“People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because violent men are ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell. Every night in your home, you may wake up to the sound of thunder cracking in a thunderstorm or the wind howling in the trees outside your window. But what happens when you hear the sound of your door being kicked in by a criminal? What are you doing? Chances are, your first reaction might be to call the police. This has become a common practice in our society today. However, how often do you hear a news story about a police officer shooting an unarmed suspect and, thus, triggering a mass protest. Such stories have been the focus of the nation's attention and the attention of the news media. However, these court cases are always shrouded in mystery and heresy as the proceedings often disintegrate into a “he said, she said” case. However, thanks to new technology, both the public and grand juries will be able to see a police officer enforce the law and judge his action based on a small camera mounted on his torso. Police officers should be equipped with body cameras to protect citizens, protect police officers themselves, and protect the judicial process. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Police body cameras have many benefits, but one of the main reasons behind them is to protect citizens from the risk of excessive use of force by a police officer. In light of the recent protests over the shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Eric Garner in Baltimore, Maryland, the public has become concerned about the conduct of police officers and the circumstances in which they use force mortal. Obviously the advantage of having a camera mounted on an officer is that the public and the officer's superiors can evaluate the recording and have a clear account of the situation. The most important part of this would be that such a record, after processing, would become a public document. This means that anyone could see and hear what actually happened in the moments before a subject was arrested or shot. For the citizen this means they know that what an officer tells them will be recorded and this leads to more civil exchanges between law enforcement and citizens (provided the citizens are civilians in return). In fact, the city of Spokane, Washington, has implemented body cameras on police officers, and in an interview, Police Chief Frank Straub, when asked about the effect it would have on policing, said of the program: "I think we will have a reduction in complaints. I think it will be good for both the community and the officers. Some of the mystery surrounding police interactions will go away because we will literally be able to say, 'Let's go to the videotape.'" Many however have made several arguments about the benefits that body cameras have for citizens, but one argument in particular I found very interesting In an article in Time magazine, Janet Vertesi, assistant professor of sociology at Princeton University, argued that our justice system should not evaluate body camera recordings because they may still be open to interpretation and does not guarantee that justice will be done. . While compelling, this is not an argument as body camera advocates do not claim that body cameras are a panacea that will solve every case of excessive force. Rather, iBody camera advocates simply argue that body camera recordings would constitute valuable evidence in a trial. Vertesi used the example of the Rodney King case in 1991. In the case, a recording was made of several white police officers beating Rodney King, an African American. When the case against the police officers was brought to court, the beating was videotaped and the officers in the video were acquitted of excessive use of force. The author uses this example to argue that body cameras will not bring about justice, therefore they are not necessary. The author doesn't seem to understand how tests work. Like everything in our criminal justice system, body camera recordings would be open to interpretation by everyone from the officer's superiors to the judge and grand jury. The author of the article should remember that nothing can guarantee justice except an honest trial as the Constitution says. There are benefits not only to citizens from the use of body cameras on police, but there are benefits to police officers themselves. Nowadays, the police officer is literally attacked by everyday criminals and hostile media and cultures. Too many people in society are willing to provoke a police officer and then have someone else record only the arrest of the suspect. From there that clip can be placed on the Internet and have millions of views in a matter of hours. From there the police force has a public relations crisis and is almost forced to fire the officer in question. All of this was caused by an accident that was blown out of proportion. Even if the police officer is found to have been justified in his conduct, he will never get his job back and will never be able to show his face in his community again. This is why body cameras benefit police officers. When used correctly, they record the entire incident, both the exchange before the arrest and the events that follow. The recordings cannot be tampered with and cannot be influenced as witnesses. This is the biggest advantage for police officers. Some critics argue that the cost of equipping each police officer would bankrupt municipal governments with the costs of purchasing the cameras and the cost of maintaining them. My counterargument is: What is more important to a city's budget than paying for the safety of men in uniform? If someone is willing to wear a police officer's uniform and risk their life every day, the least the government could do is allow them to protect their reputation and preserve justice by paying for cameras. This brings me to my final argument, which is that body cameras are critical to preserving the integrity of the judicial process. As I've used as an example before, if an officer makes an arrest using excessive force and someone just records the arrest, uploads it to the Internet, and then there is public opinion about the officer even before an arrest can be conducted. formal investigation. The media and public have become judge, jury and prison wardens. However, if the incident is recorded in full on a camera attached to the officer and the recording is used in a trial as evidence, then justice can be done for both the arresting suspect and the arresting officer. arrest. This is critical in the Internet age because if police departments can release their incident recording to the public along with a well-worded statement, they can preserve the right to a fair and impartial trial for the police officer. From.