20 years ago I said police should wear body cameras recording things as soon as technically feasible.
It increases the ability of the truth to win in disputes, and it both encourages good behavior by police as well as helps prove cases against criminals.
I'd been on a jury, where we sat trying to figure out the police were telling the truth about what they'd seen. The case was drunk driving, where the police claimed the driver and passenger in the pickup they pulled over ducked down at a red light and switched places before pulling over, so they arrested the passenger, who claimed they hadn't.
The deliberations were eventually influenced by a juror who said they had the same truck and the window was tiny and the officers couldn't have seen what they claimed. Not guilty.
But how many cases involve 'he made a threatening move' type issues, of disputed testimony where the jurors have nothing to base deciding who's right on?
One main benefit would be to reduce behavior that's wrong knowing it's being recorded and can't be lied about. A second benefit is providing evidence when someone does lie.
My feeling was, in the majority of cases, it'll prove the police right and justice will be done, and in the cases police do wrong, it'll prove that and justice will be done.
I just ran across this story from several months ago where a department did this and it's working as I wanted.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
Criminal justice is hard, with high standards of proof that still convict a lot of innocents but are hard to meet - helping get to the truth is great.
One of the biggest obstacle might simply be people aren't used to this, and resistant to change. But it's a good change.
When you think about it, when you pretend you were designing a police force as a new thing, of COURSE you'd want this.
I'm assuming you were trying for P&N and got the wrong P forum (PC Gaming), so I'll give you partial credit
-ViRGE
It increases the ability of the truth to win in disputes, and it both encourages good behavior by police as well as helps prove cases against criminals.
I'd been on a jury, where we sat trying to figure out the police were telling the truth about what they'd seen. The case was drunk driving, where the police claimed the driver and passenger in the pickup they pulled over ducked down at a red light and switched places before pulling over, so they arrested the passenger, who claimed they hadn't.
The deliberations were eventually influenced by a juror who said they had the same truck and the window was tiny and the officers couldn't have seen what they claimed. Not guilty.
But how many cases involve 'he made a threatening move' type issues, of disputed testimony where the jurors have nothing to base deciding who's right on?
One main benefit would be to reduce behavior that's wrong knowing it's being recorded and can't be lied about. A second benefit is providing evidence when someone does lie.
My feeling was, in the majority of cases, it'll prove the police right and justice will be done, and in the cases police do wrong, it'll prove that and justice will be done.
I just ran across this story from several months ago where a department did this and it's working as I wanted.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-body-cameras-cuts-violence-complaints-rialto
Criminal justice is hard, with high standards of proof that still convict a lot of innocents but are hard to meet - helping get to the truth is great.
One of the biggest obstacle might simply be people aren't used to this, and resistant to change. But it's a good change.
When you think about it, when you pretend you were designing a police force as a new thing, of COURSE you'd want this.
I'm assuming you were trying for P&N and got the wrong P forum (PC Gaming), so I'll give you partial credit
-ViRGE
Last edited by a moderator:
Facebook
Twitter