet of AI cops.

Your premise seems a little unbelievable.

Number one, a @@LEADER@@ wouldn't be traveling solo. There would be a caravan of cars (assuming the nation allows them) all around the one carry him/her. Also, all law enforcement around the area would be alerted that @@LEADER@@ would be there, as this is the biggest figure in name. If all else fails, once the cop actually knows it's @@LEADER@@, he/she definitely wouldn't act the way they do in option one.

Also, is it an actual thing for cops to pull people over even if they aren't speeding? I haven't seen or heard of this.

EDIT: Don't let this discourage you. Don't be afraid to ask around on the Writers' Block to see if a premise has merits before you post.

When I saw a Minister of Science being involved in a speeding ticket, I was expecting something like this. Or this.

Change the focus of the issue. Should you be punished for travelling s few km over the limit?

I think this issue is an excellent and interesting dilemma

Thank you very much for your feedback. I will make edits accordingly. I agree, the intro is messed up. Perhaps I will make it that you witness this, or that some one comes to you complaining about it. That allows us to bypass the motorcade issue. Will adjust accordingly. Thanks again!

Trotterdam wrote:When I saw a Minister of Science being involved in a speeding ticket, I was expecting something like this. Or this.

Allegedly a RL university professor actually tried the latter defence in court but a student who disliked them had chosen to attend the hearing and managed to point out the implication... whereupon the magistrate did hit the professor with a penalty (although not a death sentence) for speeding instead.

Should I just edit the draft at the top or just go ahead and re-write it in this post? I am not sure of the procedure for amending your Draft.

Libertas Omnium Maximus wrote:Should I just edit the draft at the top or just go ahead and re-write it in this post? I am not sure of the procedure for amending your Draft.

Usual procedure is to place the existing draft into a spoiler, and then post the new draft above it.
(This also applies in the WA drafting forums...)

Ok, will do. Thanks Bears. I will have the next draft posted soon.

Draft #2 posted above.

I would greatly appreciate more feedback when it is convenient for it you all. I want this issue to be perfect before I submit it.

Alright, let's get down to things:

Right now, your description is too unwieldy. It seems to be going one thousand different directions as of current. You will need to reform this and make it condense. I would suggest reframing the description to be as follows:

Your niece, who has always had a perfect driving record and is considered a 'goody two-shoes', was recently pulled over outside @@CAPITAL@@ for apparently speeding. After leaving the incident distraught and in a daze, she has made her way to your office, ready to complain about unjust traffic violations.

*Note this is merely a suggestion of a way to take it, you don't need to use this exact form if you do not want to.

Also, all of your options are a bit on the short side. I know brevity is a valuable asset, but you have room to add humor to each of your options now. Effect lines should start with a lowercase letter, and they do not need any punctuation at the end.

Thank you. I will take your suggestions into consideration.

She went 63 miles per hour in a 62 zone...

I was fairly certain that we already had an issue about speeding tickets. Turns out the one I was thinking about concerned parking tickets, which is different. I couldn’t find anything else on browsing the base, so, surprisingly, speeding tickets actually seems like a viable theme.

The draft itself is kind of unfocused. What’s the issue here, really? On the surface it seems to be about if you should be able to speed a wee bit above the limit and not get fined. That’s not particularly interesting, in my opinion, but I suppose it’s still an acceptable premise.

There’s aspects of the draft that’s more geared towards dysfunctional incentive systems within the police force, where the speeding ticket could be more of an example of a bigger problem (New Public Management and police departments focusing their resources chasing more easily attained goals within a ‘goals- and performance system’, and with this de-prioritizing fields where it’s harder to attain a good clearance rate). That’s a really interesting premise, but would require some serious reworking.

Anyways, Sacara has the right idea about describing the starting point: it needs more focus. Start with that, and then re-read your options and see if they make sense based on that. Take your time going through each option to ensure it’s consistent with your storyline and flow well.

Updated! Still not quite done yet but I have taken your constructive criticism and ideas into account. Hopefully this is close to what the finished product will look like! Thanks all.

Your current description raises the question: what cop would stop chasing a drug lord for someone only going one mile over the speed limit? That's a little too unfathomable, imo.

Agreed, what would you suggest as a substitute?

I already posted what I think you should change it to above. If you don’t like that, I’m sure we can brainstorm some more.

What do you want the premise to be?

Yes, referring to the niece. Thank you for that. I don't know, that seems a little to bland. I think some brainstorming would probably be a good idea. I seem to be gravitating away from the "cop pulls over a woman who is driving .0000003 mph over the speed limit" idea and more towards the concept of addressing cops who are going for the low hanging fruit as opposed to taking down the people who really should get busted.

Libertas Omnium Maximus wrote:Yes, referring to the niece. Thank you for that. I don't know, that seems a little to bland. I think some brainstorming would probably be a good idea. I seem to be gravitating away from the "cop pulls over a woman who is driving .0000003 mph over the speed limit" idea and more towards the concept of addressing cops who are going for the low hanging fruit as opposed to taking down the people who really should get busted.

Exactly what I was thinking. Needs to focus less on speeding and more on lazy cops

Agreed, and no, you don't sound impolite. My issue is attempting to figure it out. I am sort of at a loss.

I resurrected this thread because It appears that my idea has lost traction. Should I discard it or continue? If continue is the answer, does anyone have any good ideas for improvements? Thanks.

The premise might work better if it were about police using handheld speed cameras on speeding hotspots in order to levy on the spot fines. That issue then raises interesting questions about entrapment, about directly administered punishments, and about the motivations behind speeding fines.