Although officers claim they aren’t as unprofessional as everyone says, many people beg to differ. A lot of people have evidence on how they were mistreated, and how the officers weren’t at all professional. Others have been killed and seriously injured, but the idea is still up in the air after several years. To protect themselves, and others around them, police officers should be forced to wear body cameras while they’re in a case or are talking to a suspect while on duty. Having to wear body cameras would be a positive way to help the authorities to see the truth better than just having to listen to the voice recorder.
3. The cons about body cameras are privacy issues and limitations. Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy, as they provide state-owned footage. When police cameras are on, they will capture everyday civilian and police behavior that does not necessarily need to be recorded. Because it is not practical to have cameras play constantly, there must be guidelines for when police should turn their cameras on and off.
Police officers that make wrong choices tend to be less appreciated by the society, those who make the use of discretion effectively tend to have a positive impact in the community. The article Organizational-level police discretion states that, “officers with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision making. Such biases could convince an officer that one suspect is more dangerous than another, prompting preemptive use of lethal force, and many of these biases invoke extralegal factors, such as race (Nowacki, 2015, Pg. 646).” Teaching these officers how and when to use discretion is crucial because it will allow them to apply certain strategies to different cases. Officers understand that not all situations will always be easy, either some may be dangerous; others can be simply misunderstandings between cases.
Also, the cameras would record private conversations between authorities discuss amongst one another. The officer could turn off the body camera during private situations but may neglect the thought of turning the camera back on. Not only is privacy a concern with body cameras, but also the property of the footage. Citizens are concerned that the video footage can be modified, obliterated, or improperly stored by police authorities. An agency, other than the police agency, should control the property of the footage.
The most important weakness of this policy is that it offers grounds for dirty cops to utilize force illegally to pursue selfish personal agendas that are not in the interests of the public. A police officer can use deadly force and allege that the use of force was necessary when indeed it was not and since there are no effective ways to measure such allegations such officers will end up going scot free. The police officers are supposed to be each other’s keepers and prevent their colleagues from misusing the authority given by the policy while officers who break the law can be charged in court. However, this is not guarantee that such authority will not be used illegally. Another weakness is that cases of mistaken identity can lead to harm to innocent civilians who are suspected of being
The biggest benefit of the 4th amendment is that it deters searches. The law enforcement will not be able to search you without transgressing the law. Thus your car will not be probed if you were to be pulled over by the police, without your sanction. Furthermore your personal items: backpack, house, or phone are not sanctioned to be confiscated without a warrant or your sanction. Consequently denizens feel very confident because there privacy is forfended.
Another theory states that BWC can increase uses of force in police departments. If an officer believes that there is an opportunity to use force, when it is not completely necessary, he or she will know that based on body camera evidence they can use force and not be punished for it. To study whether body cameras have positive or negative effects, police departments have applied the use of Randomized Controlled Trails (RCTs) in random shifts to compare the behavior of the officers with body cameras officers without body cameras in a shift. RCTs in European police departments found mixed results in the use of force of police officers and that the use of body cameras reduced the amount of reported grievances on police officers. The effects of body cameras depend on the context of the situation, such as the severity of the case they are handling, motivation, and body camera accountability (Doleac,
Although the rationale of peremptory challenges, ironically, would be for the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of any potentially biased jurors, lawyers may instead use their peremptory challenges to form a jury that would pass a more favourable verdict. As lawyers are also not required to explain their decisions in striking out jurors in most cases, the makeup of the jury can thus be heavily imbalanced. However, as a judge would be required to not let any preconceived bias affect the administering of justice, the accused would hence receive a fairer treatment as compared to juries that might have any bias towards either the prosecution or the defendant. With juries also not being required to explain their decisions, any bias that the jury might have would not be easily found and challenged. Especially in cases where the death penalty is concerned, it is all the more important that juries mete out a fair verdict.
That is why I think the Miranda Rights are more than just words. Not many people think that the Miranda Rights are important to people's everyday lives but it does. Even if people do not realize it the Miranda Rights do apply to our everyday lives The Miranda Rights are the right people must have read to them when they are being arrested or questioned by police or any authority if they are not read to them the authority can get in trouble for breaking a rule in their police academy or if it is bad enough they could get fired from the police force where they work
Following multiple police related incidents, people have been focusing more on how body cameras would be something good to obtain. These cameras would protect police officers from false accusations of abuse and discrimination, but would also protect civilians as well (Police Cameras). In addition, on-officer recording systems, which are also known as body cams or cop cams, are small cameras that may be worn as a headset, but are more commonly clipped to the uniform or the glasses. These devices, which record audio and video, were developed as technology improved and is still being improved. Body cameras, which can
Yes these cameras would make solving issues in cases much easier, but there are many who think this is a violation of their privacy to have an officer with a camera entering their house or looking into their car. It is understandable that someone would not want a rolling camera seeing into their home, but the ability to prove innocence or guilt in a court case should more than outweigh this temporary invasion. If someone is accused of something and the option of having a camera that could prove or revoke the accusation, or having no evidence to prove anything, which should be chosen? Should police officers carry body cameras? If so, should there be restrictions on when and where they can be used?
Sometimes people can see the camera and know they are being recorded, so they won’t act foolishly. If the people are aware they are being recorded, then they won’t do anything bad because they know that there is proof of it. Proof shows the absolute truth. When police officers have the proof, being innocent or guilty wouldn’t be a question. Finally, police body cameras can help remind police officers the sequence of events that happened for their statements.
As routine officers arrive on scene to carry out the purpose of the police department by providing peace, safety, and to maintain order emotions, rights and authority can disrupt judgment. In the case of Oscar Grant one officers actions were quickly misunderstood because another unarmed person would be killed by a police officer. In my opinion the officer failed to carry out the purpose of the police department because officers are expected to not do unnecessary harm but protect and serve. With new policy educating the public and police officers on how to commutate and react to one another could help decrease these types of actions. Including new policy that could help prevent this action of police brutality against unarmed individuals by increasing police training on de-escalating situations verbally before becoming physically aggressive.
When it come to helping first responders as civilians we can not really protect them. Because we are not as well trained as they are in their particular field. Even though we can not protect them we can assist them in many ways to insure their safety. There are many ways we could assist them such as protecting the crime seen. We could also tell them what is going on in the area so they will not be injured.