1
April 2nd, 2024
Needs
The public wants less police violence and equity to be taken into account, which would result in lower crime rates as a reaction to the brutality. The Supreme Court is a pertinent branch of the criminal justice system that ought to penalize law enforcement officials who commit hate crimes while making an arrest. When gathering evidence during an arrest, it is important to take into account the use of body cameras in order to ensure that all individuals are treated fairly.
Since they may capture evidence in both audio and video formats, body cams have been accepted as departmental policies in the fight against hate crimes. They document the precise actions taken during the arrests and evidence seizure, thereby reducing the use of derogatory language and discriminating messaging. Body cam policies have addressed the unique needs of equity and the eradication of hate crimes in society.
Policy Recommendations
To guarantee that significant information is extracted, it is advised that certain areas of the departmental policy be improved, namely with regard to the body cameras' vision and audio clarity. Since knowing that a body camera is there would hinder a criminal's ability to respond to authorities, the body cameras' visibility should be anonymous in order to gather accurate information. Longer periods of record-keeping of the material would be made possible by the camera's clarity in both audio and pictures. To guarantee that every articulation is accurately recorded for use as a reference during a court summons, the audio should be audible. Since the participating police officers would be held responsible for their acts, the recommendation would improve the accuracy of the information and lower the prevalence of hate crimes.
Regarding departmental policy adjustments, one specific advice regarding body cameras is to take into account the use of high-quality cameras that reduce the possibility of damage occurring during evidence seizure. In order to capture violent suspects—especially those who have been the targets of hate crimes in the past—police officers must use cameras that are set up for the job when making an arrest. Numerous cameras malfunction during police operations, interfering with evidence that could be used to prove a case. Police agencies interacting with vendors to make sure they coordinate in securing the data and preventing the destruction of the cameras would increase the quality. Insurance policies would guarantee that the cameras are protected from theft, and data that has already been recorded would be retrieved by working with suppliers.
Because the material supplied would be comprehensible and easily consulted in the future, the recommendations would enhance the way judicial systems handle cases. Since the cameras would record every move made during the events, the evidence that was taken would be unaltered and raw (Koslicki, 2019). Clear body camera film was utilized to demonstrate the incident in the case of the Colorado officer charged with criminal assault, serving as an example of the use of body camera reference. In order to make sure the departmental policy on body cameras effectively extracts pertinent information, the case tested new state law.
The recommendations are supported by the strain theory on hate crime since the cameras capture the suspects and the actions of the police, giving a fair trial in a court of law. Body cams would serve as a monitor for hate crimes because the hypothesis shows that some stressors, like police brutality, boost crime. The public needs are met by the recommendations for more dependable and transparent body cameras since they offer tamper-proof information and proof. The idea argues that the recommendations are acceptable because they lessen the pressure to commit a crime, which lowers the incidence of hate crimes in society. People can treat each other equally since the police department respects people's rights when they are subjected to an arrest.
Because body cameras ensure that the law is obeyed, the police seizure suggestions will have a good effect on public relations between law enforcement and the general public. The public's confidence is increased by the effectiveness of body cams because they may be confident that the legal system will provide justice based on the evidence presented (Wright & Headley, 2021). Because all incidents of hate crime commission are included in the raw material, the court systems have become more adept at determining cases. Thanks to the tape, the court was able to charge the Colorado police officer who had committed criminal assault, which had a favorable impact on the legal system. The more cops involved in determining the crime rate, the more likely it is that the information gathered will be relied upon when the possible effects are bad.
The possible consequences advise the police force to increase its body camera budget in order to quickly implement the eradication of hate crimes and enhance public service. The public's positive response to the effectiveness of body cameras would be leveraged by encouraging people to report any hate crimes that police officers may have encountered. In conflict areas, buy-ins would be generated by installing cameras that would document all events and supply valuable data for the case's resolution.
References
Koslicki, W. M. (2019). Accountability or efficiency? Body-worn cameras as replicative technology. Criminal justice review, 44(3), 356-368.
Wright, J. E., & Headley, A. M. (2021). Can technology work for policing? Citizen perceptions of police-body worn cameras. The American Review of Public Administration, 51(1), 17-27.
nancedestiny
7-2Milestone3.docx
0
