When it meets in special session this week, the state Senate should adopt the “Act Concerning Police Accountability” bill sent to it by the House, including a contested provision making it easier to pursue civil lawsuits for police misconduct.

This is a good bill, a pragmatic response to the statewide protests demanding that elected representatives take all reasonable steps possible to discourage the abuse of police powers, part of a national movement ignited by the death of George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer.

It is understandable that police officers may feel themselves under siege, that their every move is now open to second guessing. We recognize that the vast majority of good cops have been tainted by the misconduct of a relatively small percentage of bad officers.

But the number of deaths of Black men in police custody, often during enforcement of relatively minor criminal matters, cannot be dismissed as some statistical anomaly. If you are a person of color, and particularly a Black man, you’re more likely to be questioned or pulled over by police and that interaction is more likely to end badly — for you.

Reform is in order. And police officers who act fairly and impartially in carrying out their duties, who use force as necessary and not as a show of dominance or punishment, should have nothing to fear from this set of reforms.

The bill establishes a new position of inspector general with subpoena powers to investigate and prosecute police shootings and alleged illegal use of force, removing the job from prosecutors, who have an inherent conflict of interest given their need for police cooperation.

It creates civilian review boards. Such boards can assure information is not being hidden. That in turn can improve police-community relations and build trust.

It requires body cameras for all officers, which can protect them as much as the public by providing a record of what really happened.

It will make it easier to de-certify rogue officers because no one should want bad cops moving from one department to another.

Other provisions require increased training for handling encounters with minority groups and compel departments to assure officers display their name tags prominently on their outermost uniform. Police officers who witness excessive or illegal force “shall intervene and attempt to stop'' that use of force.

These are sensible reforms.

The immunity provision caused a Republican revolt, as the minority party moved to strip it from the legislation, the amendment failing on a 72-72 tie. Whether the provision survives in the Senate is questionable, given opposition from Republicans and some Democrats.

The proposal would replace the more generalized immunity that departments and officers now enjoy with immunity only if it can be demonstrated “the police officer had an objectively good faith belief that such officer's conduct did not violate the law.”

Concerns about the change are understandable. Trial lawyers will certainly use it to more aggressively pursue civil lawsuits claiming police misconduct, which worries municipal officials. And while officers would still be protected from direct damages, they could be forced to reimburse a municipality for their legal defense if their actions are found to be “malicious, wanton or willful.”

Weighed against those concerns, however, is the need for those who have been the victims of police abuse to have access to redress. And with increased liability will come greater incentive to make the good decisions in hiring, training, supervising and rule enforcement that reduce instances of police misconduct.

Before concluding, we want to point to a profile in courage.

Rep. Anthony Nolan, a Democrat representing New London, helped draft, co-sponsored and fought for approval of the police accountability legislation. This could not have been easy. Nolan is a New London police officer. His decision, we suspect, will not be popular within the ranks. But he did what he saw as right and, for that, the editorial board and many in the community thank him.

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.