Clinton calls for body cameras on all police
Hillary Clinton is calling for all public police departments to require body cameras on their officers. To me, this sounds like a good idea. While it sounds like it infringes on privacy, police are publicly funded and are the most responsible for their actions, as our safety is their goal. If they are good cops and have nothing to hide, then this legislation should not pose a problem for anyone. I think that while it sounds like the scope of the government is growing unnecessarily, it is a good idea, because there have been way too many issues regarding police violence involving any race or demographic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Based on the numerous riots and protests that have occurred recently, I think it is clear that the public believes that police brutality is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think that Hilary Clinton's idea is a good one because it will ensure that police officers can be held responsible for their actions, therefore preventing them from acting rashly or beyond the scope of their authority. This new measure will probably be costly to implement as cameras will be required for every officer and each camera will need to be maintained, but in this case, I think that the benefits outweigh the costs. The unchecked power of police has obviously caused a problem, and if this issue is not fixed soon, the outrage of the public will only lead to more problems.
ReplyDeleteThis is a complete waste of taxpayer money. Next thing you know every military employee or government field worker is going to be forced to wear a camera. This is just another way that we are uneccecasirly increasing the size and scope of government. Also I highly doubt any police officers will want to have someone essentially watching them every time they are on duty. Nobody wants to be watched all the time and this will only deter good cops from continuing their work in law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI think that police need reform in the training that they are given. It tends to be the case that training for police officers differs by whoever the course instructor is, what they focus most on and so on. In order to reform police it begins at the training, the protocols for arresting people exist for a reason and it is no excuse that a police officer should not know them. I think that body cameras would only waste money and not prove effective enough. There are a lot of good cops out there and this would only detracts from the noble position that it is.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of body cameras on police officers is something that is good in theory but not necessarily in practice. It would most likely keep officers accountable for their actions but it also sounds like a very expensive initiative to take. Especially since this would be paid for with taxes, I think Clinton would have a hell of a time passing her idea along. I think it was a good move politically though, I think she knows her idea isn't going to go anywhere, but she's showing her support for a community of activists that probably feel in need of some heavy hitting backers. (I'm not saying that tragedies should be turned in to political moves, but if there was one that could have been made well, this was it.)
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Alexa and Raman. I think that the idea is good but it isn't practical. I think that people are loosing trust in police because of the recent events that have happened and people just want answers. However, I do think that it is a waste of money because it is going to be payed by by taxpayer money, it would be a waste of money. That money could be going to other things that will benefit more people and have a greater impact on society than body cameras. If people just did the right thing, we wouldn't have these issues.
ReplyDeleteThough my first thought in response to this idea is that it is an invasion of privacy, after some thought I've come to the conclusion that implementing the cameras is a great idea. Police officers should not fear for their privacy while on duty because they should not be doing anything that should require privacy. Also, the people regulating these cameras won't be rifling thrugh hours and hours of footage each day to see what every officer was doing at every second of their shift. The footage will only be used when it needs to be. I think if anything these cameras will protect officers like in the case of Officer Wilson and Michael Brown. Many people support Brown and many people support Wilson but we have conflicting evidence and accounts on this case. There is a large amount of gray area. If there was definitive evidence such as camera footage, then the Ferguson riots may never have happened and an unquestionable verdict may have been reached.
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no problem with holding people accountable for their actions. I think that knowing that they are on camera and will be held responsible for their actions will lead to the police thinking before they act. All though I think this idea is a good one, I have some fears regarding it. I fear living in a society where people are mistrusting of law enforcement. They are put in their position so people can have some one to protect them that they can rely on and trust. I'd like for this idea to continue and I fear that cameras on police officers might hinder it.
ReplyDeleteJust like everything else she says regarding current issues, these comments from the highly calculated Clinton are clearly politically motivated. She is pandering to an audience that has had its frustration legitimized by the mainstream media, despite overwhelming trends that contradict the source of its outrage. It goes without saying that individual cases of police brutality are inexcusable and the offending officers must be brought to justice. Exactly this happened in South Carolina, where a reckless officer shot Walter Scott senselessly, and was immediately sentenced. However, anti-cop rhetoric damages any situation further. It destroys mutual trust in communities with high crime rates, which only puts more civilians at risk as law enforcement officers become distracted from executing their duty to protect and serve. The only way police body cameras become an acceptable proposal is if you recognize that racially motivated police brutality is a common problem that plagues this country, which, according to statistics and other empirical data, it is not. The media has significantly overblown the recent altercations between young black men and police, rarely reporting the facts at face value. Therefore, distrust of the police has been abetted while failed liberal policies have had their urban reinforcement advocated.
ReplyDeleteAs many other people have said it is a good idea in theory but not practice. People have been worried about trusting police so this seems like a good idea. I do agree that people should be held accountable for their actions but it is an invasion of privacy. I dont think people will be too excited about taxpayer money funding these cameras so I dont think this would be successful. If people just did the right thing this wouldnt be an issue.
ReplyDeleteFinally, Hillary Clinton is speaking of some policy she would support. Although I too support body cameras on police in that they would provide an additional way to defend accused police officers and to dissuade officers from committing any wrongdoing, numerous privacy issues would arise. Obviously there need to be explicit rules spelled out as to when the cameras should and should not be on. Also, citizens may not appreciate being filmed by the government on another more personal level in their interaction with police
ReplyDelete