[Defeated] Standards On Police Accountability

[Isaris]

"Ambassador, I disagree that this is an issue. It does not mandate what devices have to be worn and there are several devices available which can be easily hidden. Such devices are already put to use by police forces in many nations when they put their law enforcement officers in undercover situations, commonly referred to as 'wearing a wire'. Police forces can accommodate the needs of their officers with such devices as are appropriate."

“I’m not denying that it is possible. I’m saying that it is an unnecessary security risk that endangers the lives of officers. It is possible to hide cameras, but there is always a risk that they may be spotted, potentially ruining an entire operation.”

"Then police forces should lobby the manufacturers of their devices to make them as inconspicuous as possible. I don't think that it derails this legislation."

[Kenmoria]

“I’m not denying that it is possible. I’m saying that it is an unnecessary security risk that endangers the lives of officers. It is possible to hide cameras, but there is always a risk that they may be spotted, potentially ruining an entire operation.”

"Then police forces should lobby the manufacturers of their devices to make them as inconspicuous as possible. I don't think that it derails this legislation."

“I disagree. Risk to governmental employees, and indeed workers in general, ought to be minimised as far as possible. Combined with the fact that the cameras don’t have to be turned on, a major loophole, and the over-inclusivity of your definition of ‘police’, I don’t think the proposal was ready for submission. If this comes to vote, I will be voting against.”

[Isaris]

"Then police forces should lobby the manufacturers of their devices to make them as inconspicuous as possible. I don't think that it derails this legislation."

“I disagree. Risk to governmental employees, and indeed workers in general, ought to be minimised as far as possible. Combined with the fact that the cameras don’t have to be turned on, a major loophole, and the over-inclusivity of your definition of ‘police’, I don’t think the proposal was ready for submission. If this comes to vote, I will be voting against.”

"Nothing in this proposal would prevent nations from taking steps to minimize that risk. Additionally, our proposal was previously criticized for its definition of a law enforcement officer being too strict. It is regrettable that you have chosen this time to withdraw your support but we recognize that not all can be pleased. Should our proposal come to a vote and fail, Isaris will certainly take the concerns of the Kenmorian delegation under analysis."

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Your entire military is a military police enforcing the law? That seems a bit unrealistic. Can you explain why this is an issue, at any rate? If you don't want to support the resolution for in-character reasons, that's fine, but the broadness of my definition is intentional, not a mistake.

OOC:
Regarding the Imperium, Internal Security, being the police of the Imperium, is just straight up a branch of the Military, and standard Military personnel can be transferred to and from it as-per Civil Oversight requirements. The duties of the Military include the enforcement of Imperial Law when it is deemed necessary, and they are not permitted to allow illegal activity to be undergone without intervening.

And, for the record, many modern courtrooms IRL do not allow cameras inside them at all, which this legislation would rather make difficult, and I would hope you understand the value of not requiring that anyone doing highly confidential national security type work, (Imperial Intelligence, to use my RP example,) keep video records of the entire thing.

The mixing of police and military is, I think, an issue with your nation IC, and most nations don't mix the two for very good reasons ("There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Cmdr. Adama, BSG). AFAIK Tinfect is pretty much a police state IC (Or am I mistaken?), so I get IC opposition, but it's not really a flaw in the resolution as such, is it? If we take the analogy to the militarisation of and abuse in the US police force, a resolution like this would slightly reduce both and induce them to reduce misconduct in general by delineating police and military roles. IC I would see it as a positive policy change if military and police enforcement has to be separated.

I don't see how cameras need to be allowed inside courtrooms with this resolution? Can you point out why you think so?

[Tinfect]

The mixing of police and military is, I think, an issue with your nation IC, and most nations don't mix the two for very good reasons ("There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Cmdr. Adama, BSG). AFAIK Tinfect is pretty much a police state IC (Or am I mistaken?), so I get IC opposition, but it's not really a flaw in the resolution as such, is it?

OOC:
The Imperium is a fascist state, so, yes. However; it's demonstrative of a greater failure in the resolution to have a proper definition. Any Member-State that finds themselves in a civil war, or internal struggles which might put soldiers on the street for whatever reason, would find themselves heavily burdened by this draft.

If we take the analogy to the militarisation of and abuse in the US police force, a resolution like this would slightly reduce both and induce them to reduce misconduct in general by delineating police and military roles. IC I would see it as a positive policy change if military and police enforcement has to be separated.

It really wouldn't. As I've argued, the text of the draft is completely ineffectual; it doesn't take proven action to prevent police brutality, and it's few seemingly useful actions have loopholes the size of trucks.

I don't see how cameras need to be allowed inside courtrooms with this resolution? Can you point out why you think so?

If one understands the Judicial system as being a matter of law enforcement, then they get caught in this legislation.

[Isaris]

The mixing of police and military is, I think, an issue with your nation IC, and most nations don't mix the two for very good reasons ("There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Cmdr. Adama, BSG). AFAIK Tinfect is pretty much a police state IC (Or am I mistaken?), so I get IC opposition, but it's not really a flaw in the resolution as such, is it?

OOC:
The Imperium is a fascist state, so, yes. However; it's demonstrative of a greater failure in the resolution to have a proper definition. Any Member-State that finds themselves in a civil war, or internal struggles which might put soldiers on the street for whatever reason, would find themselves heavily burdened by this draft.

If we take the analogy to the militarisation of and abuse in the US police force, a resolution like this would slightly reduce both and induce them to reduce misconduct in general by delineating police and military roles. IC I would see it as a positive policy change if military and police enforcement has to be separated.

It really wouldn't. As I've argued, the text of the draft is completely ineffectual; it doesn't take proven action to prevent police brutality, and it's few seemingly useful actions have loopholes the size of trucks.

I don't see how cameras need to be allowed inside courtrooms with this resolution? Can you point out why you think so?

If one understands the Judicial system as being a matter of law enforcement, then they get caught in this legislation.

OOC: You can argue whatever you like until you're blue in the face, I'm not going to withdraw my proposal. If it fails to reach quorum, then I'll go back to the drawing board. If it gets to a vote and fails, then I'll go back to the drawing board. If it gets to a vote and passes, I'll gladly assist anyone with a reasonable argument as to why it should be repealed on drafting a replacement. You have been active elsewhere on this board before this draft was submitted and had plenty of time to bring your concerns forward. As with Kenmoria's withdrawal of support, it is regrettable that you have only chosen now to voice these perceived issues.

[Tinfect]

OOC: You can argue whatever you like until you're blue in the face, I'm not going to withdraw my proposal. If it fails to reach quorum, then I'll go back to the drawing board. If it gets to a vote and fails, then I'll go back to the drawing board. If it gets to a vote and passes, I'll gladly assist anyone with a reasonable argument as to why it should be repealed on drafting a replacement. You have been active elsewhere on this board before this draft was submitted and had plenty of time to bring your concerns forward. As with Kenmoria's withdrawal of support, it is regrettable that you have only chosen now to voice these perceived issues.

OOC:
I wasn't even talking to you mate?

And, do forgive me for not being so active as to meet your assuredly high standards; I'll be sure to predict when you're going to submit next time.

[Isaris]

OOC: You can argue whatever you like until you're blue in the face, I'm not going to withdraw my proposal. If it fails to reach quorum, then I'll go back to the drawing board. If it gets to a vote and fails, then I'll go back to the drawing board. If it gets to a vote and passes, I'll gladly assist anyone with a reasonable argument as to why it should be repealed on drafting a replacement. You have been active elsewhere on this board before this draft was submitted and had plenty of time to bring your concerns forward. As with Kenmoria's withdrawal of support, it is regrettable that you have only chosen now to voice these perceived issues.

OOC:
I wasn't even talking to you mate?

And, do forgive me for not being so active as to meet your assuredly high standards; I'll be sure to predict when you're going to submit next time.

OOC: You don't have to be talking to me for me to address points made in my own thread, especially when those points are arguing as to why my proposal is "deeply flawed" and using other disparaging terms to describe it. As to your activity, I was simply pointing out that if you had the time to post six times in the thread for War Correspondent Protection and Regulation Act on Wednesday, then surely you had the time to come forward with your concerns here as well.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

OOC:
I wasn't even talking to you mate?

And, do forgive me for not being so active as to meet your assuredly high standards; I'll be sure to predict when you're going to submit next time.

OOC: You don't have to be talking to me for me to address points made in my own thread, especially when those points are arguing as to why my proposal is "deeply flawed" and using other disparaging terms to describe it. As to your activity, I was simply pointing out that if you had the time to post six times in the thread for War Correspondent Protection and Regulation Act on Wednesday, then surely you had the time to come forward with your concerns here as well.

OOC: Tinfect and myself agreeing on an issue: this will be part of the history books.

Nobody is trying to be disparaging, but it is deeply flawed. Also, submitting in 11 days after posting the draft is rushing it, and you should expect people to bring up new concerns after you submitted it if you rush like this.

[Isaris]

OOC: You don't have to be talking to me for me to address points made in my own thread, especially when those points are arguing as to why my proposal is "deeply flawed" and using other disparaging terms to describe it. As to your activity, I was simply pointing out that if you had the time to post six times in the thread for War Correspondent Protection and Regulation Act on Wednesday, then surely you had the time to come forward with your concerns here as well.

OOC: Tinfect and myself agreeing on an issue: this will be part of the history books.

Nobody is trying to be disparaging, but it is deeply flawed. Also, submitting in 11 days after posting the draft is rushing it, and you should expect people to bring up new concerns after you submitted it if you rush like this.

OOC: If Tinfect is not trying to be disparaging, I would suggest they work on their phrasing. I did expect new concerns to be brought up after I submitted it; what I did not expect was such a push for me to withdraw my proposal. I also did not expect you to run a counter-campaign against it so as to have its approvals withdrawn. Since you have, however, I will address the so-called "issues" which you have raised therein.

#1: The proposal does not mandate that the cameras be turned on. As I have already countered in this thread, this is intended to allow nations to decide for themselves when the cameras should be turned on. No nation acting in good faith with this proposal is not going to end up making some kind of policy concerning this. To expect otherwise is wholly unrealistic. These cameras do more than hold police accountable, they also shield them from false accusations of misconduct. Why would they not use them? This kind of micro-management is unnecessary.

#2: The definition of "police force" is too broad and includes intelligence services, among other things. OK? Yeah? And? Why is that an issue when taken collectively with the rest of the proposal? Your campaign message fails to explain this.

#3: The proposal does not make an exception for undercover police officers. I would point you to GA#374! Also, you seem to be underestimating how inconspicuous such devices can be. They can be made to be indiscernible from a shirt button. Nothing in this proposal dictates any specific device, so police forces are free to use the ones that would best suit their needs and the needs of their officers. Undercover police officers regularly wear such devices. It isn't as uncommon and dramatic as it's portrayed in the media.

[Morover]

OOC: I was initially for this proposal, but have found the author's responses to criticism to be less-than-ideal and it has actually swayed me to be against. Isaris - I'd recommend you strengthen your arguments.

[Attempted Socialism]

Also, submitting in 11 days after posting the draft is rushing it, and you should expect people to bring up new concerns after you submitted it if you rush like this.

This part at least is 100% true. It's definitely not surprising that new points are brought up, and the "marathon, not sprint" mantra holds true here as well.

The mixing of police and military is, I think, an issue with your nation IC, and most nations don't mix the two for very good reasons ("There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." - Cmdr. Adama, BSG). AFAIK Tinfect is pretty much a police state IC (Or am I mistaken?), so I get IC opposition, but it's not really a flaw in the resolution as such, is it?

OOC:
The Imperium is a fascist state, so, yes. However; it's demonstrative of a greater failure in the resolution to have a proper definition. Any Member-State that finds themselves in a civil war, or internal struggles which might put soldiers on the street for whatever reason, would find themselves heavily burdened by this draft.

I hadn't thought of civil war -- but normally those aren't recognised as policing actions either, so I'm not sure I get your point. A civil war is usually not "just" a state of emergency; you often have declarations of martial law that explicitly removes the situation from regular police jurisdiction and declares opponents to be (some form of) combatant, before you deploy troops domestically. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any RL country that gives police powers to the military without some sort of emergency declaration.

If we take the analogy to the militarisation of and abuse in the US police force, a resolution like this would slightly reduce both and induce them to reduce misconduct in general by delineating police and military roles. IC I would see it as a positive policy change if military and police enforcement has to be separated.

It really wouldn't. As I've argued, the text of the draft is completely ineffectual; it doesn't take proven action to prevent police brutality, and it's few seemingly useful actions have loopholes the size of trucks.

I don't see 2, 4 and 10 as ineffectual clauses, and I don't see how 2a can be said to be a loophole the size of a truck. I recognise that affixed cameras never being turned on is a possible (If somewhat bad-faith) interpretation, but I can't see how that flaw makes the entire text completely ineffectual. Police officers being trained in avoiding unnecessary use of force (Clause 10), with the most obvious "bad apple"-cases being reviewed and removed yearly, and a penalty for murder, wouldn't solve what we're seeing in the US right now, but how can you argue it won't at least reduce it? What am I missing here?

I don't see how cameras need to be allowed inside courtrooms with this resolution? Can you point out why you think so?

If one understands the Judicial system as being a matter of law enforcement, then they get caught in this legislation.

Maybe I have read too much Montesquieu, but this seems like a poor criticism to me. At most you could claim that law enforcement officers has to have body cameras on them while testifying inside the courtroom, but the judicial is (At least nominally) a separate branch even in most modern RL dictatorships.

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

#1: The proposal does not mandate that the cameras be turned on. As I have already countered in this thread, this is intended to allow nations to decide for themselves when the cameras should be turned on. No nation acting in good faith with this proposal is not going to end up making some kind of policy concerning this. To expect otherwise is wholly unrealistic. These cameras do more than hold police accountable, they also shield them from false accusations of misconduct. Why would they not use them? This kind of micro-management is unnecessary.

OOC: This proposal is not meant to target nations acting in good faith, who do not need WA intereference. It is aimed at nations acting in bad faith, who will abuse the loophole.

#2: The definition of "police force" is too broad and includes intelligence services, among other things. OK? Yeah? And? Why is that an issue when taken collectively with the rest of the proposal? Your campaign message fails to explain this.

Is it intended to cover them? Then the proposal's title would make little sense, nor would the arguments raised in favour of the proposal.

#3: The proposal does not make an exception for undercover police officers. I would point you to GA#374! Also, you seem to be underestimating how inconspicuous such devices can be. They can be made to be indiscernible from a shirt button. Nothing in this proposal dictates any specific device, so police forces are free to use the ones that would best suit their needs and the needs of their officers. Undercover police officers regularly wear such devices. It isn't as uncommon and dramatic as it's portrayed in the media.

The problem is that an undercover officer should be able to act without any camera, e.g. when s/he knows s/he will be patted down by criminals.

The reason I am running a counter-campaign is that that seems the only way in which I can make sure the issues are addressed.

[Tinfect]

#1: The proposal does not mandate that the cameras be turned on. As I have already countered in this thread, this is intended to allow nations to decide for themselves when the cameras should be turned on. No nation acting in good faith with this proposal is not going to end up making some kind of policy concerning this. To expect otherwise is wholly unrealistic. These cameras do more than hold police accountable, they also shield them from false accusations of misconduct. Why would they not use them? This kind of micro-management is unnecessary.

OOC: This proposal is not meant to target nations acting in good faith, who do not need WA intereference. It is aimed at nations acting in bad faith, who will abuse the loophole.

OOC:
And it's not bad-faith, it's basic textualism. The law does what the law says; Member-States are under no obligation to do any more than the exact letter of the law.

[Kranostav]

OOC: This is not a WA issue. Policing is far to nuanced for any broad-sweeping reform to apply to all member nations.

Against

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: This proposal is not meant to target nations acting in good faith, who do not need WA intereference. It is aimed at nations acting in bad faith, who will abuse the loophole.

OOC: And it's not bad-faith, it's basic textualism. The law does what the law says; Member-States are under no obligation to do any more than the exact letter of the law.

Concur. Only the written word is the law. Bostock v Clayton County, 590 US __ (2020) (slip op at 2).

EDIT: The good faith clause, in a popular view, governs the means by which that law is to be interpreted. If it could not be interpreted in a manner consistent with good faith (ie requiring that cameras in fact be on) when the text of the law does not say anything about the on- or off-ness of that camera, this isn't a good faith question.

[Isaris]

#1: The proposal does not mandate that the cameras be turned on. As I have already countered in this thread, this is intended to allow nations to decide for themselves when the cameras should be turned on. No nation acting in good faith with this proposal is not going to end up making some kind of policy concerning this. To expect otherwise is wholly unrealistic. These cameras do more than hold police accountable, they also shield them from false accusations of misconduct. Why would they not use them? This kind of micro-management is unnecessary.

OOC: This proposal is not meant to target nations acting in good faith, who do not need WA intereference. It is aimed at nations acting in bad faith, who will abuse the loophole.

#2: The definition of "police force" is too broad and includes intelligence services, among other things. OK? Yeah? And? Why is that an issue when taken collectively with the rest of the proposal? Your campaign message fails to explain this.

Is it intended to cover them? Then the proposal's title would make little sense, nor would the arguments raised in favour of the proposal.

#3: The proposal does not make an exception for undercover police officers. I would point you to GA#374! Also, you seem to be underestimating how inconspicuous such devices can be. They can be made to be indiscernible from a shirt button. Nothing in this proposal dictates any specific device, so police forces are free to use the ones that would best suit their needs and the needs of their officers. Undercover police officers regularly wear such devices. It isn't as uncommon and dramatic as it's portrayed in the media.

The problem is that an undercover officer should be able to act without any camera, e.g. when s/he knows s/he will be patted down by criminals.

The reason I am running a counter-campaign is that that seems the only way in which I can make sure the issues are addressed.

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.

[Araraukar]

OOC: On mobile so apologies for brevity.

Author, think. Do you want to pass a GOOD resolution on the subject? Or do you just want the resolution author's badge? If the former, withdraw, listen to criticism and THINK instead of kneejerk reactions. If the latter, then you might as well stop talking here as you won't listen and don't care about proposal quality.

Do understand that we are trying to HELP you, but you keep refusing the help. It is frustrating. We all see your potential, but you seem to be adamant on wasting it.

[Isaris]

OOC: On mobile so apologies for brevity.

Author, think. Do you want to pass a GOOD resolution on the subject? Or do you just want the resolution author's badge? If the former, withdraw, listen to criticism and THINK instead of kneejerk reactions. If the latter, then you might as well stop talking here as you won't listen and don't care about proposal quality.

Do understand that we are trying to HELP you, but you keep refusing the help. It is frustrating. We all see your potential, but you seem to be adamant on wasting it.

OOC: I'm not refusing the help, though. I have explained again and again why I simply don't agree. If this proposal is as flawed as you say, then surely it will fail. If it does, as I have stated multiple times, I will gladly come back here and incorporate this feedback because its failure would obviously have proven you correct. I'm not withdrawing the proposal. Stop asking. I'm not afraid of failure.

[Araraukar]

OOC: The WA vote is a reality TV show, it is not indicative of a proposal being good, a good idea or even legal. Why do you want to pass absolute crap?

[Isaris]

OOC: The WA vote is a reality TV show, it is not indicative of a proposal being good, a good idea or even legal. Why do you want to pass absolute crap?

OOC: How many ways do I have to say that we're simply in disagreement about this before you drop it? Seriously, it's getting so old. There is not a single thing you can say that will convince me to withdraw the proposal. Please save yourself the effort and time, and just stop. If you really think it is so flawed, start writing a replacement and a repeal.

[Tinfect]

If you really think it is so flawed, start writing a replacement and a repeal.

OOC:
Okay. Let's, shall we?

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: The WA vote is a reality TV show, it is not indicative of a proposal being good, a good idea or even legal. Why do you want to pass absolute crap?

OOC: How many ways do I have to say that we're simply in disagreement about this before you drop it? Seriously, it's getting so old. There is not a single thing you can say that will convince me to withdraw the proposal. Please save yourself the effort and time, and just stop. If you really think it is so flawed, start writing a replacement and a repeal.

With all due respect, and as someone who will likely vote for if this comes to a vote, this is not an argument that helps your case.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

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.

I can't recall any RL country that gives police powers to the military without some sort of emergency declaration.

United States Coast Guard, Royal Thai Navy Coast Guard, virtually every Gendarmerie, military police forces, the Polícia Militar, the Carabinieri, Guardia Civil, Republican National Guard, Prefectura Naval Argentina, Bangladesh Coast Guard, this list really could go on for a while: Hi. We are all members of our nations' military forces tasked with acting as police during the normal discharge of our duties.

For what it is worth, IRL, bailiffs or their equivalent are sometimes actual police officers or are charged with doing things like executing arrest warrants which would seem to fit within the definition here.

[Attempted Socialism]

I can't recall any RL country that gives police powers to the military without some sort of emergency declaration.

United States Coast Guard, Royal Thai Navy Coast Guard, virtually every Gendarmerie, military police forces, the Polícia Militar, the Carabinieri, Guardia Civil, Republican National Guard, Prefectura Naval Argentina, Bangladesh Coast Guard, this list really could go on for a while: Hi. We are all members of our nations' military forces tasked with acting as police during the normal discharge of our duties.

For what it is worth, IRL, bailiffs or their equivalent are sometimes actual police officers or are charged with doing things like executing arrest warrants which would seem to fit within the definition here.

Err... Fair point I guess. That was a brainfart on my part.