IMPORTANT: POLICE REFORM BILL HELP NEEDED URGENTLY

[Eastern Guitaloscialand]

https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1593500135

This link above me directs you to the proposal that is currently gathering dust waiting for approval to be in the queue for the next few bills to be considered in the World Assembly's Security Council.

However, it needs 76 regional delegates to sign on. It so far only has 6.

What's even worse is that the bill has little over a day before it dies!

So please contact your regional delegate and tell them to vote the bill out of committee and onto the Security Council's floor. This bill is too important to let it die in committee. There is no time to waste. We have only 24-36 hours before it dies in committee.

PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REGIONAL DELEGATE ASAP!

Sincerely,

Kameron Scott
Prime Minister of Eastern Guitaloscialand

[Madison and Wisconsin]

(I’m going to assume that debate is allowed on this thread, I’m not 100% sure as the title is formatted differently.)

Realizing- In some member nations Police is acting so brutally to enforce law and order.

Horrified- police is targetting especially women and some minority groups.

So Hereby this law mandates-
1. Police can not search women and children at night.{9 P.M. to 6 A.M.}
2. Police can not arrest a female person at night. (Except any special circumstance).
3. Police can not search any person at night without explaining the propper reason to him.
4. Police can stop but not arrest a person amid road travel only on the basis of suscpicion.
5. If police arrest any person amid traveling than, police will immediately inform his or her family members.
6. Police will treat any suspect in a mannered way even he or she is proved to be guilty.

Looking at the “realizing” sentence, it says that police sometimes have been treating people brutally. Okay, that is true, and it is a valid point for this.

The “horrified” sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. It says that minority groups can be disproportionately targeted, however the actual action part of the resolution doesn’t say anything as far as specifically referring to minorities, only women and children.

1. I don’t really get the point of this. Why only women and children? Why can men be searched at night but women and children cannot? And is there a reason you want to have it so that searches of women and children are allowed in the day?

2. Again, why is it that (at night) males can be arrested but females can’t? If a male would get arrested for something, and the female did the exact same thing and wasn’t arrested, wouldn’t this be sexism?

3 and 4. I’m not completely sure if I support or not, but it sounds okay.

5. “If police arrest any person amid traveling than.” Is this a grammatical error? I think it should possibly be “then,” with the comma after that removed. This part is a bit vague. Which family members, and what would happen if the person had no family members? It might work better to just give them the right to make 1-3 phone calls.

6. “Police will treat any suspect in a mannered way even he or she is proved to be guilty.” There is probably another grammatical error here (sorry, I’m a bit picky when it comes to grammar in WA resolutions). I would put an “if” after the “even” and say “proven” instead of “proved.” What does this mean by a mannered way? Sure, cops should be respectful to random people, but if someone is refusing to go into the police car and/or is resisting arrest, would the police officers not be able to use physical force to make sure that the person is treated in a mannered way?

Sorry, but I am against the resolution as it currently is.
(Also you might want to do a draft post on the GA forum before submitting your proposal as then you can see what people like and don’t like about your proposal before you submit.)

[Deacarsia]

This proposal is stupid; I strongly oppose it.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: The resolution is ... not very good, to put it charitably. Why should we contact our regional delegates to approve of a resolution that should be scrapped?

[Merni]

OOC: As a former delegate myself, I'll tell you categorically that this proposal has no chance of coming to vote in its current form, even if you create a forum thread with an all-caps title like this. Your proposal should have been drafted on the forum before you propose it, so that you can take a few weeks to look at GA regulars' suggestions on it and improve it to a standard with which it can possibly go to vote. Even after all that is done, you'll usually need to campaign for delegates to approve your proposal, through telegrams (either manually, by buying stamps or using the API).

I urge you to read this and go through some of the passed resolutions (here or here) to see how resolutions are usually written.

[-Astoria-]

Opposed.

[The Princia]

This proposal is stupid; I strongly oppose it.

Wjy is that?? What is stupid in this proppsal??

[The Princia]

I (author of this proposal) request to all of you that please support this proppsal. And if you want any modification in the proposal, first make this proposaal a law. And afterwards if any one want to change anything from this proposal, then everyone is free to repeal it in the WA.

[The Princia]

And guys, one more thing. GenSec already made this proposal legal. So no one can question that this proposal is genuine or not. So please gather support for this proposal to make it aaa law.
Thank you for your time.

[Honeydewistania]

And guys, one more thing. GenSec already made this proposal legal. So no one can question that this proposal is genuine or not. So please gather support for this proposal to make it aaa law.
Thank you for your time.

1) please don’t triple post
2) just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s good

[Stellar Colonies]

This proposal is stupid; I strongly oppose it.

Wjy is that?? What is stupid in this proppsal??

(I’m going to assume that debate is allowed on this thread, I’m not 100% sure as the title is formatted differently.)

Realizing- In some member nations Police is acting so brutally to enforce law and order.

Horrified- police is targetting especially women and some minority groups.

So Hereby this law mandates-
1. Police can not search women and children at night.{9 P.M. to 6 A.M.}
2. Police can not arrest a female person at night. (Except any special circumstance).
3. Police can not search any person at night without explaining the propper reason to him.
4. Police can stop but not arrest a person amid road travel only on the basis of suscpicion.
5. If police arrest any person amid traveling than, police will immediately inform his or her family members.
6. Police will treat any suspect in a mannered way even he or she is proved to be guilty.

Looking at the “realizing” sentence, it says that police sometimes have been treating people brutally. Okay, that is true, and it is a valid point for this.

The “horrified” sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. It says that minority groups can be disproportionately targeted, however the actual action part of the resolution doesn’t say anything as far as specifically referring to minorities, only women and children.

1. I don’t really get the point of this. Why only women and children? Why can men be searched at night but women and children cannot? And is there a reason you want to have it so that searches of women and children are allowed in the day?

2. Again, why is it that (at night) males can be arrested but females can’t? If a male would get arrested for something, and the female did the exact same thing and wasn’t arrested, wouldn’t this be sexism?

3 and 4. I’m not completely sure if I support or not, but it sounds okay.

5. “If police arrest any person amid traveling than.” Is this a grammatical error? I think it should possibly be “then,” with the comma after that removed. This part is a bit vague. Which family members, and what would happen if the person had no family members? It might work better to just give them the right to make 1-3 phone calls.

6. “Police will treat any suspect in a mannered way even he or she is proved to be guilty.” There is probably another grammatical error here (sorry, I’m a bit picky when it comes to grammar in WA resolutions). I would put an “if” after the “even” and say “proven” instead of “proved.” What does this mean by a mannered way? Sure, cops should be respectful to random people, but if someone is refusing to go into the police car and/or is resisting arrest, would the police officers not be able to use physical force to make sure that the person is treated in a mannered way?

Sorry, but I am against the resolution as it currently is.
(Also you might want to do a draft post on the GA forum before submitting your proposal as then you can see what people like and don’t like about your proposal before you submit.)

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Welcome to the General Assembly. Unfortunately this proposal doesn’t really have a high chance of passing or reaching quorum, as there are some crucial errors which will result in you not receiving very much support. I encourage you to withdraw the proposal for further drafting and critique.

Currently, police brutality is a very workable issue, which means that it is certainly possible for this legislation to, at some point and with some changes, become law. However, you will need to heavily adapt the proposal in order for this to happen, not just submit and hope for the best.)

[Attempted Socialism]

I (author of this proposal) request to all of you that please support this proppsal. And if you want any modification in the proposal, first make this proposaal a law. And afterwards if any one want to change anything from this proposal, then everyone is free to repeal it in the WA.

OOC: You can't modify passed resolutions. Your proposal is quite poor, as is evident from your only argument being for its legality. The lack of a drafting process is, sadly, all too evident. The proposal is made without any apparent foresight or feel for the issue or how laws are written, IRL or in the GA.
I, like Kenmoria, would suggest you withdraw and make a draft thread here, though at the moment I think the best suggestion would be to read the rules and some of the passed resolutions, as there's basically nothing to save from your current proposal.

[Grays Harbor]

And guys, one more thing. GenSec already made this proposal legal. So no one can question that this proposal is genuine or not. So please gather support for this proposal to make it aaa law.
Thank you for your time.

“Technically legal” is not an indication of usefulness or whether it is written well.

Your proposal is neither. It is simplistic, naive, and does nothing of what you say it will.

[Keswickholt]

Reasons for Voting Against this "proposal"
1) Badly written - The Grammar is atrocious
2) it's an affront to Civil Rights and Equality to all


Also why is this proposal necessary?

What makes you think people are going to vote for something that could have thrown together in 5 minutes?

How do you expect this to be enacted in Nations where there is already restrictions/ laws governing the Police?

Why should we ask our Regional Delegates to Vote for a proposal when it does not give the impression that it has been clearly thought through?

Seriously there are hundreds of questions that can be raised about this!!

Like have you heard of equality? Sexism? Civil Rights?

[Picairn]

This proposal is badly written (too many grammatical errors and too few arguments and elaborations on the proposed solutions). Against.

You should create a drafting process by posting your draft here on General Assembly and invite other people's feedback.

Now get in line.

[Tolopel]

i disagree with this

[Araraukar]

OOC: In addition to what has already been said, with the weird sexism and some irrational fear/hatred of night-time (how is that even counted, btw? where I live in RL, there is no "night" for like 1.5 months, if night equals "too dark to read a newspaper outside in natural lighting", and at winter there's an equally long period that, coupled with the usual weather (heavy clouds), means the street lights need to be on round the clock, despite me living well south of the Arctic Circle), the proposal does nothing to address or prevent police brutality.

Arresting someone does not equal "beating them up for no reason whatsoever".

The proposal does nothing to prevent someone getting beaten up. The only tangential clause is 6, which uses "mannered". What mannered? Ill-mannered? Good-mannered? On its own it doesn't really mean anything. "In the normal way" is a viable reading, and if the normal way is beating up suspects, you've done nothing to prevent that.

[Ardiveds]

OOC: In addition to what has already been said, with the weird sexism and some irrational fear/hatred of night-time (how is that even counted, btw? where I live in RL, there is no "night" for like 1.5 months, if night equals "too dark to read a newspaper outside in natural lighting", and at winter there's an equally long period that, coupled with the usual weather (heavy clouds), means the street lights need to be on round the clock, despite me living well south of the Arctic Circle), the proposal does nothing to address or prevent police brutality.

OOC: This becomes even more ridiculous when one considers space faring nations where many people might be on spaceships for long periods of time in space. Or on planets with extremely slow rotation speed with really long day and night cycles.
Now that I think of it, it might even allow a woman or child to effectively commit any crime without consequences if they simply always keep with their planet's rotation which is not that hard for a civilization with sufficiently advanced technology.