LEGALITY CHALLENGE: Standards on Police Accountability

[Isaris]

Police prosecutors are a thing that exists, they are employed by police forces and they are part of the legal industry: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.a ... rosecutor/

They represent the state in court. They handle legal documents. How does that then not extend the police overall into being part of the legal industry?

Because according to your proposal's definition, they are not LEOs (1.f.i.) and thus not addressed by your proposal AT ALL. Also, I could hire a city park tidier to work as a national park park ranger, that still wouldn't make the two categories of jobs completely overlapping.

If there were a better category, I would've used it.

There is. International Security.

The purpose of this resolution is not to increase funding to the police

You keep saying that, but the effect of the active clauses is requiring nations to fork over more money to the upkeeping of their police forces. Whatever your purpose or intention was, does not matter. Only the effect the clauses you wrote, have. Issues were pointed out to you over and over again, you refused to do anything about them.

I disagreed with the issues raised. I have the right to do that. I never refused to do anything about them. I said many times I wanted it to go to a vote and I would reconsider my stance on some of those issues if the resolution fails. Please don't misrepresent me.

[Potted Plants United]

I disagreed with the issues raised. I have the right to do that. I never refused to do anything about them. I said many times I wanted it to go to a vote and I would reconsider my stance on some of those issues if the resolution fails. Please don't misrepresent me.

You disagreed with them and thus refused to do anything about them. It's not misrepresentation.

EDIT: But I'll leave y'all to debate this for now, as I've had a long day with lots of physical activities, and I need to eat, shower and sleep.

[WayNeacTia]

What it does NOT do, is make it easier for people to sue others OR add barriers for the legal industry. Thus, wrong Category/Aoe.

Legit point. I didn't really see it myself, until you brought it up. This is definitely IntSec/Mild at best.

[Isaris]

I disagreed with the issues raised. I have the right to do that. I never refused to do anything about them. I said many times I wanted it to go to a vote and I would reconsider my stance on some of those issues if the resolution fails. Please don't misrepresent me.

You disagreed with them and thus refused to do anything about them. It's not misrepresentation.

EDIT: But I'll leave y'all to debate this for now, as I've had a long day with lots of physical activities, and I need to eat, shower and sleep.

Not incorporating them in the moment is not a refusal to do anything about them at any point. It is a misrepresentation. You are assuming my intentions without any evidence.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: This does seem illegal to me.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: This does seem illegal to me.

And to me. Looking at the statistical effects, legal reform increases civil rights but decreases economy, and this legislation doesn’t do either of those things. The proposal is entirely focused around restricting what certain people in member nations, namely police officers, are able to do, which would directly restrict civil rights, as the term is defined in NationStates. I also fail to see how there would be a disadvantage to the economy, at least as a direct result of the legislation.

On the other hand, the legislation would clearly necessitate a rise in police funding to afford all of the cameras that need to be put on uniforms, as was one of the criticisms levelled at the proposal. This puts the proposal squarely in the international security category. Although there is a little bit of leeway with regards to categories, this piece of legislation seems to fit far better in a different one to the current.

[Morover]

I hate to say it, but the more I think about it, the more I agree. "Legal Reform" sounds correct in title only, but upon further inspection it may be subpar - it works, but barely. My initial opposition probably came from some conceptions I had about the category and proposal - sorry if I came off overly blunt, Ara

[Separatist Peoples]

For that to be relevant, you would first have to evaluate – for this "best" standard – whether or not this proposal could fit in Regulation's Legal Reform area of effect. Because if it doesn't, its creation has no logical effect.

Given that CD already expanded the scope of Areas of Effect also to encompass the same "best" standard, the actual question is whether or not "legal industry" includes police. North America says it doesn't. NAICS https://www.naics.com/naics-code-description/?code=541. The EEC says no. Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nom ... __18516884. The UN says no. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (2008) 223 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classificat ... nglish.pdf.


I'm unaware of any changes to the category description which occurred between the moderator rulings and the present which would have changed the underlying text so to require the reinterpretation that you propose.

Police prosecutors are a thing that exists, they are employed by police forces and they are part of the legal industry: https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.a ... rosecutor/

They represent the state in court. They handle legal documents. How does that then not extend the police overall into being part of the legal industry? If there were a better category, I would've used it. The purpose of this resolution is not to increase funding to the police, that is merely a byproduct of some clauses.

That some police are used in the legal system doesn't mean all are. I am not convinced by this argument.

I am in favor of reversing the precedent that resolutions must be in the best category. But, we can't just flip precedent because we dislike it, and absent manifest unreliability, the precedent stands. IS is the better fit. I see, of ten clauses, a least 7 that require an increase in spending. Of those ten clauses, at best two affect legal rights affirmatively and not as a result of indirect regulations on police forces.

Illegal.

[Araraukar]

Decision made. Found to be illegal as challenged.

[Goobergunchia]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***

Challenged Proposal: Standards on Police Accountability
Date of Decision: 3 July 2020
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 5-0
Rules Applied: Category Rule

Majority Opinion (Sciongrad)
Joined by Bananaistan, Grays Harbor, Separatist Peoples and Sierra Lyricalia;
Bears Armed took no part in the consideration or decision of this challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Araraukar]

...okay, so is this the overturning of the entire "best fit" approach as IA campaigned for? Or was it just for this particular ruling?

And secondly, if you reject the best fit approach, how do you find it doesn't fit ANY category, when you also admit that it clearly has clauses that would require spending on police forces, aka fitting in IS: Mild? (If not significant.)

Or maybe I misunderstood that bit? I'll come back to re-read it after several hours of sleep... zzzzzzzz.

[Sciongrad]

...okay, so is this the overturning of the entire "best fit" approach as IA campaigned for? Or was it just for this particular ruling?

And secondly, if you reject the best fit approach, how do you find it doesn't fit ANY category, when you also admit that it clearly has clauses that would require spending on police forces, aka fitting in IS: Mild? (If not significant.)

Or maybe I misunderstood that bit? I'll come back to re-read it after several hours of sleep... zzzzzzzz.

The bolded text discusses the new test. Hopefully, it will produce fewer category challenges. Re: your second question, the test is not "if it fits in any category, it doesn't matter which one you choose." It's "if it fits reasonably into a bunch of categories, it's legal if it's in one of those categories." You're right that it fits into IS, but that doesn't really matter because the author didn't select IS.

[Potted Plants United]

Thank you for the clarification edit and reply.