The Instigator
Forever23
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Wild.Grape
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2015 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,291 times Debate No: 84245
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

Forever23

Pro

* This is not necessarily a round of police debate*

Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented.


Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras.

I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points.

Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable.


Now onto my own points.

1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid.
Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today’s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., "Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment.”
The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system “disempowers people of color.” At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences ... for the same crime.” That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites.”"
The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The “he did it because he is African American” approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people’s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient.

2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. http://www.cam.ac.uk..., "
Knowledge that events are being recorded creates "self-awareness" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts—as well as courts of public opinion—should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, http://phys.org..., "
During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures.
http://www.cam.ac.uk...
"The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed," said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar.


The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself.

3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.
The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public.
According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. http://www.nbcnews.com...,
Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. "However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own."

The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the “he did it” and the “no I did not” approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides.

The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause.

I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.

Thank you, vote pro.



























Wild.Grape

Con

I will accept this debate, and argue for my personal opinion, explaining why I personally would not want police officers to wear body cameras. As my opponent stated, today"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be "fair". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered "legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of "right" and "justice" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of "justice". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their "unjust" (according to you) punishment.
Debate Round No. 1
Forever23

Pro

His refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment.

Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror.

The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side.

Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan.

So, my points were:

1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid.
2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.
3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.


Now onto a new assertion:

4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360° body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant.

Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.

360° clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability
Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording
Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video
Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water
Shock resistant

They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only.

Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video.

Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force.

Thank you, vote pro.






Wild.Grape

Con

In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal."
A "fair" punishment according to whose opinion? Governments? Societies? Punishment will be fair only according to their interpretation of "fair", which can be unfair according to person being punished. It is you who completely missed my point, which was that concept of "fairness" is subjective, meaning different people can have different understanding of "fair". Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of "fairness" unto other people. That was my point.

"The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public."
Which is, again, your subjective opinion. Each person can have his own subjective opinion regarding what helps public. Just because you believe that genocide does not help public, does not mean that Hitler or average Nazi had same belief. Again, relativity and subjectivity.

"It was a very obvious detriment."
Again, personal opinion. Someone who believes Jews to be cancer of this world would have different opinion.

"That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror."
My point exactly. Not all people share same morals. Some believe right/fair thing to be X, others believe Y.This is exactly why those soldiers fought- because they did not share same morals, values and understanding of "rightness" as nazis did.

So, to re-state my counters to your arguments.
1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid.
That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact.

2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.
Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism.

3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.
Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is "right" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself.

Now to your next arguments.
"this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States"
Again, your personal opinion. You base this claim upon your own, personal values, which are just that- YOUR values. Dont try to pull them off as anything more than mere opinion.

"The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras"
No, I will not. I will point out that you are making claims in accordance to your own values and morals, which are subjective. Things which you and your society believe to be "right", "moral" and "fair" can be considered "wrong" "immoral" and "wrong" by someone else, and you really have no evidence to prove your set of morals to be objectively superior. What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.
Debate Round No. 2
Forever23

Pro

Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented.

Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan.

So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole.

Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation,


" Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of "fairness" unto other people. That was my point.".


Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current "fair" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.



Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, "Why is murder wrong?", the most common response will be, "Just because it is wrong". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented.



My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case.



Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments.


1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system.


2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force.


3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers.


4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable.


Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan.


Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable? The 75 mil dollars given to the police dept, just the need for security, taxes, donations, and the price of the cameras- only 149.99



Thank you, vote pro.








Wild.Grape

Con

"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments"

I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote:
"Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan.
So, my points were:
1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid.
2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.
3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras."

And here is how I copy these points and provide counters:
"So, to re-state my counters to your arguments.
1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid.
That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact.
2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.
Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism.
3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.
Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is "right" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself."

Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place.

"Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government."
I did not. Here is exact quote.
" The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair."
"What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree."
It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support.

"The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished."
Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem.

"Nobody is forcing "fairness" onto anyone."
They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness.

"Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace."
Which is still a group... thus my point stands.

" It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong."
FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem.

On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape.

"My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case."
I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth.

"1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system."
It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as "lower racial discrimination". Whether or not their classification of what counts as "lower racial discrimination" is objectively correct, is unknown.

"2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force."
And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras.

3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers.
I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances.

4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable.

You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
I would be highly interested in engaging this topic on either side. I think there's allot of room/ground for AFF or NEG.

If someone is interested in offering this resolution to me (AFF or NEG) please let me know.
Posted by Aayankhan 1 year ago
Aayankhan
Police or any law enforcement officials must wear camera, because if some kind of incident happens it will save in it and use as an major evidence .
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Okay, thanks for telling me Hayd.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
I will be voting on this.

@Forever
In order to use opt-in you must say in R1 you will be using it, your opponent must agree to it, and you must have a link to the doc for opt in standards
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
I had evidence to people DISLIKING physical force :0
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
lol there was evidence to how cameras decreased physical force :) I put it in
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Plans are allowed though
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Hey Wild. You did a great job! I loved your points!
Posted by Forever23 1 year ago
Forever23
Obama gave 75 mil dollar to the police dept
Posted by IndianaFrank 1 year ago
IndianaFrank
That is a good idea however, not all departments have the money to purchase them...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
Forever23Wild.GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, Pro, please stop saying "I am forever23" at the start of every round. We get who you are. This debate was objectively coined by Pro. Con used vague arguments that did not relate to the feasibility or legality of the debate. Pro was able to show that the idea of "fairness" is not something judged by society, but by law. Pro was also able to state that cameras provide evidence which can be evaluated by the judicial system, to better help or refute the case that is made. Con's argument was not relative to Pro's at all, or even the argument that anyone against cameras would make. Con ended his argument by stating that "there must be a back door" - in which he contradicts his own argument; being that he talks about the subjectiveness of society, but then subjectively states that if society becomes evil (which is a subjective moral phenomena) that there must be a way for the law to be avoided. Con misses the entire point of the debate completely, and Pro does not. Win for Pr
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Forever23Wild.GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, Pro wins. https://docs.google.com/document/d/193eW9RzO7zvtBkioLcc0YJ6_o4XvJk5I8yZmDVODt90/edit?usp=sharing