“People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because brutal men are willing to use violence on their behalf.” -George Orwell. On any night in your home, you might wake up to the sound of thunder rumbling during a storm or the sound of wind howling through the trees outside your window. But what happens when you hear the sound of your door being kicked down by a criminal? What are you doing? Chances are your first reaction is to call the police. It has become a common practice in our society today. However, how often do you hear a news story in the news about a police officer shooting an unarmed suspect, sparking a massive protest. Such stories have been at the forefront of national and media attention. Yet these court cases are still shrouded in mystery and heresy, as the proceedings often disintegrate into a “he said she said” affair. However, thanks to new technologies, the public and grand juries will be able to see a police officer applying the law and judging his actions through a small camera mounted on his chest. Police officers should be provided with body cameras in order to protect citizens, protect the officers themselves, and protect the judicial process. Say no to plagiarism. Get Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Police body cameras have many benefits, but one of the main reasons behind them is to protect citizens against the risk of excessive use of force by a police officer. In light of recent protests following the shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in Baltimore, Maryland, the public is concerned about the conduct of police officers and the circumstances in which they use force. deadly force. 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 get a clear view of the situation. The most important element would be that such a recording, after processing, becomes a public document. This means that anyone could see and hear what really happened in the moments before a subject was arrested or shot. For the citizen, this means they know that what an officer says to them will be recorded, leading to more civil exchanges between law enforcement and citizens (provided the citizens are civil in return ). In fact, the city of Spokane, Washington has installed body cameras on police officers, and in an interview, Police Chief Frank Straub said of the program when asked about the effect it would have on policing: “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 around police interactions will disappear because we will literally be able to say, “Let's go to the videotape. » However, many have made several arguments about the benefits of body cameras for citizens, but one argument in particular seemed very interesting to me. In an article in Time magazine, Janet Vertesi, an assistant professor of sociology at Princeton University, argued that our justice system should not value body camera recordings because they can always be subject to interpretation and do not guarantee not that justice will be done. . Although compelling, this is not an argument, because proponents of camerasdo not claim that body cameras are a panacea that will solve all cases of excessive force. Proponents of body cameras simply argue that body camera recordings would be valuable evidence in a trial. Vertesi used the example of the Rodney King case in 1991. In that case, a recording was made of several white police officers beating Rodney King, an African American. When the case against the officers came to court, the recording of the beating was recorded and the officers in the video were acquitted of the charge of excessive force. The author uses this example to argue that body cameras will not provide justice and therefore are not necessary. The author doesn't seem to understand how proof works. 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 must remember that nothing can guarantee justice except an honest trial, as provided for in the Constitution. The use of body cameras on police has benefits not only for citizens, but also for the officers themselves. In our time, the police officer is literally under attack from ordinary criminals, as well as a hostile media and culture. Far too many people in society are willing to provoke a police officer and then have someone else videotape the suspect's arrest. From there, a clip can be put on the Internet and have millions of views in a matter of hours. From there, the police force faces a public relations crisis and is all but forced to fire the officer in question. All of this was caused by an incident that grew disproportionately large. Even if it turns out that the police officer's behavior was justified, he will never be able to get his job back and will never be able to appear in his community again. This is why body cameras benefit police officers. When used correctly, they record the entire incident, both the exchange leading up to the arrest and the events that followed. Records cannot be falsified and cannot be biased like witnesses. This is the biggest advantage for police officers. Some critics say the cost of equipping each police officer would bankrupt municipal governments with the costs of purchasing the cameras and the costs of maintaining them. My counterargument is this: What is more important in a city's budget than funding the security of the men in uniform? If someone is willing to put on a police officer's uniform and risk their life every day, the least the government can do is allow them to protect their reputation and preserve justice by paying for cameras. This brings me to my final argument, that body cameras are essential to preserving the integrity of the judicial process. As I already used as an example, if a police officer makes an arrest using excessive force and someone only records the arrest, uploads it to the Internet, and then publishes public opinion about the officer before even a formal investigation can be carried out. The media and public became judges, juries and prison directors. However, if the entire incident is recorded on a camera attached to the police officer and the recording is used in a trial as evidence, then justice can be served both to the suspect during the arrest and to the police officer who made the arrest. made the arrest. This is essential in the Internet age, because while police departments can make public their own.