Body Cameras Can Provide Truthful Evidence In Judicial Cases
“Any officer who is doing the right factor on a daily basis would need to have a camera on them” (Siegel). Ever because the Ferguson, Missouri incident, when an unarmed African American man was shot by police officer Darren Wilson, the difficulty has been raised that physique cameras must be utilized by officers to record what an officer faces every day and how they handle each scenario. “By 2015, 95 p.c of enormous police departments reported they were utilizing physique cameras or had dedicated to take action in the near future” (Ripley).
A police body digital camera is outlined by Merriam-Webster as, “A video camera that’s worn on clothing and used to constantly record exercise in front of the wearer.” Body cameras provide residents the chance to view what an officer sees when facing a life or death choice. This paper argues in favor of body cameras. The goal is to point out that cameras are: reliable, simply accessible, and a tremendous asset to the regulation enforcement community.
On August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, a young African American man named Michael Brown was walking with a good friend down his neighborhood road when a police officer on patrol intercepted them after receiving a name a couple of robbery that took place close by. The state of affairs escalated, and the officer shot the unarmed Michael Brown who would finally move away from his wounds. The police officer had no one digicam. This occasion led to revolts and protests all over the world against law enforcement officials. Many within the public criticized how law enforcement handles the scenario.
Tom Jackson, the Police Chief of Ferguson, Missouri mentioned, “Body cameras would have made a distinction in the investigation of Brown’s shooting.” President Barrack Obama responded by issuing a plea for officers to use body-worn cameras on December 2, 2014. He mentioned, “The drawback is not just a Ferguson downside. It’s an American problem” (Korte). After the president’s response, it was granted that some police stations would be provided with cameras and training from the federal government.
Recently on the news, viewers have observed how video proof offers the “inside story.” Unfortunately, not all officers have the advantage of owning a body digital camera. Body cameras must be offered to all officers serving their communities so they could document the police effort to make sure a safer surroundings.
Body cameras have been shown to provide solid proof in defending or prosecuting. Body cameras allow the jury to view the whole story with out “evidence tampering”. A body camera might help prove both sides of the story. Some citizens, though, consider that a body digital camera is an invasion of their privacy. There are some who do consider that the cameras will never accomplish the objective of serving to and providing a safer environment locally. Even although officers are wearing the cameras, they’ll still do something that they are not alleged to do. Body cameras additionally come with a high financial price. Kern County Sheriff Sgt. Ian Chandler said, “It’s extremely expensive” (Kotowski). Police stations could need to pay some huge cash for one thing that could presumably be used improperly by their officers. The recent occasions which have been televised exhibiting the urgency on the matter, nonetheless. School shootings, suicides, reckless driving, and terror threats are actual. Police officers all have to have physique cameras for five causes: Body cameras provide truthful evidence in judicial circumstances, Body cameras cut back the crime price, Body cameras are better than different recording devices, Body digital camera footage can be used for training purposes for officers, and Body Cameras, generally, are just extremely favored by officers.
The first cause officers should have body cameras is that physique cameras can present truthful evidence in judicial circumstances.