|
|
Post by Kuriko on Jun 22, 2020 22:57:21 GMT -5
Standards On Police Accountability
A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.
Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Legal Reform
Proposed by: Isaris 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,
Hereby enacts the following:
1. For the purposes of this resolution,
a. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;
b. "local" is defined as belonging to a particular locality;
c. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;
d. an "onboard camera" is defined as an audio, video, or photographic recording device affixable to a vehicle;
e. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its jurisdiction;
f. a "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" is defined as an employee of a police force—
i. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions; and
ii. 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.
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.
a. 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.
b. 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.
3. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to conduct evaluations by mental health professionals on any person applying for employment at a police force. No person shall be hired to a police force in a member state who has been deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others upon evaluation by a mental health professional.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
10. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by LEOs as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE |
|
|
|
Post by Paffnia on Jun 23, 2020 10:48:15 GMT -5
Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order Abolition isn't just a slogan. The reforms proposed are needed, but even better would be where a police force isn't necessary for "the prevention and detection of crime." AGAINST because of this lack of imagination and this clause. |
|
|
|
Post by morover on Jun 23, 2020 11:05:38 GMT -5
I see that Kuriko is currently voting for the proposal - I've decided to leave my analysis of it here to perhaps sway the vote. OOC:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wholly unnecessary given clause three.
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.
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?
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.
Get rid of this, it's a waste of the General Fund's resources.
"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."
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. |
|
|
|
Post by saintpeter on Jun 23, 2020 11:08:26 GMT -5
Dear members of 10000 Islands, as a member of The North Pacific, I would like to humbly offer my opinion on this proposal and urge you to vote AGAINST the resolution: - The proposal does not actually mandate that the cameras ever be turned on, providing countries with an enormous loophole, making all regulations of bodycams effectively useless.
- The proposal requires undercover officers to wear bodycams, even when this puts them in great risk.
- The definition of "police force" is so broad it includes e.g. intelligence services, who have good reasons not to wear bodycams.
- The proposal is an attempted one-size-fits-all solution at a problem that is experienced differently in many countries and needs a different approach in each nation. Some countries have so little police violence that more cameras would cause invasions of privacy disproportional to the benefits it provides.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 11:20:33 GMT -5
The way this is worded (twice): c. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;, a 'camera' is defined as a wearable audio device, which it is not, ever.
This needs a rewrite to correct the language in the definitions. Until that is done, the rest is moot.
THX, through its WA proxy, will vote Against
|
|
|
|
Post by Control on Jun 23, 2020 12:09:53 GMT -5
This is status quo in most IRL nations, but the exceptions for defense, especially defense of community, are usually stretched to cover 99% of incidents.
So LEOs who have just gotten out of jail for murdering someone can get cleared by their local PD's favorite therapist and then get back to it? This proposal actually makes it harder to hold LEOs accountable.
|
|
|
|
Post by morover on Jun 23, 2020 15:10:11 GMT -5
So LEOs who have just gotten out of jail for murdering someone can get cleared by their local PD's favorite therapist and then get back to it? This proposal actually makes it harder to hold LEOs accountable. It's worse than that, even. Because a mental health examination is required to be admitted into the police force in the first place, all LEOs will have already passed the mental health examination. As there's no requirement for the examination to have happened after the conviction of a violent crime, the LEO won't even need to be fired since they'd have already undergone the requirements needed. |
|
|
|
Post by whatermelons on Jun 23, 2020 18:12:50 GMT -5
Besides the above, the author was also rather rude in the discussion thread and other threads. Leaning against here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kuriko on Jun 23, 2020 19:54:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by whatermelons on Jun 23, 2020 23:54:08 GMT -5
I think they’re right
|
|
|
|
Post by Control on Jun 24, 2020 0:10:41 GMT -5
Looks like they're concluding illegality. The author should be glad as they get to be a part of precedent instead of just being a failing resolution, I suppose.
That debate was actually pretty interesting, I should spend more time in the GA forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatermelons on Jun 24, 2020 18:18:35 GMT -5
Looks like they're concluding illegality. The author should be glad as they get to be a part of precedent instead of just being a failing resolution, I suppose. That debate was actually pretty interesting, I should spend more time in the GA forum. Yes!! You should!  |
|
