NATION

PASSWORD

[Defeated] Standards On Police Accountability

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:31 am

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:The author has shown a complete lack of desire to improve their proposal, but we feel the need to point this out anyway:

a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;


Is not a good definition. Forget not needing to turn the camera on, it is perfectly within the text of the resolution to not even have a device that results in a video. The use of "or" to create the list means one can, with a straight face, comply by simply issuing all police officers a low resolution black and white digital camera they can attach to their collar that uses a manual control to take pictures only when the officer wants. Or simply add a "record audio" feature to the standard police radio that is also user-activated. Perhaps our national policy can be officers should only take pictures of themselves helping the elderly cross the road and saving fuzzy kittens. When this proposal inevitably either: fails to meet quorum (desirable), fails at vote (schadenfreude), or gets insta-repealed, perhaps the author might come up with a definition of the devices that actually mandates they be useful/usable for observing police misconduct.

OOC: Again, this is not an error, this is entirely intentional. I have absolutely no issue with the scenario you are describing. What I care about is the access to these devices, not how they are used. A "recording" isn't necessarily a video and plenty of devices police make use of in real life, including undercover officers, do not result in video. Many are audio only. The broad definition allows for the use of a huge variety of devices, accounting for possible variations in the role of the device, needs for inconspicuousness, technology level, and so forth.

User avatar
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 106
Founded: May 19, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Pope Saint Peter the Apostle » Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:28 am

Isaris wrote:OOC: It seems really odd that you have decided to tell me what my own proposal is meant to do. We also seem to have different understandings of the term "good faith". I think it's pretty clear what nations are intended to do with the cameras. If nations choose not to do that, that isn't the fault of my proposal, that is their choice made in bad faith. It may not be the written law they need to do so but it is fairly apparent they ought to. It's comparable to returning the shopping cart at the grocery store. No one is going to punish you if you don't but you'll look like an asshole for not doing it. What you are attributing as "mistakes" I see as a fundamental difference in philosophy. I'm also not choosing to simply ignore the issues you have addressed. I have replied to them all at least once and I don't feel the need to keep doing so when my counter-arguments are being entirely ignored. Further, I disagree that you have no other ways to have them addressed. I have stated multiple times I would come back to this if it failed. If you feel that way, truly, then it suggests to me you believe this proposal will actually succeed, considering the lengths you went to.

OOC: If you intend this to cover intelligence services, the title "Standards On Police Accountability" is odd and misleading. Also, I doubt this will pass; the vote at TNP's forum is so far unanimously against. I just don't want to have the WA vote on this when it's just a big waste of time; at best, we get a flawed resolution.

You saying that a requirement to turn on bodycams is micromanage-y is ironic, as this entire proposal is micromanage-y.
Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 1 Cor. 16:13 (NRSVCE)

Pro: Catholicism, Consistent ethic of life, Second Amendment, Welfare.
Anti: Fascism, Socialism, Trump, Sedevacantism, Utilitarianism.
WA member. IC comments made by patron saints, representing the Holy See.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:46 am

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:
Isaris wrote:OOC: It seems really odd that you have decided to tell me what my own proposal is meant to do. We also seem to have different understandings of the term "good faith". I think it's pretty clear what nations are intended to do with the cameras. If nations choose not to do that, that isn't the fault of my proposal, that is their choice made in bad faith. It may not be the written law they need to do so but it is fairly apparent they ought to. It's comparable to returning the shopping cart at the grocery store. No one is going to punish you if you don't but you'll look like an asshole for not doing it. What you are attributing as "mistakes" I see as a fundamental difference in philosophy. I'm also not choosing to simply ignore the issues you have addressed. I have replied to them all at least once and I don't feel the need to keep doing so when my counter-arguments are being entirely ignored. Further, I disagree that you have no other ways to have them addressed. I have stated multiple times I would come back to this if it failed. If you feel that way, truly, then it suggests to me you believe this proposal will actually succeed, considering the lengths you went to.

OOC: If you intend this to cover intelligence services, the title "Standards On Police Accountability" is odd and misleading. Also, I doubt this will pass; the vote at TNP's forum is so far unanimously against. I just don't want to have the WA vote on this when it's just a big waste of time; at best, we get a flawed resolution.

You saying that a requirement to turn on bodycams is micromanage-y is ironic, as this entire proposal is micromanage-y.

OOC: I don't see how it is misleading. Would you care to offer an explanation? Regarding TNP, that's really just too bad for me, then. I have time to waste and I'd love to get a vote, as would many other people that I know. You say the proposal is micromanage-y, others say it is too broad. I can't please both crowds, sorry. A perfect proposal doesn't exist and never will.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6231
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:58 am

Isaris wrote:
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:OOC: If you intend this to cover intelligence services, the title "Standards On Police Accountability" is odd and misleading. Also, I doubt this will pass; the vote at TNP's forum is so far unanimously against. I just don't want to have the WA vote on this when it's just a big waste of time; at best, we get a flawed resolution.

You saying that a requirement to turn on bodycams is micromanage-y is ironic, as this entire proposal is micromanage-y.

OOC: I don't see how it is misleading. Would you care to offer an explanation? Regarding TNP, that's really just too bad for me, then. I have time to waste and I'd love to get a vote, as would many other people that I know. You say the proposal is micromanage-y, others say it is too broad. I can't please both crowds, sorry. A perfect proposal doesn't exist and never will.

(OOC: The proposal is micromanaging in some areas but broad in others. Lots of the provisions about body-cameras don’t take account of individual nuances in a police force. For example, why would a police employee who only does desk work need to wear a camera? On the other hand, your definition of ‘police’ is incredibly broad and covers a lot of different bodies.

A proposal that pleases everyone doesn’t exist. However, proposals need to please at least 50% + 1 of the available votes in order to pass, and this probably won’t based on the response here.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Kbrandtucogoughcf
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jun 21, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Kbrandtucogoughcf » Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:04 am

Also,1. provide accountability by making most police records, etc digitally/publically available online and 2. have independent watchdogs audit police forces at randomly times throughout the year.

User avatar
LollerLand
Diplomat
 
Posts: 510
Founded: May 15, 2014
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby LollerLand » Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:39 am

Best of luck Izzy! I hope this passes!
The Universal Allegiance | Caer Sidi | The West Pacific | Equilism
Kuramia wrote:Truth. Loller is bae

The Islamic Canadian Republic wrote:@Loller : Almost Morgan Freeman

Views expressed are personal and doesn't reflect the views of the regions I am in unless explicitly stated otherwise.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:01 am

This really could have been boiled down to:

"All member states shall ensure their law enforcement personnel follow all all laws of the nation whom provides the scope of their employment; further any law enforcement personnel whom exceed their authority or violate the laws of the nation whom provide the scope of their employment shall be deemed criminally and civilly liable."

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Diplomat
 
Posts: 992
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Attempted Socialism » Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:06 am

Wayneactia wrote:This really could have been boiled down to:

"All member states shall ensure their law enforcement personnel follow all all laws of the nation whom provides the scope of their employment; further any law enforcement personnel whom exceed their authority or violate the laws of the nation whom provide the scope of their employment shall be deemed criminally and civilly liable."

It sounds like you're being tongue-in-cheek and critical, but as someone who has attended my fair share of RL protests, just such a line would have solved all domestic police abuse issues I have personally encountered. You can make a better resolution, but there's a clear improvement even in your version.


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:11 am

Wayneactia wrote:This really could have been boiled down to:

"All member states shall ensure their law enforcement personnel follow all all laws of the nation whom provides the scope of their employment; further any law enforcement personnel whom exceed their authority or violate the laws of the nation whom provide the scope of their employment shall be deemed criminally and civilly liable."

OOC: And how would that establish any kind of standard when nations can grant varying levels of authority to their law enforcement and have a myriad of laws?

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:16 am

Isaris wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:This really could have been boiled down to:

"All member states shall ensure their law enforcement personnel follow all all laws of the nation whom provides the scope of their employment; further any law enforcement personnel whom exceed their authority or violate the laws of the nation whom provide the scope of their employment shall be deemed criminally and civilly liable."

OOC: And how would that establish any kind of standard when nations can grant varying levels of authority to their law enforcement and have a myriad of laws?

It can't, but neither does yours and that is the issue. Your best bet may be to create a committee designated to create regulations. Although you are likely to run into opposition (me included) claiming massive overreach and blatant violation of national sovereignty. The problem with this here proposal is massive overreach and blatant violation of national sovereignty. I hate to be blunt, but I really can't see this passing, and even if it does it will be repealed quite quickly, and likely replaced with a blocker on the matter.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 6:27 am

Wayneactia wrote:
Isaris wrote:OOC: And how would that establish any kind of standard when nations can grant varying levels of authority to their law enforcement and have a myriad of laws?

It can't, but neither does yours and that is the issue. Your best bet may be to create a committee designated to create regulations. Although you are likely to run into opposition (me included) claiming massive overreach and blatant violation of national sovereignty. The problem with this here proposal is massive overreach and blatant violation of national sovereignty. I hate to be blunt, but I really can't see this passing, and even if it does it will be repealed quite quickly, and likely replaced with a blocker on the matter.

OOC: So I keep hearing. The die has already been cast. Also, this thing where you (and others) offer a supposed improvement and then flatly say immediately later you'll oppose it anyway is extremely strange. If you're going to oppose it, then how is it an improvement to you and why offer it in the first place?

User avatar
Sancta Romana Ecclesia
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Aug 04, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:34 am

Where does this resolution require police officers to actually use the cameras they have been equipped with?

What is homicide? What is assault? There's a reason criminal laws define these terms and don't just go "whoever commits homicide shall suffer the penalty no lighter than 10 years of imprisonment".

Police shooting an unarmed burglar on sight does act in the defense of another person, the one who owns the house. The problem isn't that police officers go actively searching for people to kill, to satiate their thirst for blood, but that the force used in police interventions (which are done to protect another person or community in general) is excessive. Where does the resolution provide for exceeding the means of defense?

""Such a penalty shall not be enforced" does not mean that something is a crime. Penalty is not enforced on the pardoned criminals, but they still committed a crime and the pardon doesn't change that. So actually, all that I think this does, is allowing some of the officers charged and convicted of homicide/assault/battery to escape in the sentencing.

These and other issues are fixable and I'm sure you can find a person willing to address them. You unfortunately rushed this to vote.
Paulus Asteorra

An Enlightened and the Guru of Diplomacy of Karma

Expressed opinions are my own and not Karma's, unless otherwise noted.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:51 am

Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Where does this resolution require police officers to actually use the cameras they have been equipped with?

What is homicide? What is assault? There's a reason criminal laws define these terms and don't just go "whoever commits homicide shall suffer the penalty no lighter than 10 years of imprisonment".

Police shooting an unarmed burglar on sight does act in the defense of another person, the one who owns the house. The problem isn't that police officers go actively searching for people to kill, to satiate their thirst for blood, but that the force used in police interventions (which are done to protect another person or community in general) is excessive. Where does the resolution provide for exceeding the means of defense?

""Such a penalty shall not be enforced" does not mean that something is a crime. Penalty is not enforced on the pardoned criminals, but they still committed a crime and the pardon doesn't change that. So actually, all that I think this does, is allowing some of the officers charged and convicted of homicide/assault/battery to escape in the sentencing.

These and other issues are fixable and I'm sure you can find a person willing to address them. You unfortunately rushed this to vote.

OOC: It doesn't require that. As I have said, the intent is for the access, the use is not my concern. I have not defined those terms because I wish to leave that for nations to define. With regard to exceeding the means of defense, I would rather not get into the slippery slope of defining what is reasonable force. And if nations wish to pardon their criminal police, I suppose they certainly could do so; that isn't really my concern here. While I don't agree with the issues you have raised, I thank you for your feedback and I may reconsider them if I should need to revisit this proposal.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20769
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:03 pm

"It is physically impossible for my government to comply with this. We cannot possibly go around providing miniature film cameras for every officer and vehicle, and if we could, it would be absolutely ridiculous to do so. For what reason is the apparatus for an omnipresent surveillance state included in a bill ostensibly written to limit abuse of power?"
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Tatarica
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Mar 24, 2005
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tatarica » Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:33 pm

* edited
Last edited by Tatarica on Tue Jun 23, 2020 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:35 pm

Wallenburg wrote:"It is physically impossible for my government to comply with this. We cannot possibly go around providing miniature film cameras for every officer and vehicle, and if we could, it would be absolutely ridiculous to do so. For what reason is the apparatus for an omnipresent surveillance state included in a bill ostensibly written to limit abuse of power?"

"Well, ambassador, I'd like to point that the cameras do not necessarily need to be film ones. They can be audio or photographic only if you desire. There is also a funding mechanism available if your nation needs financial assistance to fulfill the mandate. The reason for this apparatus, although I disagree with your characterization of it, is to facilitate and encourage the creation of recordings of law enforcement officers' activities, not to require them."

Edit:
Tatarica wrote:OOC:
There is a Central American saying that goes along the line of "If one person tells you you're drunk, and you feel fine, ignore him. If two people tell you the same, then shrug them off. But if ten people tell you you're drunk, go and rest". In this particular case, I believe that this draft has been a bit rushed. Personally, I've seen other drafts stay in the General Assembly forums for months, gathering input suggestions and support. For me, this submission feels rushed like something bad would have happened to it if it was not submitted in 14 days.

OP, you talk, in general, like "I care about ... I want ... my thought ... the reason I want this ...". Yes, the proposal is yours, but it should reflect something that the vast majority of players want; not just something that you want, you think about or even worse, that you believe is correct or that you feel is obvious.

I feel that you believe that the WA is a body that has only gives resolutions for good-hearted nations that respect all laws even before they are made into WA resolutions and are in good agreement with the spirit of the law. But have you checked the great bulk of WA resolutions? They're created to make sure that even "bad" WA nations are at least somewhat aligned with the general consensus that the "good" nations already respect.
Your proposed resolution falls into the same bowl. It should be moot for "good" WA nations, as those already respect these provisions even without your proposal. They respect the spirit of the law. So your resolution actually targets the "bad" WA nations and forces them to align a bit with the rest of the NS world, at least on the police accountability side.
And yet you leave loopholes in the text of the resolution, and your answer to this is that "its how you saw it because the loopholes can be fixed on a per-nation individually". But for the exact cases that this proposed resolution wants to target, for the exact "bad" WA nations, this resolution will do nothing. It will only do something for the "good" WA nations that already have standards on police accountability.
Some other nations brought this up to your attention, but your answer is still that "I left this specifically like this because individual nations obivously will fix the loopholes because its obvious they should do that". But, yet again, you fail to account for the actual target of this resolution, the "bad" WA nations that are only forced to respect the letter of the law of the resolution, and not the spirit of the law.


I will drop this now, just wanted to add my two cents as I replied earlier in the thread. Do not be disheartened, the proposal has potential and I'm sure that, with some time, some additional work and some feedback it will be a great resolution. Anyway, right now it already reached a quorum and will be up for a vote.

OOC: I don't fully agree with everything you've said here but I appreciate your delivery, and will take your words into consideration.
Last edited by Isaris on Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1048
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:10 pm

OOC:
Isaris wrote:The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

So, for the record, I think that this is typically less of a problem then you may think it is. It's a noble goal, no doubt, and may very well deserve a resolution on the subject, but as it stands, this seems very harshly worded. I'd tone it down a little, but that's me being picky.

A lot of the rest of my critiques have already been addressed by you under the claim that "it's not the intention of the proposal" or similar, but if that is the case then this preamble is very misleading. I suggest you either change the preamble to more accurately reflect your intentions or change the operative clauses to more accurately reflect the preamble. Either way, something should really be changed here.

1c. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

As mentioned previously, this is not a good definition. I'll try not to echo the countless "but you don't need to turn the cameras on!!!" (which I do feel to be a valid critique, but this thread is over-saturated with these responses), but even so, a camera that even has the ability to record video is not required due to the language of it.


1d. an "onboard camera" is defined as an audio, video, or photographic recording device affixable to a vehicle;

Same issue here.


1f. a "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" is defined as an employee of a police force—

  1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions; and

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

Firstly, the quotations here are weird. "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" should be changed to "law enforcement officer" (LEO). As it stands, it implies that the full title is "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" instead of defining "law enforcement officer" and then adding LEO as an abbreviation.

I also don't see why you added a sublist here - it doesn't make much sense and would work better if it wasn't present.

I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that this is too broad of definition, though I do believe the last part ("or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety") doesn't exactly match the spirit of the rest of the proposal.

2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

2a. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any LEO who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

This is unnecessarily clunky. I'd recommend condensing the subclause into the parent clause. Additionally, the phrasing of 2a ("Such a penalty shall not be enforced... self-defense...") mplies that action can not be taken against these officers no matter what, even if the force exhibited was unnecessarily large in proportion to the action that is being defended against.


2b. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as an LEO in a member state unless a mental health professional has concluded upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

Wholly unnecessary given clause three.


4. Member states shall require LEOs within their jurisdictions to undergo an annual evaluation by a mental health professional. Any LEO deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others shall no longer be authorized to carry deadly weapons until a mental health professional has concluded upon a subsequent evaluation that they no longer pose such a danger.

A few things with this one. First of all, while it is technically legal, there is no basis for what "annual" refers to here, given the vast array of planets which have nations which subscribe to the World Assembly - assuming it's the time that it takes for a planet to make a full loop around the sun, that is a wildly inconsistent standard and may lead to a bypass of this clause for some nations. It may also be incredibly burdensome for other nations still, if they have a rather short period of circumnavigation (that's not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think of the one I am). I'd recommend having a time period which is more consistent between all nations (but still refrains from giving exact numbers).

Next is the issue of "authorized to carry deadly weapons" - in many cases, deadly weapons aren't what leads to brutality. Assuming that this is inspired by the happenings in the US right now, that movement was actually spurred on by a case where the officer did not use a deadly weapon. Now, yes, there are likely far more cases involving use of a firearm or other, but that doesn't negate the fact that this doesn't address the broader problem. I'd suggest a ban on fieldwork, as opposed to a ban on deadly weapons.


5. 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.

I don't see the point in this. It's preferable to just make a mandate to have officers charged in an efficient and effective manner. What can a nation do but bring justice around and give emotional support?


6. 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.

Beyond the overly-stated critique with this proposal, there are a few other issues with this clause. First and foremost is that there is no specification of when the body-worn cameras should be worn, so the natural conclusion is that they should be worn at all times - which is not acceptable. This may very well be a minuscule issue, as next to no reasonable nations would employ this interpretation - but it is worth addressing, in my opinion. The easiest fix would be to change the definition of "Law Enforcement Officer" to specify that it is only on-duty employees of a police force. This would also treat off-duty LEOs as civilians, which is precisely what should be happening in my opinion.

Additionally, I'd get rid of the "if such technologies are available to the member states" portion of this clause. It's unnecessary - theoretically, if a member-state is unable to comply, penalties from the Compliance Commission will not be doled out, and the member-state will instead be granted to ability to comply (in this case, by having the technology sent to them).

You seem to think that just because something would (theoretically) work in the United States, that it would work for the world. This is, frankly, not the case, and would actually cause more harm than good to many real-life nations - not to mention the countless (well, I guess I could count them, and find out that there are 27865 of them) World Assembly nations. Obviously it won't be possible to accommodate every single one of these nations, but it should still be a goal to cover as many nations as one possibly can, while still maintaining the spirit of the proposal. As it stands, this clause panders to the minority of minority of nations, instead of the broader community of the World Assembly.


7. Member states, if domestic funding cannot be obtained, may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and onboard cameras. Monies allocated to member states from the WA General Fund to fulfill these mandates shall only be appropriated for those purposes.

Get rid of this, it's a waste of the General Fund's resources.


8. Member states shall provide a penalty within their national legal codes for the destruction or discarding of any recording produced by a body-worn camera equipped by an LEO or an onboard camera affixed to a vehicle owned by a police force within their jurisdictions within less than one calendar year of its production or that is evidence in a criminal proceeding, and require police forces within their jurisdictions to maintain any recording produced by such cameras in good working condition and undamaged until it may be lawfully destroyed or discarded.

"provide a penalty" could be literally a slap on the wrist - and not metaphorically. You did the "provide a penalty" thing somewhat right ith clause 2 - be more like this there. Also, the same issue is here in regards to "one calendar year" as is with "annually."


9. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall strongly encourage local police forces within their jurisdictions to make a good faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing, and strongly encourage police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt community outreach policies that focus on building trust with the communities those forces are policing.

The first part of this sounds unnecessary to me and the second part sounds like propaganda.

I'd be more inclined to support a minimum training protocol for law enforcement officers.

Also, this was a very short drafting period. Don't be upset with people for not reading and commenting on the proposal the instant you propose it - or even 11 days later. Sometimes, feedback comes late. Hell, I've actively campaigned against an at-vote proposal of mine because substantial flaws were pointed out and I didn't manage to read them in time to withdraw the proposal - you still have a bit of time. I echo the sentiment of others here to withdraw, though I do understand the struggle in wanting to keep it up. Ultimately, I know we won't convince you one way or another - but I feel that it was prevalent enough to need to be said. As it stands, I'd say there's like a 95% chance of this failing - and, in the case that it does pass, there will be a lot of repeal attempts. Not repeal attempts from incoherent authors that happen after every proposal, but attempts from serious authors. I understand that you don't do this merely for the passage of your proposal, which is commendable, but presumably the intention is to write good legislation - I believe that that's what most authors want to do. Unfortunately, at the present time, this is a very flawed proposal. Some proposals fail because they're generally unpopular, and not because they're flawed - I believe that they should be put forward regardless, because it's worthwhile to gauge the public's opinion. That's when failure shouldn't factor into this - it should factor into this right now because this is actual legislation that would likely be popular if the flaws are sorted out.

I understand a lot of what we call "flaws" you don't see that way because they don't adhere to your intentions in writing this proposal, but the fact of the matter is that these aspects of the proposal either are, in fact, flaws, or the preamble (and even the title, to an extent) are misleading.

Best of luck with your proposal. I'm looking forward to the continued drafting of it.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20769
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jun 22, 2020 1:11 pm

Isaris wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:"It is physically impossible for my government to comply with this. We cannot possibly go around providing miniature film cameras for every officer and vehicle, and if we could, it would be absolutely ridiculous to do so. For what reason is the apparatus for an omnipresent surveillance state included in a bill ostensibly written to limit abuse of power?"

"Well, ambassador, I'd like to point that the cameras do not necessarily need to be film ones. They can be audio or photographic only if you desire. There is also a funding mechanism available if your nation needs financial assistance to fulfill the mandate. The reason for this apparatus, although I disagree with your characterization of it, is to facilitate and encourage the creation of recordings of law enforcement officers' activities, not to require them."

"In an ideal world, these devices would not be used to illegally surveil citizens, and would only be used to hold officers to account. However, that acts against the interests of the very officers who solely possess agency over the use of these devices. Nobody can be trusted to incriminate themselves.

"For what it's worth, I appreciate your clarification that this mandate merely extends to a requirement that officers carry a photographic device somewhere on their person. That makes it feasible, if still ridiculously costly, to comply. Other mandates here are harmfully restrictive to an extent that I maintain this office's opposition."
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs for The East Pacific

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:41 pm

Morover wrote:OOC:
Isaris wrote:The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

So, for the record, I think that this is typically less of a problem then you may think it is. It's a noble goal, no doubt, and may very well deserve a resolution on the subject, but as it stands, this seems very harshly worded. I'd tone it down a little, but that's me being picky.

A lot of the rest of my critiques have already been addressed by you under the claim that "it's not the intention of the proposal" or similar, but if that is the case then this preamble is very misleading. I suggest you either change the preamble to more accurately reflect your intentions or change the operative clauses to more accurately reflect the preamble. Either way, something should really be changed here.

I don't agree that my intentions aren't reflected in the preamble.

1c. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

As mentioned previously, this is not a good definition. I'll try not to echo the countless "but you don't need to turn the cameras on!!!" (which I do feel to be a valid critique, but this thread is over-saturated with these responses), but even so, a camera that even has the ability to record video is not required due to the language of it.


1d. an "onboard camera" is defined as an audio, video, or photographic recording device affixable to a vehicle;

Same issue here.

This is 100% intentional. Audio-only recordings are fine and are regularly produced by the police.


1f. a "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" is defined as an employee of a police force—

  1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions; and

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

Firstly, the quotations here are weird. "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" should be changed to "law enforcement officer" (LEO). As it stands, it implies that the full title is "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" instead of defining "law enforcement officer" and then adding LEO as an abbreviation.

I also don't see why you added a sublist here - it doesn't make much sense and would work better if it wasn't present.

I don't necessarily agree with the assertion that this is too broad of definition, though I do believe the last part ("or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety") doesn't exactly match the spirit of the rest of the proposal.

I'll definitely take these points into consideration if necessary.

2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

2a. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any LEO who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

This is unnecessarily clunky. I'd recommend condensing the subclause into the parent clause. Additionally, the phrasing of 2a ("Such a penalty shall not be enforced... self-defense...") mplies that action can not be taken against these officers no matter what, even if the force exhibited was unnecessarily large in proportion to the action that is being defended against.

There were concerns about previous iterations preventing law enforcement from being able to perform their duties but I'll consider tightening this up if necessary.


2b. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as an LEO in a member state unless a mental health professional has concluded upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

Wholly unnecessary given clause three.

3 is specifically concerned with hiring to a police force, meaning that it only applies at the time of hiring and can include jobs which are not law enforcement officers, such as janitors. 2b in the very least is intended to take the officer off law enforcement duty after conviction; however, I can see an argument as to needing to be clearer and will factor that in if need be.


4. Member states shall require LEOs within their jurisdictions to undergo an annual evaluation by a mental health professional. Any LEO deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others shall no longer be authorized to carry deadly weapons until a mental health professional has concluded upon a subsequent evaluation that they no longer pose such a danger.

A few things with this one. First of all, while it is technically legal, there is no basis for what "annual" refers to here, given the vast array of planets which have nations which subscribe to the World Assembly - assuming it's the time that it takes for a planet to make a full loop around the sun, that is a wildly inconsistent standard and may lead to a bypass of this clause for some nations. It may also be incredibly burdensome for other nations still, if they have a rather short period of circumnavigation (that's not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think of the one I am). I'd recommend having a time period which is more consistent between all nations (but still refrains from giving exact numbers).

Next is the issue of "authorized to carry deadly weapons" - in many cases, deadly weapons aren't what leads to brutality. Assuming that this is inspired by the happenings in the US right now, that movement was actually spurred on by a case where the officer did not use a deadly weapon. Now, yes, there are likely far more cases involving use of a firearm or other, but that doesn't negate the fact that this doesn't address the broader problem. I'd suggest a ban on fieldwork, as opposed to a ban on deadly weapons.

Couldn't nations just determine what is "annual" based on their own structures? Your point regarding a fieldwork ban over a deadly weapons ban is fair, though, but not one I think is so great to tank the proposal.


5. 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.

I don't see the point in this. It's preferable to just make a mandate to have officers charged in an efficient and effective manner. What can a nation do but bring justice around and give emotional support?

The point is to allow civilians to be able to hold police forces and LEOs liable in civil court, and to be compensated for the damages they have been inflicted.


6. 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.

Beyond the overly-stated critique with this proposal, there are a few other issues with this clause. First and foremost is that there is no specification of when the body-worn cameras should be worn, so the natural conclusion is that they should be worn at all times - which is not acceptable. This may very well be a minuscule issue, as next to no reasonable nations would employ this interpretation - but it is worth addressing, in my opinion. The easiest fix would be to change the definition of "Law Enforcement Officer" to specify that it is only on-duty employees of a police force. This would also treat off-duty LEOs as civilians, which is precisely what should be happening in my opinion.

What part of this proposal stops nations from further defining off-duty LEOs as civilians, exactly? I mean, I'll add that bit if I need to because it is my intention they only be worn on-duty but as you said, next to no reasonable nations would employ this interpretation, so I don't see why I really need to.

Additionally, I'd get rid of the "if such technologies are available to the member states" portion of this clause. It's unnecessary - theoretically, if a member-state is unable to comply, penalties from the Compliance Commission will not be doled out, and the member-state will instead be granted to ability to comply (in this case, by having the technology sent to them).

All right, I wasn't aware of the Compliance Commission stuff, so I will consider this if need be.

You seem to think that just because something would (theoretically) work in the United States, that it would work for the world. This is, frankly, not the case, and would actually cause more harm than good to many real-life nations - not to mention the countless (well, I guess I could count them, and find out that there are 27865 of them) World Assembly nations. Obviously it won't be possible to accommodate every single one of these nations, but it should still be a goal to cover as many nations as one possibly can, while still maintaining the spirit of the proposal. As it stands, this clause panders to the minority of minority of nations, instead of the broader community of the World Assembly.

Body-worn cameras are used in a lot of nations other than the United States. They are used in Australia, Canada, Singapore, the UK, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UAE.


7. Member states, if domestic funding cannot be obtained, may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and onboard cameras. Monies allocated to member states from the WA General Fund to fulfill these mandates shall only be appropriated for those purposes.

Get rid of this, it's a waste of the General Fund's resources.

I disagree and there were concerns about the ability of some nations to fund their own devices.


8. Member states shall provide a penalty within their national legal codes for the destruction or discarding of any recording produced by a body-worn camera equipped by an LEO or an onboard camera affixed to a vehicle owned by a police force within their jurisdictions within less than one calendar year of its production or that is evidence in a criminal proceeding, and require police forces within their jurisdictions to maintain any recording produced by such cameras in good working condition and undamaged until it may be lawfully destroyed or discarded.

"provide a penalty" could be literally a slap on the wrist - and not metaphorically. You did the "provide a penalty" thing somewhat right ith clause 2 - be more like this there. Also, the same issue is here in regards to "one calendar year" as is with "annually."

I'm fine with whatever is at least equivalent to the punishment normally extended to their civilians, even if that's simply a slap on the wrist. I'm not here to judge other people's cultures.


9. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall strongly encourage local police forces within their jurisdictions to make a good faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing, and strongly encourage police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt community outreach policies that focus on building trust with the communities those forces are policing.

The first part of this sounds unnecessary to me and the second part sounds like propaganda.

I'd be more inclined to support a minimum training protocol for law enforcement officers.

There is a minimum training protocol in clause 10.

Also, this was a very short drafting period. Don't be upset with people for not reading and commenting on the proposal the instant you propose it - or even 11 days later. Sometimes, feedback comes late. Hell, I've actively campaigned against an at-vote proposal of mine because substantial flaws were pointed out and I didn't manage to read them in time to withdraw the proposal - you still have a bit of time. I echo the sentiment of others here to withdraw, though I do understand the struggle in wanting to keep it up. Ultimately, I know we won't convince you one way or another - but I feel that it was prevalent enough to need to be said. As it stands, I'd say there's like a 95% chance of this failing - and, in the case that it does pass, there will be a lot of repeal attempts. Not repeal attempts from incoherent authors that happen after every proposal, but attempts from serious authors. I understand that you don't do this merely for the passage of your proposal, which is commendable, but presumably the intention is to write good legislation - I believe that that's what most authors want to do. Unfortunately, at the present time, this is a very flawed proposal. Some proposals fail because they're generally unpopular, and not because they're flawed - I believe that they should be put forward regardless, because it's worthwhile to gauge the public's opinion. That's when failure shouldn't factor into this - it should factor into this right now because this is actual legislation that would likely be popular if the flaws are sorted out.

I understand a lot of what we call "flaws" you don't see that way because they don't adhere to your intentions in writing this proposal, but the fact of the matter is that these aspects of the proposal either are, in fact, flaws, or the preamble (and even the title, to an extent) are misleading.

Best of luck with your proposal. I'm looking forward to the continued drafting of it.

Thank you for your constructive approach to criticism and your feedback overall, even the parts I have expressed disagreement with.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1048
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:53 pm

Only responding to stuff I feel needs response - we've talked some in Discord DMs and I think we find ourselves in vital disagreement about some aspects of this proposal.

Isaris wrote:
As mentioned previously, this is not a good definition. I'll try not to echo the countless "but you don't need to turn the cameras on!!!" (which I do feel to be a valid critique, but this thread is over-saturated with these responses), but even so, a camera that even has the ability to record video is not required due to the language of it.



Same issue here.

This is 100% intentional. Audio-only recordings are fine and are regularly produced by the police.

This is easily abusable with it, then.


A few things with this one. First of all, while it is technically legal, there is no basis for what "annual" refers to here, given the vast array of planets which have nations which subscribe to the World Assembly - assuming it's the time that it takes for a planet to make a full loop around the sun, that is a wildly inconsistent standard and may lead to a bypass of this clause for some nations. It may also be incredibly burdensome for other nations still, if they have a rather short period of circumnavigation (that's not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think of the one I am). I'd recommend having a time period which is more consistent between all nations (but still refrains from giving exact numbers).

Next is the issue of "authorized to carry deadly weapons" - in many cases, deadly weapons aren't what leads to brutality. Assuming that this is inspired by the happenings in the US right now, that movement was actually spurred on by a case where the officer did not use a deadly weapon. Now, yes, there are likely far more cases involving use of a firearm or other, but that doesn't negate the fact that this doesn't address the broader problem. I'd suggest a ban on fieldwork, as opposed to a ban on deadly weapons.

Couldn't nations just determine what is "annual" based on their own structures? Your point regarding a fieldwork ban over a deadly weapons ban is fair, though, but not one I think is so great to tank the proposal.

Technically they could - but it's not ideal and is easily abusable, which is why I suggested the change.


I don't see the point in this. It's preferable to just make a mandate to have officers charged in an efficient and effective manner. What can a nation do but bring justice around and give emotional support?

The point is to allow civilians to be able to hold police forces and LEOs liable in civil court, and to be compensated for the damages they have been inflicted.

Why is this a change from civilians who committed atrocities?


Beyond the overly-stated critique with this proposal, there are a few other issues with this clause. First and foremost is that there is no specification of when the body-worn cameras should be worn, so the natural conclusion is that they should be worn at all times - which is not acceptable. This may very well be a minuscule issue, as next to no reasonable nations would employ this interpretation - but it is worth addressing, in my opinion. The easiest fix would be to change the definition of "Law Enforcement Officer" to specify that it is only on-duty employees of a police force. This would also treat off-duty LEOs as civilians, which is precisely what should be happening in my opinion.

What part of this proposal stops nations from further defining off-duty LEOs as civilians, exactly? I mean, I'll add that bit if I need to because it is my intention they only be worn on-duty but as you said, next to no reasonable nations would employ this interpretation, so I don't see why I really need to.

The part of the proposal which explicitly defined off-duty LEOs as still being LEOs. Because there's no distinction.


Get rid of this, it's a waste of the General Fund's resources.

I disagree and there were concerns about the ability of some nations to fund their own devices.

There's literally concerns about costs for every single resolution that has ever been passed by the WA - if they were all to say "go to the General Fund" then there would be no general fund because there would be no money. Why should this proposal get special treatment?


"provide a penalty" could be literally a slap on the wrist - and not metaphorically. You did the "provide a penalty" thing somewhat right ith clause 2 - be more like this there. Also, the same issue is here in regards to "one calendar year" as is with "annually."

I'm fine with whatever is at least equivalent to the punishment normally extended to their civilians, even if that's simply a slap on the wrist. I'm not here to judge other people's cultures.

Nowhere does it specify that the law must be consistent with that of civilians.


The first part of this sounds unnecessary to me and the second part sounds like propaganda.

I'd be more inclined to support a minimum training protocol for law enforcement officers.

There is a minimum training protocol in clause 10.

I was referring more to collegiate education and the like, but that's my fault for being overly vague.
Last edited by Morover on Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:58 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:04 pm

Morover wrote:Nowhere does it specify that the law must be consistent with that of civilians.


OOC: 2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1048
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:16 pm

Isaris wrote:
Morover wrote:Nowhere does it specify that the law must be consistent with that of civilians.


OOC: 2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

That's an entirely different penalty than the one I'm referring to.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 177
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Mon Jun 22, 2020 3:25 pm

Morover wrote:
Isaris wrote:
OOC: 2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

That's an entirely different penalty than the one I'm referring to.

OOC: Oh, I see now, you were referring to the penalty for destruction or discarding of the recordings. I was confused. I will take that under consideration also, but at the moment I'm not highly concerned about it.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15144
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:18 am

OOC: If this were to pass as is, Araraukar would make a law requiring citizens to allow police officers into their homes whenever, without warrant, and use the video material to prove that problematic people (like the idiots that want democracy back) have broken some law or ordinance to bust them.

Basically you're stripping all privacy from citizens of authoritarian police states. And I know Araraukar wouldn't be the only nation to abuse this to their heart's content, because like has been pointed out ad infinitum, the issues you wanted to address, are not addressed, and while you didn't intend the abusive loopholes, you still left them in after they were pointed out.

You said this wasn't a RL-kneejerk reaction draft, but it very obviously really is as you can't even consider RL nations' differences, not to mention WA nations. Russia or North Korea would have a field day with this, without the issue becoming any better addressed. USA would not be affected, police brutality-wise. But you would make police work a fuckton more difficult for many European nations.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1317
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
Corporate Bordello

Postby Wayneactia » Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:55 am

Isaris wrote:
Wayneactia wrote:It can't, but neither does yours and that is the issue. Your best bet may be to create a committee designated to create regulations. Although you are likely to run into opposition (me included) claiming massive overreach and blatant violation of national sovereignty. The problem with this here proposal is massive overreach and blatant violation of national sovereignty. I hate to be blunt, but I really can't see this passing, and even if it does it will be repealed quite quickly, and likely replaced with a blocker on the matter.

OOC: So I keep hearing. The die has already been cast. Also, this thing where you (and others) offer a supposed improvement and then flatly say immediately later you'll oppose it anyway is extremely strange. If you're going to oppose it, then how is it an improvement to you and why offer it in the first place?

Because you seem to be a half decent author and I was trying to help. Just because I oppose it IC, doesn't mean I withhold suggestions OOC. I want people to become better authors.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads