SB 2016-110: Police Responsibility Act (Debating)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Scott

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Seems fairly reasonable, but I think it should stipulate false report actions as well, for example what happens if someone falsely accuses an officer of doing something and they lose all that money, then what?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I think this bill is fairly straightforward.  This makes two small but significant changes to the way police brutality cases are handled.  First, it bars all public funds (federal, state, or local) from being used to compensate victims or families of victims in brutality cases.  This means that the officer or officers accused will have to settle or pay monetary damages from their own pensions or retirement funds, rather than have taxpayers bail them out.

Secondly, this bill places a ban on "paid leave" for officers involved in a brutality case.  The principle behind this rule is simple: if an officer is found to have acted unlawfully and is placed on suspension during an investigation, they should not be awarded what is essentially paid vacation.

Law enforcement officials should be held to the same standards we hold teachers and other public servants, especially in matters pertaining to life and death.  By simply requiring officers to take personal responsibility for overuse of force, we might see less Freddy Grays, Sandra Blands, Jeremy McDoles, Eric Garners, and countless other victims - disproportionately those being people of color - dying at the hands of rogue officers from overuse of force.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Seems fairly reasonable, but I think it should stipulate false report actions as well, for example what happens if someone falsely accuses an officer of doing something and they lose all that money, then what?

Considering that it's extremely difficult to bring an officer to court much less indict them for wrongdoing, I don't foresee cases of false accusations being a problem.  I'm willing to amend the text to re-compensate falsely accused officers if others consider it appropriate, but I strongly believe that the current legal system is skewed very much in favor of rogue officers at the expense of victims, and that system must change.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Seems fairly reasonable, but I think it should stipulate false report actions as well, for example what happens if someone falsely accuses an officer of doing something and they lose all that money, then what?

Considering that it's extremely difficult to bring an officer to court much less indict them for wrongdoing, I don't foresee cases of false accusations being a problem.  I'm willing to amend the text to re-compensate falsely accused officers if others consider it appropriate, but I strongly believe that the current legal system is skewed very much in favor of rogue officers at the expense of victims, and that system must change.

Right you are and I do think we need criminal justice reform but I do think we should have a contingency just in case the system somehow flip flops the other way (as very unlikely as that is at the present time)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not sure if hitting officers' pensions is something that we can do that easily. I asked my mom for her legal expertise and she didn't particularly expect this plan to work out, though not for any specific reason.

[Lambsbread]

     I am not sure if hitting officers' pensions is something that we can do that easily. I asked my mom for her legal expertise and she didn't particularly expect this plan to work out, though not for any specific reason.

I agree that hitting their pensions seems a little harsh. Revoking someone's ability to care for themselves later in life just seems cruel, regardless of the wrongdoings they're guilty of earlier in life.

I am in favor of penalizing officers found guilty of wrongdoing through monetary means (or otherwise) however.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I am not sure if hitting officers' pensions is something that we can do that easily. I asked my mom for her legal expertise and she didn't particularly expect this plan to work out, though not for any specific reason.

I agree that hitting their pensions seems a little harsh. Revoking someone's ability to care for themselves later in life just seems cruel, regardless of the wrongdoings they're guilty of earlier in life.

I am in favor of penalizing officers found guilty of wrongdoing through monetary means (or otherwise) however.

     Maybe require that the settlement be garnished from the officer's wages? It would be a strong deterrent, but much less harsh than taking it from their pensions. Garnishment rates are capped by law so they would still have a livelihood (albeit a less comfortable one) whereas taking it out of the pension could deny people a retirement altogether.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'll amend this so that the money is deducted from officers' wages, instead of pensions or retirement funds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The Amendment originates with the sponsor. Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     With no objections, the amendment is adopted.

[Barnes]

I respectfully propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment seeks to establish federal funding for an ombudsman services to work with regional and local police services in an effort to root out internal failures of policy and practices. Furthermore, the services shall be explicitly required to investigate the general work place condition and culture of the local services.

In my opinion, an issue of paramount concern is to root out internal corruption and practices and to return a feeling of trust and mutual respect between police forces and the local communities which they are pledged to serve and protect.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'll consider the amendment friendly if you fix the grammar in subsection 1.

(Although since we're in the process of electing a PPT, technically now isn't the time for amendments.)

[Barnes]

The business of the nation never stops! But, of course, you are correct and my intention was merely to have this ready for when the Senate can resume its normal activities.

I have had a word with my staff using iPhones to draft amendments.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The amendment is friendly.  Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Hearing no objection, the amendment is adopted.

[Barnes]

Again, thanks to Senator Scott for accepting my proposal. I would like to see more definition and clarity given to Section Two's use of "police brutality" in order to not institute a bureaucratic and legal minefield and to ensure that departments cannot weave their way around responsibility by denying the applicability of the term in their circumstances.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Is police brutality not already classified as a crime in this country, or do we need to write up a whole new definition for that?

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Just in case, here's an amendment that officially defines police brutality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment originates from sponsor -- senators have 24 hours to object.

[Barnes]

I think providing clarity to the definition will strengthen the provisions of the bill, and I support the amendment.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

A couple of comments I would like to make regarding this bill, while I do believe it is a needed adjustment and that this issue is an important one that needs to be addressed, I find 2 sections to be potentially problematic for the future.

Section 3: What if the accused officer/convicted officer doesn't have enough money to pay said fines in any given case? Should we add a cap to ensure that if convicted, the money will actually be paid back?

Section 4: I am not sure this is entirely the correct course as you may substantially harm the finances of an officer if it ends up that they did not do said crime

With all of that being said, I think it may be prudent to add a section that helps provide funding to implement body cameras for all or most Atlasian police officers (through regional, state, and local means) in order to ensure that officers are both protected and properly policed themselves.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'll amend section four.  If the officer in question doesn't have enough money to pay the fine or settlement, they would simply owe their dues to the other party until the debt is paid off.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Amendment originates from sponsor -- senators have 24 hours to object.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

How much should the federal government offer regions, states, and cities that want to utilize body cameras?

[Lambsbread]

How much should the federal government offer regions, states, and cities that want to utilize body cameras?

This article places the cost of cameras, data storage systems, and other necessary equipment at around $1,440 per officer. We could make estimations based off of that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

How much should the federal government offer regions, states, and cities that want to utilize body cameras?

This article places the cost of cameras, data storage systems, and other necessary equipment at around $1,440 per officer. We could make estimations based off of that.

     A quick Google search suggests that there are 765,000 sworn officers in the United States, so the max cost if we gave a bodycam to every officer would be just over $1.1B.  Many jurisdictions already use these, so we can be sure that it wouldn't hit that estimate though.