Security Reform Act

[Highsman]

PREVIOUS DRAFT

STRENGTH= Significant
CATEGORY= International Security
PROPOSED BY=Highsman


DESCRIPTION: The World Assembly,

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates in numerous nations across the globe;

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that affects said nations;

ALARMED by the poor state of these country's police forces;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. ENCOURAGES ALL nations to embrace an increase in funding dedicated to Law & Order;
2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least %7.5 of a country's cash flow;
3. REQUIRES countries that do have an under-funded police force to pay a fee equivalent to $100 for every crime committed until their law enforcement agency is properly funded;
4. CALLS FOR major focus on the rehabilitation of not-violent offenders.


This proposal will PRESERVE a nation's right to:
a. DETERMINE what is considered violent and non-violent crime;
b. ALLOW all forms of punishment, wether it be cruel and/or unusual, as long as it follows past World Assembly legislation;
c. DEFINE what is and isn't a crime.

-------------------------

STRENGTH= Significant
CATEGORY= International Security
PROPOSED BY=Highsman
CO-AUTHOR=Nouvelle o France


CURRENT DRAFT

DESCRIPTION: The World Assembly,

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates in some nations across the globe;

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that affects said nations;

ALARMED by the poor state of these country's police forces;

The World Assembly hereby:

1. UREGES ALL nations to embrace a minimum in funding dedicated to Law & Order;
2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least 10 units of a nation's own currency per citizen;
3. REQUIRES countries to invest 10 units of its own currency into Law & Order for every crime committed.


This proposal will PRESERVE a nation's right to:
a. DETERMINE what is considered violent and non-violent crime;
b. ALLOW all forms of punishment, whether it be cruel and/or unusual, as long as it follows past World Assembly legislation;
c. DEFINE what is and isn't a crime.

[The Sheika]

Welcome to the festering snake pit known as the World Assembly. It looks like you did put some thought into your draft, however I must call to question a couple of points;

First and foremost, the poor state of local police forces. Could you offer examples of what criteria you had used to make this determination. On that same note, could you provide tangible examples of high crime rates. I cannot speak for others, but the crime rate in my nation is relatively under control.

Aside from that, you have presented what you encourage and what you intend to define, but that may not be enough. If I have missed anything, I am sure that my fellow delegates will be more than happy to offer their input.

[Tinfect]

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates world-wide;

"The Imperium has noted no such trends on our worlds."

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that plagues this world;

"Nor has the Imperium noted any such trends on this matter."

ALARMED by the poor state of local police forces;

"Internal Security is equipped with former Military Equipment. If anything, they are over-equipped for their purpose."

2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least %8.5 of a country's federal cash flow;

"Not all Member States operate under a federal system, and you do not seem to understand quite how much that that is. In any case, this alone is unacceptable.

In addition to the above statements, this resolution is simply a list of definitions, and does nothing, and is therefore, illegal before the Secretariat."

[John Turner]

CATEGORY= Law & Order

You don't get to make up your own categories. I suggest reading THE RULES and the list of passed resoultions before you proceed any further as there are so many illegalities in this it would take me a day to explain it all.

[Wallenburg]

You look like a serious, ambitious, and potentially contributing member of the WA, so I want you to know that the following criticism is nothing personal, and that I value your willingness to participate in the drafting process of WA proposals.

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates world-wide;

Actually, many nations--such as Wallenburg--have very low crime rates.

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that plagues this world;

Similarly, many nations do not suffer any kind of civil unrest, let alone to an extent that it "plagues" said nations.

ALARMED by the poor state of local police forces;

Many nations fund their police forces very well.

2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least %8.5 of a country's federal cash flow;

You do realize that many nations have hundreds of law enforcement agencies? And that not all nations are federations?

3. CALLS FOR major focus on the rehabilitation of not-violent offenders.

This we support wholeheartedly, but it doesn't seem to stick to the focus of law enforcement and crosses over to criminal punishment.

b. ALLOW all forms of punishment, wether it be cruel and/or unusual;

This clause is illegal, since it contradicts existing legislation against certain forms of punishment.

c. UPHOLD any existing law that is unique to the country.

I'm not sure what uniqueness has anything to do with anything.

In general, this proposal suffers mostly from the assumption that all nations have inadequate law enforcement, which is simply not the case. We like the idea you are putting forth, but it needs refinement to observe the complex realities of the Multiverse. In any case, good luck in your WA career and may you learn much from the forums!

[The Sheika]

The preceding critiques are pretty much dead on. They know what they are talking about and it would behoove you and anybody else considering the art of writing legislation to take their advice.

[Atomic Utopia]

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates world-wide;

"I am afraid I do not understand what you are saying or my translator is malfunctioning, You see, the USSAU has no such violent crime problem, corrup- shur- I mean absolutely no problems at all, uh. Okay, a minor corruption problem, but again, that will not solve much of that, and overall crime rates are relatively low in the USSAU."

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that plagues this world;

"Civil unrest? I am afraid we do not understand what you are attempting to say on this matter. The State Ministry of Internal Security ensures that any violent civil unrest just... goes away."

ALARMED by the poor state of local police forces;

"Poor state? Most of our outer colonies have a fully functioning automated COMMTRACK system, mandatory DNA testing, and quite a bit of specialized equipment. They are quite well equiped for the matter."

2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least %8.5 of a country's federal cash flow;

"That is a huge amount of money for the USSAU to be spending. You see, the USSAU has a planned economy, the state largely determines the allocation of various resources, and thus most the economy could be considered a part of the government budget, thus you would be in effect be demanding 8.5% of the GDP be spent on the police, which is quite frankly absurd. That is more than four times we spend on military research and development and the military itself, combined!"


"Oh, and this is illegal due to the lack of an operative clause nope, just idiotic operative clause, meta-gaming, and violating existing proposals. But do not let that discourage you, there is much to learn here, and as long as you are willing to learn and get advice, you can succeed in the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Fining a nation for not spending enough? That's going to make the problem worse, not better."

[Tinfect]

"Please make announcements when you have edited your draft. It is also considered good form to leave previous drafts available for curious delegates. In any case, the changes make the proposal far less palatable, and add an ambiguous violation of existent legislation."

OOC:
Don't we have something that prevents the World Assembly from directly levying taxes on Member States? I remember having something along those lines, but I can't seem to find one.

[Highsman]

Wow, this is a lot harder than I thought it was.
Please take note that I just discovered this yesterday, I have no idea what I'm doing.

Some Questions:

1.
I keep getting responses saying that certain things in this proposal is illegal. Ok, I can handle that. But I have no clue as to what part of it is legal or illegal. Just for starters, what is the most blatantly illegal thing in this proposal?

2.
Someone told me to put previous drafts in so people can see the changes. Ok, but how do I do that?

3.
Everyone tells me that language in this violates previous articles in the WA. So I look around in the WA archives, and I am 100% lost and in worse shape than before. Is there a way to narrow down all the legislation to a certain criteria, so I can see which ones that I actually am breaking?

4.
This one is an opinion question: is the wording of this document good? What I mean by that is it legible, meets criteria, and makes sense as to the point I'm trying to make?

5.
I hear something about an operative clause. What the heck is that?

Sorry if some of these answers are clear as glass; I just have no clue as to what I'm doing

[Mallorea and Riva]

"Please make announcements when you have edited your draft. It is also considered good form to leave previous drafts available for curious delegates. In any case, the changes make the proposal far less palatable, and add an ambiguous violation of existent legislation."

OOC:
Don't we have something that prevents the World Assembly from directly levying taxes on Member States? I remember having something along those lines, but I can't seem to find one.

The WA General Fund prohibits levying taxes directly on individuals in member states, though I am not at all convinced that this applies here.

[Tinfect]

The WA General Fund prohibits levying taxes directly on individuals in member states, though I am not at all convinced that this applies here.

OOC:
It would be General Fund. The one Resolution I keep forgetting exists.

Wow, this is a lot harder than I thought it was.
Please take note that I just discovered this yesterday, I have no idea what I'm doing.

You'll get the hang of it, if it feels like the regulars are being rough, it's because the first thing you did was propose legislation rather than hang around for a bit. We don't have particularly good experiences with this sort of thing.

I keep getting responses saying that certain things in this proposal is illegal. Ok, I can handle that. But I have no clue as to what part of it is legal or illegal. Just for starters, what is the most blatantly illegal thing in this proposal?

Here are the rules.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348
Read them, and listen when someone points out obvious illegalities.
Mall might not be convinced, but I think that a specific fine on Member States would be illegal.

Someone told me to put previous drafts in so people can see the changes. Ok, but how do I do that?

It is a bit late now, but for future reference, copy/paste the unedited text in between the spoiler tags.

Code: Select all

[spoiler]These things.[/spoiler]

It'll show up in a collapsible box, unless you use the [code] tags.

Everyone tells me that language in this violates previous articles in the WA. So I look around in the WA archives, and I am 100% lost and in worse shape than before. Is there a way to narrow down all the legislation to a certain criteria, so I can see which ones that I actually am breaking?

Searchable List of existing legislation.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30

This one is an opinion question: is the wording of this document good? What I mean by that is it legible, meets criteria, and makes sense as to the point I'm trying to make?

A bit cumbersome at times, but it looks fine at a glance.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: I'll be honest, this place is called the festering snakepit for a reason. Drafting legislation here is not easy, less so for new authors who discover that thier ideas have either been already dealt with, or are illegal, as in this case.

I would suggest reading the 'Rules/FAQ' and 'Passed Resolutions' stickies, at the top of the forum, before proceeding further. Its a good idea to spend some time as a regular ambassador in debates first as well, just to get an idea of how things work.

[Highsman]

WA General Fund

Committed to providing for a stable, reliable source of funding for the World Assembly and its operations;

Convinced, however, that a program of solicited donations from national and private benefactors would serve the WA's purpose much greater than a coerced taxation scheme;

Disappointed by the previous practice of continually establishing programs and imposing mandates upon member states without stipulating how they will be funded;

Concerned by the possibility of corruption and wasteful spending, and determined to prevent such practices in the establishment of WA funding,

1. Declares that the World Assembly shall be funded by donations from member states; the WA will not levy taxes directly upon the citizens or residents of any nation;

2. Establishes the WA General Fund, which shall be the central source for the funding of WA operations, and the monies from which shall be spent only on maintaining the administration of the WA and missions established by a vote of the World Assembly;

3. Establishes the WA General Accounting Office (GAO), to collect donations to the General Fund, calculate available and projected funds for each fiscal year, publish an annual budget for the World Assembly, and certify that all appropriations therein are disbursed and utilized in a responsible manner;

4. Provides that national donations to the General Fund shall be assessed annually by the GAO, according to donors' national wealth and ability to give;

5. Further provides that annual surpluses in the WA budget shall be returned to national donors, in equal proportion to the amount of their contribution;

6. Further instructs the GAO to submit to regular audits from outside agencies;

7. Forbids the WA from engaging in deficit spending; and,

Recognizing that donations given to the World Assembly by member nations are likely to originate from public funds,

8. Affirms the right of member nations to maintain full authority over domestic taxation policies, barring those that may include unfair discriminatory practices;

9. Strongly encourages member states to provide for an appropriate degree of public accountability and transparency in decisions made regarding budgets and taxation.

The Security Reform Act includes a FINE if countries do not meet certain standards of spending for Law & Order. The WA General Fund, from my interpretation, means that the WA does not have the power to TAX countries just for the sake of getting money. It never mentions (at least directly) FINING nations for not meeting standards. It says that countries may DONATE money on their own accord, but this isn't a donation, this is a fine.

Of course, the interpretation on what this law means is up for debate.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Many would associate a forced fine as the same as a forced tax. Moreover, taking money from governments who can't afford to fund a police force doesn't solve the problem. It exaserbates it."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Best to put your new draft in the OP and to spoiler the old draft using the spoiler tags.

[Nouvelle o France]

While we are no expert, here is our opinion on how to improve your admirable project

STRENGTH= Significant
CATEGORY= International Security
PROPOSED BY=Highsman


DESCRIPTION: The World Assembly,

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates in some nations across the globe;

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that affects said nations;

ALARMED by the poor state of these country's police forces;

As stated by previous ambassador, a lot of country have an exceptional Police Force and low crime rate, therefore, replacing *numerous* by *some* would be adequate. Alternatively, stating that this proposal is just an effort to improve the current situation(whatever it is) could be considered

The World Assembly hereby:

1. ENCOURAGES ALL nations to ensure a minimum funding dedicated to Law & Order;

Instead of using *increase*, as many already have a decent or even over-funded police force, enforcing a *minimum* funding would be more appropriate
2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least 100$ by citizen;
For this case, I recommend a certain amount of money by citizen(the amount is an example that will no doubt be corrected in the future), as different nations have different way of raising money. A communist nation as stated above would be obligated to provide an obscene amount of money while a country with nearly non-existent taxes would barely have to invest enough to buy a sharp stick, an Ultra-High-Tech Fourth World Weapon
3. REQUIRES countries to invest an additional $100 for every crime committed;
For this case, investing additional resources will improve the situation instead of worsening it, not to mention all the bureaucracy the states will be spared from

4. CALLS FOR major focus on the rehabilitation of not-violent offenders.
We believe this should be removed entirely as it deal with crime punishment instead of crime prevention

This proposal will PRESERVE a nation's right to:
a. DETERMINE what is considered violent and non-violent crime;
b. ALLOW all forms of punishment, whether it be cruel and/or unusual, as long as it follows past World Assembly legislation;
This one is merely a minor grammatical error
c. DEFINE what is and isn't a crime.

[Separatist Peoples]

While we are no expert, here is our opinion on how to improve your admirable project

STRENGTH= Significant
CATEGORY= International Security
PROPOSED BY=Highsman


DESCRIPTION: The World Assembly,

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates in some nations across the globe;

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that affects said nations;

ALARMED by the poor state of these country's police forces;

As stated by previous ambassador, a lot of country have an exceptional Police Force and low crime rate, therefore, replacing *numerous* by *some* would be adequate. Alternatively, stating that this proposal is just an effort to improve the current situation(whatever it is) could be considered

The World Assembly hereby:

1. ENCOURAGES ALL nations to ensure a minimum funding dedicated to Law & Order;

Instead of using *increase*, as many already have a decent or even over-funded police force, enforcing a *minimum* funding would be more appropriate
2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least 100$ by citizen;
For this case, I recommend a certain amount of money by citizen(the amount is an example that will no doubt be corrected in the future), as different nations have different way of raising money. A communist nation as stated above would be obligated to provide an obscene amount of money while a country with nearly non-existent taxes would barely have to invest enough to buy a sharp stick, an Ultra-High-Tech Fourth World Weapon
3. REQUIRES countries to invest an additional $100 for every crime committed;
For this case, investing additional resources will improve the situation instead of worsening it, not to mention all the bureaucracy the states will be spared from

4. CALLS FOR major focus on the rehabilitation of not-violent offenders.
We believe this should be removed entirely as it deal with crime punishment instead of crime prevention

This proposal will PRESERVE a nation's right to:
a. DETERMINE what is considered violent and non-violent crime;
b. ALLOW all forms of punishment, whether it be cruel and/or unusual, as long as it follows past World Assembly legislation;
This one is merely a minor grammatical error
c. DEFINE what is and isn't a crime.

"I like how your solution not only makes the problem of poorly funded police systems worse whole simultaneously failing to account for differing currency values."

[Nouvelle o France]

"I like how your solution not only makes the problem of poorly funded police systems worse whole simultaneously failing to account for differing currency values."

I failed to see how this makes the problem worse, care to elaborate ? As for the differing currency values, like I said, the number is merely an example which will, granted, need to be corrected before this resolution is passed, but that is outside my expertise. For now, I am more interested in hearing your proposals on how to improve this draft. Then again, drafting a resolution about government spending may prove to be night impossible, but it is worth debating.

[Highsman]

While we are no expert, here is our opinion on how to improve your admirable project

STRENGTH= Significant
CATEGORY= International Security
PROPOSED BY=Highsman


DESCRIPTION: The World Assembly,

NOTICING the substantially high crime rates in some nations across the globe;

DISTURBED by the gargantuan civil unrest that affects said nations;

ALARMED by the poor state of these country's police forces;

As stated by previous ambassador, a lot of country have an exceptional Police Force and low crime rate, therefore, replacing *numerous* by *some* would be adequate. Alternatively, stating that this proposal is just an effort to improve the current situation(whatever it is) could be considered

The World Assembly hereby:

1. ENCOURAGES ALL nations to ensure a minimum funding dedicated to Law & Order;

Instead of using *increase*, as many already have a decent or even over-funded police force, enforcing a *minimum* funding would be more appropriate
2. DEFINES an under-funded law enforcement agency as one that is not receiving at least 100$ by citizen;
For this case, I recommend a certain amount of money by citizen(the amount is an example that will no doubt be corrected in the future), as different nations have different way of raising money. A communist nation as stated above would be obligated to provide an obscene amount of money while a country with nearly non-existent taxes would barely have to invest enough to buy a sharp stick, an Ultra-High-Tech Fourth World Weapon
3. REQUIRES countries to invest an additional $100 for every crime committed;
For this case, investing additional resources will improve the situation instead of worsening it, not to mention all the bureaucracy the states will be spared from

4. CALLS FOR major focus on the rehabilitation of not-violent offenders.
We believe this should be removed entirely as it deal with crime punishment instead of crime prevention

This proposal will PRESERVE a nation's right to:
a. DETERMINE what is considered violent and non-violent crime;
b. ALLOW all forms of punishment, whether it be cruel and/or unusual, as long as it follows past World Assembly legislation;
This one is merely a minor grammatical error
c. DEFINE what is and isn't a crime.

I like this very much, thanks for the idea! If you want, I would be willing to include you as co-author.




"I like how your solution not only makes the problem of poorly funded police systems worse whole simultaneously failing to account for differing currency values."

Is the problem with this piece of legislation, in this case, a currency that doesn't exist in terms of the NationStates universe?

[Separatist Peoples]

"There is no universal currency, and citing a specific nation's would immediately create a Branding violation.

"The idea of investig a certain amount of money per citizen is absurd. There is no universal rule for the amount of money per citizen that a police force needs. Some forces are small and effective, while others are huge and bleed money like stuck pigs. Trying to create a rule of X pesos per citizen is an excellent way to end up with the wrong amount of funding. In fact, it fails to consider those nations with proportionally low numbers of citizens to noncitizen residents, where any amount of money per citizen is vastly insignificant to address the crimes of the nation on the whole.

"In fact, this also fails entirely to consider those nations with no formal police force that, nonetheless, deals with it's crime through informal cultural and community-based methods. Many of those nations don't fund police on a national level, and this would create a tax where none is needed, and which wouldn't find it's way back into the community.

"And is that really a fine based on crimes committed? Would that be just those where an individual is charged, or will you be expecting us to estimate the crimes that nobody notices, like jaywalking on an empty street? Does that even come close to accounting for the actual cost of a crime? This scheme oversimplifies the issue of how police are funded to the point that I don't actually think you have any idea how criminal justice works.

"And finally, can we talk about the internationality of this? Because I want to talk about the internationality. Can we talk about the internationality? Can we please talk about the internationality?! This isn't an international issue. In no way does the budget of the C.D.S.P. justice system affect your nations, and I promise you, my government doesn't give two damns what you spend on yours, contingent on your international obligations. This is a waste of the international community's time, because this is a NATIONAL issue. The WA shouldn't go near this with a ten foot pole.

"Do you need any more insight? Because I don't think I've scratched the surface of how terrible this is. And anybody who told you otherwise is actively doing you a disservice."

[Highsman]

Well, I edited it.

Thanks to Nouvelle o France for helping.

No universal currency now;

Decreased invests & money amount


Still don't know if this is good or not (whoops).

If you think this legislation is terrible , just say it to my face. Tell me a hard truth rather than a white lie.

[Separatist Peoples]

Well, I edited it.

Thanks to Nouvelle o France for helping.

No universal currency now;

Decreased invests & money amount


Still don't know if this is good or not (whoops).

If you think this legislation is terrible , just say it to my face. Tell me a hard truth rather than a white lie.

"I just did. And this fails to address even half of what I mentioned. This isn't an international issue. I really can't get more blunt than I just did."

[Nouvelle o France]

"There is no universal currency, and citing a specific nation's would immediately create a Branding violation.

"The idea of investig a certain amount of money per citizen is absurd. There is no universal rule for the amount of money per citizen that a police force needs. Some forces are small and effective, while others are huge and bleed money like stuck pigs. Trying to create a rule of X pesos per citizen is an excellent way to end up with the wrong amount of funding. In fact, it fails to consider those nations with proportionally low numbers of citizens to noncitizen residents, where any amount of money per citizen is vastly insignificant to address the crimes of the nation on the whole.

What about spending money by *resident* then ? That would include both citizens and non-citizens. As for whether or not such a way of funding would be adequate : we are not saying nations should invest EXACTLY what the resolution says, we are merely setting a minimum investment

"In fact, this also fails entirely to consider those nations with no formal police force that, nonetheless, deals with it's crime through informal cultural and community-based methods. Many of those nations don't fund police on a national level, and this would create a tax where none is needed, and which wouldn't find it's way back into the community.

Lets say a nation have a group of volunteers patrolling the streets. Do they not need weapons ? armors ? transports ? Are these things free ? Would government subsidy harm their efforts ? And the governments spending money is not the government levying taxes, though granted such thing is likely, it will be a raise of an already existing tax and not a new one.

"And is that really a fine based on crimes committed? Would that be just those where an individual is charged, or will you be expecting us to estimate the crimes that nobody notices, like jaywalking on an empty street? Does that even come close to accounting for the actual cost of a crime? This scheme oversimplifies the issue of how police are funded to the point that I don't actually think you have any idea how criminal justice works.

Of course, this only concern crimes we do know happened, how could we fine what we have no knowledge of ? And simple is best, but maybe we should restrain this fine to violent crimes to avoid wasting times on such things as trowing garbage beside the garbage can

"And finally, can we talk about the internationality of this? Because I want to talk about the internationality. Can we talk about the internationality? Can we please talk about the internationality?! This isn't an international issue. In no way does the budget of the C.D.S.P. justice system affect your nations, and I promise you, my government doesn't give two damns what you spend on yours, contingent on your international obligations. This is a waste of the international community's time, because this is a NATIONAL issue. The WA shouldn't go near this with a ten foot pole.

If you want to go there, everything and anything is an national issue that does not concern the World Assembly. This resolution is merely trying to enforce a minimum level of law enforcement among its member states and if that's not an international issue, then any resolution about prisoners treatments or torture usage are not either ! And this assembly has approved resolution of this nature in the past

Finally, I failed to see how this resolution could harm crime fighting in any way, maybe the effect won't be an instant halt to all crimes, but it is certainly better than doing nothing

[Normlpeople]

OOC: This does absolutely nothing but stat wank. Completely useless.

IC: Clover spoke "Ya want an honest opinion huh? Very well, it sucks. For one, you use a completely arbitrary number, pulled put of thin air, with no justification whatsoever. Second, police do not completely prevent crime, a large portion of thier jobs is investigation of crime already committed. This would fine them for doing that.

You take the very nieve approach that throwing money at a problem solves it. This requires throwing money at something that might not be a problem. Hell, this would penalize nations who have an efficient police force for actually doing a good job of fiscal management!

This is also not an international issue in the slightest. I would suggest scrapping it immediately."