[CHALLENGE] Standards On Police Accountability

[Bananaistan]

Debate thread.

Public challenge thread

To keep the form correct, I vote we hear the challenge, and vote illegal.

The evidence in the public challenge thread is that the reference to the Legal Industry in the description of the Legal Reform AoE cannot refer generally to Law Enforcement. IMO IS is not so much the best fit as it is the only fit.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Seconded, and yes, we should hear this.

While I would have accepted Civil Rights as an alternate category, I do agree that there is no reasonable fit with Reg/Legal Reform.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It seems from this (viewtopic.php?p=37317800#p37317800) that we have 3 votes for Illegal. Barring Bears's sudden return, that is a majority. If no compelling argument to the contrary shows up here, I'll ask Moderation to execute the Discard after tonight's (EDT) major update.

[Sciongrad]

I agree. I disagree that the best category test is appropriate in the first place, but that's our precedent.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Community notified: viewtopic.php?p=37334016#p37334016

[Sciongrad]

“Standards On Police Accountability” was submitted to the General Assembly on June 23, 2020, as a Legal Reform proposal. We are asked to determine whether the proposal violates the Category Rule. After careful consideration, we conclude that the proposal, as written, violates the rule because there is no reasonable argument that any of its significant effects fit within the Legal Reform category.

To determine whether a proposal complies with the Category Rule, we historically have applied the “best fit” test. This test applies a two-pronged analysis. The starting inquiry is whether the proposal fits into any of the currently available categories. If a proposal clearly fits into some category more than any other, then it violates the Category Rule if the proposal uses another category. [2018] GAS 3. On the other hand, “if a proposal does not clearly fit into one particular subcategory,” then the fit need only be reasonable. Id. As part of our analysis, we look to the proposal’s “most noticeable consequence,” which “is the primary consideration in determining its category.” [2016] GAS 6.

The threshold question in this analysis is whether the proposal, as written, fits into any of the categories. To satisfy this prong, the challenged proposal does not need to fit perfectly within the chosen category. See [2018] GAS 3 (“we have rejected the extreme approach of strict categorization, where every single clause would have to fit the category and subcategory.”).

It is not disputed that the proposal requires member nations to increase expenditures on policing. Clause 3 requires police departments to “conduct evaluations by mental health professionals on any person applying for employment at a police force.” Clause 6 requires member nations to “provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras, require [law enforcement officers] 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.” Clause 10 requires member nations to “adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by [law enforcement officer]s as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.”

It is not clear, however, that these clauses, which increase training and equipment for law enforcement officers, constitute the “most noticeable consequence” of the proposal. Indeed, we could rationally classify several of the resolution’s effects (for instance, clause 2, establishing criminal liability for law enforcement officers, and clause 5, requiring member nations to provide recourse for police misconduct) as “the most noticeable consequence.” Imposing broad criminal liability is a very significant effect, even if it is only contained in one clause, for example. These other clauses do not necessarily increase police spending.

The purpose of the GA rules is to make this game the best it can be for its players. That aim is not served by formalistic applications of categories, especially when proposals have various effects that fall into several categories. The best fit test, as it currently exists, yokes the GA game to an inexhaustive set of categories whose effects are sometimes obscure, even to members of GenSec. Rather than requiring GenSec to make a formalistic and, as here, largely unguided category determinations, a superior approach that would better serve the players of this game would at least partly unmoor the category rule from the formalism of game stats, so that an author is no longer vulnerable to a category challenge if their proposal reasonably falls within the statistical effect of a category.

We therefore reject the best fit test as the governing test for the Category Rule and instead adopt an “any suitable category” test, which asks only if the category is reasonable. A selection is reasonable if there is a plausible argument that any of the resolution’s significant effects fit within the category. For the the purposes of this test, an effect is significant when it is not trivial or speculative. In adopting this test, we hope to free players from the formalism of the best fit test while also ensuring that the category chosen by the author at least partly reflects the text of the resolution.

Applying this test to the challenged resolution, we conclude that it violates the category rule. Although there is potentially a plausible argument that Clause 5 might fit within the legal reform category, which “[r]egulate[s] the legal industry, public and private, for access to justice for all,” by leading some nations to create a private right of action against law enforcement officers, the speculative effect of a single clause by itself is not enough to justify a category selection that otherwise finds no support in the text of the resolution.

In light of the above analysis, we find that “Standards On Police Accountability” does not employ any of the potentially suitable categories, and therefore violates the Category Rule.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I will sign on to this opinion. It is quite long - we might do well to trim some of it. A good and thorough analysis, tho.

[Grays Harbor]

Well written. I concur. “Reasonable category” is an acceptable stance.


Edit: I believe the length of the ruling is not an issue. Thorough is the best method, and leaves little room for doubt, and hopefully can be a deterrent to our rules lawyers.

[Sciongrad]

Very good — that makes five. I'll post this shortly.

[Bananaistan]

Ftr. I sign also and had told Scion privately earlier.