We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Nationalist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2575
Description[?]:
| When a crime is committed, it is the responsibility of the police to hunt down, apprehend, and successfully detain the person responsible. With that in mind, the CNP raises the following concerns: 1) In situations involving dangerous criminals, police officers put their lives on the line, and too often lose them attempting to detain said criminals, because they do not have the necessary equipment. 2) In the vast majority of crimes, a police agency in a local area is better suited to deal with local criminals than is a federal police agency. With these concerns in mind, the CNP proposes the following: |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy on the organization of police/law enforcement
Old value:: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Current: There is a national police department, funded by the government.
Proposed: There is a national police department funded by the national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Current: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 09:08:54, May 10, 2008 CET | From | People's Liberation Front of Hobrazia | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | We will abstain. |
| Date | 18:14:59, May 10, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | We question the logic behind the introduction of localised police agencies, not least due to the adverse cost of such operations. We are not, have not ever been, and are unlikely to become a fedaralised country. We do not have a federal government, nor do we operate any systems of public service in a federalised way. This is pertinent when we consider the costs and operation of local vs national police agencies as well as operational jurisdiction. Currently the police are the police. They are not hindered by any form of jurisdictional limitations in their operations. Should this legislation be passed we would have problems, not least as to what function each individual service within the police are entitled and not entitled to do but we would also increase the bureaucracy that the police would have to deal with reducing police efficiency in carrying out their primary duty (that of stopping crime) but also increasing the costs to each police service as each attempts to maintain an ever growing and more complicated bureaucratic process in order to avoid jurisdictional clashes. For example, should a crime be carried out in Stormridge and the perpetrator move to Deltaria would the police from Stormridge deal with the criminal, or Deltaria or would that be a duty for the national agency? This is a simplified example, however it already shows that at least 3 different agencies would need to be informed and operated and the bureaucracy that that might entail. In regards the arming of the police with standard firearms, is there any requirement to do so. All officers are provided with non-lethal weapons which can deal easily with the majority of criminals whilst should there be a requirement for firearms then specialist units can be dispatched. This means that in standard operations the general public can be assured that a rogue officer can't just pull a firearm on them whilst also guaranteeing that the equipment necessary for operations are available. There is also the cost issue. Current police expenditure is lower then would be required for full training and equipping with firearms so allowing for more police officers to be operational and stopping crime rather than a change to the system which would radically increase expenditure as training would be required on the operation of said equipment and would be far more intense and need to be repeated more often than with current equipment. Moreover, firearms are more expensive to purchase and maintain than non-lethal equipment and so would further increase expenditure with little to no benefit to the public, but with a possible loss of man-power. |
| Date | 13:44:09, May 11, 2008 CET | From | People's Liberation Front of Hobrazia | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | Convinced by the reasoning of the WSS!P, we will vote against. |
| Date | 19:22:19, May 12, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | We respectfully disagree with WSS!P's sentiments. First of all, we believe that the creation of localized police forces would remove bureaucracy, not worsen it. Our reasoning is actually quite simple. Would it not be easier for a local police force to deal with minor incidents, such as juvenile vandalism, rather than to call in the national police force? Certainly, the Hobrazian National Police would maintain jurisdiction over severe felonies, any crimes that took place on government property, and so on. As for the objection to firearms over cost, we also disagree. It is time for us to decide which is more important, the saftey of our citizens and those who try to protect them, or our budget, which is currently running at a surplus of nearly 27 billion HRC. If we have the money to subsidize everything in sight, including the unemployed in our nation, we certainly have the funds to do this. |
| Date | 19:42:18, May 12, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | We find we must disagree with the statement from our right honourable colleagues of the CNP, specifically on their belief in the reduction of bureaucracy. We must ask, do our right honourable colleagues believe that the Hobrazian Police are only based in centralised police stations? The police are based throughout the nation operating from many local police stations. They already are, for all intents and purposes, a "local" police force in there day-to-day operations. The difference between introducing actual local forces compared to the current system is the operational efficiency of the current system due to lack of confusion over jurisdictional duties. We have a single force that has jurisdiction over all aspects of police work. They do not clash with other agencies, and a single report filed in a single station is accessible throughout the nation. Moreover, transfers from units are simplified as all police officers operate with the same jurisdictional priorities wherever they are based throughout the nation. To introduce additional layers of bureaucracy by introducing differing police forces operating under differing rules can only increase confusion and reduce police efficiency. As for our position on firearms, we would point out that our disagreement was not limited to cost, but also public confidence. An armed police force does not improve safety but increases distrust between the law abiding people of the nation against the police. Currently a "beat" officer is armed with non-lethal equipment, but they are certainly armed for their own protection, but the non-lethal nature of their equipment also helps to guarantee the safety of the citizenry from rogue elements (rare though they may be) and the protection of the nation as a whole must be the governments primary priority. |
| Date | 20:00:49, May 12, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | The location of the National Police is irrelevent, as is the question of jurisdictional restrictions. What this bill essentially proposes is that a national police force remain and work alongside local forces. The national police, as one might expect, has jurisdiction over the entire country, while a hypothetical Kiduran County Police would have jurisdiction over Kiduran County. Additionally, we are completely aware that our current police are stationed across the country, however, this proposal would essentially replace these "local" national police with local police in our communities. The result is a smaller, more efficient, centralized national police force, working in conjunction with the local police departments of our nation. |
| Date | 20:55:39, May 12, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | Our argument is completely relevant. At no point in your defence of this legislation have you stated what the jurisdictional positions are between the national and local forces. What you are proposing is introducing a second layer of bureaucracy into the police service. At what point, to use your example, does the Kiduran County Police hand jurisdictional control over to the national service. What happens if a criminal passes from one County to another, who informs what branch? Additionally, those national forces are not replaced with "local" forces, they are merely renamed and placed under different jurisdictional controls. What we get is smaller forces competing with each other for limited funds whilst a centralised force, rather than having a single bureaucracy, is forced to operate with many smaller bureaucracies whilst still having to maintain its own making a smaller "on the beat" force with a larger bureaucracy and, thusly, a less efficient service. Local does not mean smaller and more efficient, merely more expensive and more bureaucratic. |
| Date | 21:49:34, May 12, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | We have made the jurisdictional positions between these various organizations quite clear. Each local force covers their own area, with the centralized national force which acts as a support unit for the local forces regardless of jurisdiction. The national force would have the ability to take the lead in investigating any particular case where the conditions warranted it. In the case of a criminal crossing into a different county, say from Kiduran to Stormridge, the national police would automatically be brought in to assist, and the Stormridge police would be alerted as well. Additionally, they would not be competing for the same funds. The national police force would be funded by the national government, and each county police force would be funded by their own county. Finally, as for our arguement that this would reduce the bureaucratic structure we have in our law enforcement, we would like to clarify. Right now, for every crime that is reported in this country, there is a certain process that must happen for that crime to be successfully resolved. In this proposal, the vast majority of crimes would be dealt with by local police departments. The law enforcement process would be limited to the small, simple system of a local police department. The comparatively large national police system would never become an issue except in the most extreme of cases. OOC: Each party has voted, and we're just beating a dead horse with this debate. Might I suggest we move on? |
| Date | 21:57:56, May 12, 2008 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Reform of the Hobrazian Law Enforcement Organizations |
| Message | OOC: Well, it was fun whilst it lasted, although probably not for the horse! To the next issue! |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 184 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 216 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer. |
| Random quote: "It is obvious that the laissez-faire ideology represents the interests of big business. For decades, the right-wing has opposed welfare programs and nationalised companies, in favour of big business disguised under 'economic liberty'." - Cecilia Xu, former Gaduri politician |