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 Drawdown
Details
Submitted by[?]: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK)
Status[?]: passed
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: November 5074
Description[?]:
| We seek to draw back several of the reforms to the police powers left in tact from the KP Government. We would also add stipulations onto these laws as follows to modify the bill: On Non Lethal weapons, police officers can be trained in deadly force martial arts as deemed appropriate by local precincts. On Consent for Police Searches: Police officers must inform any potential suspect before the search that it is highly advised that the search be refused unless a warrant is obtained, and that the suspect has the right to refuse consent to all searches, before any search without a warrant can take place. If evidence shows that no such warning was issued to the individual, any evidence found during a warrantless search shall be deemed inadmissible in any subsequent court proceedings, and may not ever be confiscated. |
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 national government and there are local police departments, funded by local governments.
Current: The operation and funding of the police is left to local governments.
Proposed: The operation and funding of the police is left to 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 may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry non-lethal weapons.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards police presence.
Old value:: The police patrol public property at all times.
Current: The police do not actively patrol public property.
Proposed: The police do not actively patrol public property.
Article 4
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.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:04:09, February 13, 2022 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police Drawdown |
| Message | We'll leave this open for comment. |
| Date | 20:20:09, February 13, 2022 CET | From | Folksparty | To | Debating the Police Drawdown |
| Message | The Folksparty is open to make adjustments to some of the proposals in this bill, but we will not support this bill as it currently is. Article 1 would be a risk for public safety. Disbanding the police force would mean an increase in crime rates, and would make reacting to violent crimes more difficult. Article 2 We can support, but we still feel like there should be a better equipped response squad for situations where force is necessary, eg. hostage situations. Article 3 Would make the police less effective, and leave many unreported crimes unsolved. Article 4 Is also currently much better, than the proposed one. There are times when there isn't enough time to get a warrant, and lives might be on the line, so we won't support said proposal. |
| Date | 23:04:01, February 13, 2022 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Police Drawdown |
| Message | In response, this is not a disbanding of the police force. This bill covers National Funding of the Police Force. It does not bar communities themselves from establishing police forces. Perhaps the SP can clarify this by altering the proposal. In Article 2: If there are better equipment available to police, they will want those things. Article 3: Correct. It is better that 10 guilty people walk free than one person should be imprisoned unjustly. But responding to reports does not prevent police officers from actively pursuing leads. They just don't need to maintain a constant surveillance presence in the public. The experience has been that they go looking for crimes when they actively patrol, and frequently make errors. Article 4: Liberty is far more important than police acting with discretion. Procedural justice must always be followed, to the letter for us to be assured that the law is applied evenly across the board, without individual bias and prejudice interfering. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |
| yes | Total Seats: 155 | |
| no |
Total Seats: 145 | |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "OOC", "IC" and "IG" are commonly-used acronyms in Particracy. "OOC" refers to comments, discussions and actions which are out-of-character, meaning they are done player-to-player rather than party-to-party. "IC" refers to in-character interactions (ie. party-to-party). Similarly, "IG" means in-game, although this term may also simply refer to what happens in the actual game interface, as opposed to on the forum or elsewhere. "RP" just means "role-play". |
| Random quote: "[The people] may forget what you said, but they will never forget how you made them feel." - Carl W. Buechner |