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: Police and Crime Act 4061
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Working 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: January 4063
Description[?]:
| The Socialist Working Party propose a reform of police powers and procedures. We believe in policing by consent, and propose that the police service are unarmed, carrying only tasers and that only specialist trained firearms departments carry firearms. These teams would be deployed to designated "firearms incidents". The police should also be able to stop and search an individual without a warrant where there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed, and to search the home address of an arrested person without a warrant to search for evidence of that offence. In addition, the DNA of all arrested persons should be retained and subject to a speculative search on the DNA database in order to assist the prevention and detection of crime. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Current: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons apart from specially trained firearms units.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's position towards the use of forensic DNA databases.
Old value:: Only DNA from persons convicted of crime is recorded.
Current: Only DNA from persons convicted of crime is recorded.
Proposed: DNA from persons accused or convicted for a crime is recorded.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Police searches.
Old value:: The police cannot search a person or their property without their consent unless the police have obtained a warrant from a court or in cases of imminent danger.
Current: The police cannot search a person or their property without their consent unless the police have obtained a warrant from a court.
Proposed: The police cannot search a person or their property without their consent unless the police have obtained a warrant from a court or have reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime was committed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:46:31, July 20, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Police and Crime Act 4061 |
| Message | Madam Speaker Article two opens the idea that you are guilty before being proven that you are actually guilty. If an angry neighbor decides to accuse someone of a crime, then they can get that person's DNA in a database. This is nothing short of starting the involuntary mass collection of DNA from our citizens without consent. It allows for too much to go wrong and allows too much abuse. All I would have to do is accuse even you, my fellow senator, of a crime and now your DNA would be in some government owned building for the police to do anything with it. Article 1 is less clear. While only allowing non-lethal weapons can help reduce police overuse of lethal force, especially against minorities, it also removes a tool that the police can use to defend themselves in case of a sudden ambush or attack. We'd rather like to have the Justice Department go through extensive training in non-lethal weapons, but still have lethal weapons as a last resort. Finally, madam speaker, article 3 expands warrentless searches, something which we find a completely unacceptable breach of privacy. |
| Date | 22:33:25, July 20, 2016 CET | From | Regionalist Coalition | To | Debating the Police and Crime Act 4061 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, We on the NLP benches echo the cocerns raised by the Social-Liberal Party with regard to Articles 2 and 3. The SWP talks of policing by consent, but Articles 2 and 3 are invasively excessive expansions of police powers that do not live up to that philosophy. Article 1, however, is a measure we in the New Liberal Party applaud. We too believe in policing by consent, and this is an important change in legislation which must be made. I urge the SWP to remove Articles 2 and 3 of this Bill before sending it to vote, so we can ensure the police no longer carry lethal weapons with which to police by threat and intimidation Sen. Mary Billingdon Internal Affairs Spokesperson, New Liberal Party |
| Date | 09:15:56, July 21, 2016 CET | From | Socialist Working Party | To | Debating the Police and Crime Act 4061 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, I say simply this: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. The DNA database is an extremely useful tool for the prevention and detection of crime. Suppose someone was arrested for say, shoplifting, and their DNA is take . Then, 20 years later, 100 rape offence are committed by the same individual in a linked series and DNA is left at every scene of crime. Under our proposals, 99 of those offences would be prevented as the suspect would be identified by DNA at the first offence. If the Liberals had their way, the man would be free to victimise another 99 women! On the other hand, if a man were arrested for shoplifting once and his DNA taken and he never committed another crime, he would have nothing to worry about as his DNA would not match to a crime scene sample. In relation to Article 3, I urge all members to reconsider their position. If our police officers respond to a call of someone armed with a weapon who has just stabbed someone. Or someone who has just robbed someone and stolen their phone, or someone who has just committed a burglary and all they have is a description. They attend and see someone who matches that description in the vicinity. As it stands they are powerless to stop and search that person. It is completely impractical to expect them to attend court and obtain a warrant as this takes hours. As it stands their only option would be to arrest that person. If that person is not the suspect it could have been quickly established in a search and that person would be free to go. Instead they are detaining that person for hours at a police station and wasting their own time whilst the real suspect has got away. We need to untie the hands of our police service and give them the tools they need to reduce crime and protect the public. Article 1 should show that we are no advocates of a police state. We believe in proportionate, reasonable and justifiable policing but they need to be allowed to get the job done. Thank you Madam Speaker. Mike Smith Leader of the Socialist Working Party |
| Date | 19:50:51, July 21, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Police and Crime Act 4061 |
| Message | Madam Speaker The "if you have nothing to hide, you're fine" argument is weak and does nothing to address that by assuming someone is accused, their DNA is recorded. That and we already do what you pointed out in your scenario. If that shop-lifter was found guilty, then his DNA is recorded. What this does is expand it to false accusations. So if this passes and I were to accuse you, Mike, of libel, your DNA would be put into a database without your consent even though you never did said crime. Madam speaker, if we want to abandon the notion of guilty until proven innocent, then pass this bill. For those that actually care about proving guilt, then do the right thing. The rest seems great in theory, but in practice it endangers our privacy and our police officers. Sen Conor Peck SLP Shadow Minister of Justice |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 361 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 389 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien Robespierre |