Question: Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions." Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.

Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction You will be expected to use evidence and logic to prove your position. Please use acceptable grammar, good structure, and easily identifiable sources (I personally prefer URLs). You will only have 24 hours to make each argument. Clarification of terms: American law enforcement - while it may be of benefit to other nations as well, this debate is only concerned with the current wide spread discussion of this new policy in the United States. A law enforcement officer (which is common abbreviated to LEO) is any public sector employee concerned with enforcing laws. This includes city police officers, county sheriff deputies, state/highway patrol officers, border patrol officers, federal marshals, etc. Body camera - any sort of recording device carried by LEOs. While this specifically means a camera mounted on the officers body, it will also include head mounted cameras for the sake of this debate. We will not be concerned with vehicle cameras. Civilian interaction - This includes traffic stops, initial investigation/questioning, crowd control, or any other instance where LEOs respond to a call or intervene in a situation. We will not be including interactions within police facilities, where it is expect that most areas are already under surveillance. Today, there has been a resounding call to reform police practices. This is the result mostly of the various instances of alleged racially provoked shootings at the hands of police. Many cases result in disappointing verdicts, based on a lack of evidence. A prime example was the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted on the basis of a lack of evidence. Because there was no video evidence, it was difficult for the courts to paint a clear picture of what occurred that night. Even though the shooting was highly suspicious, it would have been near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson wasn't engaging in legitimate self defense. Due to the accessibility of recording equipment in this day and age (thanks to smart phones), some cases have experienced the opposite effect. When Walter Scott was shot in North Charleston, SC by officer Michael Slager, video evidence led to a swift indictment. The question remains why do we not utilize this new technology in full effect. My contentions Protection of the rights of civilians: Simply put, surveilling the actions officers take with civilians holds them to a high standard of professionalism. If an officer knows they are being recorded, they realize they will also be scrutinized for their actions. Many studies have noted the positive effect cameras have on use-of-force trends (I will list three separate studies). All three studies noted a drastic decrease in instances of use-of-force and complaints filed. . http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org...... . http://www.latimes.com...... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Protection of the rights of officers: Police officers are also concerned about faulty complaints and false assumptions about events. Anyone can file a police report, be it justified or not. Police body cameras would provide clarity to the circumstance surrounding the report. Video evidence does not lie: More evidence is better evidence. One common court room dispute is whether or not a detainee was read their Miranda rights before being questioned. According to the supreme court, any evidence obtained through an interrogation of someone who has not been Mirandized is inadmissible in court. Whenever there is a dispute over whether or not the defendant was read the Miranda warning, it often comes do to the officer's word versus their's. With body cameras, it will be easy to show video evidence of an officer reciting the warning or not. This is just one example.

Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras * 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.

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.

Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras 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.

Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- "Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that "betting" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- "what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. " With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- "i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. " Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. No sources allowed in this debate.

Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of "a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.

Resolved: Police officers should be required 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.

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.

Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: "Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.

Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras 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?

Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see "Top 20 Drunks" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted

Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses "In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information." This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; "For 12 months, Rialto"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, "the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants," the study team explains." https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. "In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion." The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as "must arrest" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can"t tell an officer he can"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don"t we replicate that study in real life?

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. "2. There's already a fund for the body cameras." Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. "3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie." Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. "4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game." The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. "5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance

Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things.

Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime," states the policy. It adds that, "(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties." http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI"ll keep this short. There isn"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven"t won because I"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such)."I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate."I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera."This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. "This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: "Body cameras can help an investigation" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, "Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies." As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie." Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance

Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras 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.

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Let's look at your rebuttals. "My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered." Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. "You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement." 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. "By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie." 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, "I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance

Should all cops have to wear body cameras I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings

Should all cops have to wear body cameras No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.

Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. 1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.

Police officers should be more friendly I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on "community policing". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.

Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras "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.

A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.

A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police While there do need to be unambiguous protections for citizens exercising the first amendment freedom(press) to record and report police wrongdoing(as well as exceptional conduct), a one size fits all approach to this could compromise police departments' ability to conduct operations. For example, the right to use zoom lenses on police could be critical in rural environments where the police may be executing a warrant hundreds of meters from the closest neighbor. However, this same protection could put the operational security of urban police forces at risk to Organized Crime conducting 'counter-intelligence' by spying through a window into barracks or field command posts. Also, during a hostage incident, even the established press must sometimes be gagged in order to prevent the insurgents from monitoring police activity on the news. Speaking to the efficacy of mandating police record themselves(thoroughly), in 2010 a SWAT officer recorded a raid in Columbia, MO that lead to a controversy surround the shooting of a family dog, over a de-criminalized quantity of marijuana. This video started to open our eyes to the vast over-militarization of our police force, and more a comprehensive protocol requiring this be the standard procedure would be much more rational than a national law allowing anyone to record police, even if they have clear, yet unprovable, malicious intent. Police need to be granted some discretion to judge between the citizen press and a thug taking a record of the officers who may be arresting his friend, for the purposes of retribution.

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, police are going to be subject to biases. I've explained that police being subject to scrutiny is a good thing. As detailed in the last round, police have a tough gig and mistakes will be made; that's the nature of the job. However, because of their rampant authority, being allowed to record their interaction with others can help establish the guilt or innocence of people who may be wrongly abused, arrested or incriminated by law enforcement. Without this protection, our rights are greatly inhibited considering in a court of law their word vs. an ordinary citizen's without evidence is almost *always* upheld; Con did not argue contrary. Without being able to submit tangible evidence, a dirty agent could continue abusing their power and manipulating the system, which can have detrimental effects on the community and an individual's life. As such, this protection far outweighs any negative of people merely scrutinizing the police. Just as some families have chosen to install "Nanny Cams" to ensure their child is protected while they're away, people have a right to protect themselves from tyrannical law. Similarly, business owners can install cameras to minimize theft and robbery and protect their property; why can't people do the same to protect theirs (person)? 2. Re: Criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police If you check out Con's source, it details organized crime personnel in Italy using Skype as a way to avoid being wiretapped. This, of course, has nothing to do with the resolution. Their use of Skype would continue whether or not police were legally able to be recorded. Here, the only evidence Con could possibly present in his favor includes proof that recording POs has had severely detrimental results, or led to criminals tampering with police investigations. Con has not presented evidence of this nature, so we have no reason to assume that recording interaction with a cop would in any way negatively effect police business. Criminals are using technology to get around the police? Sure, it's been happening for ages. What has that got to do with anything? How would recording an officer arrest you, arrest another, or interact with someone in general aid in criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. I expect Con to explain how this is possible or likely instead of committing the base rate fallacy (using weak evidence to make a probability judgment without taking into account known empirical statistics about the probability). Again, if I am pulled over, and I record the cop talking to me, asking for my license and registration, etc., how is that harming anything or anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they break the law, or jeopardize an officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. It's definitely possible to punish a citizen who abuses this right. If someone is using Skype for criminal activity like in Con's example, then of course they should be punished. Similarly, if someone is using recording police for criminal activity, they should be punished too. However saying because people *might* do this that it's a reason to keep this illegal is absurd. That's like saying alcohol should be illegal because people *might* drink and drive. We've long disposed of that backwards and futile ideology; we know it's better to entrust people with restrictions, and this is one of those cases. Also, this negates Con's own contention. He says it's not fair to record cops because they MIGHT be bad, and then says we shouldn't be able to record because CITIZENS *might* be bad. Not only is this hypocritical, but I've explained how cops being abusive is far more dangerous and likely. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. Should an officer have "felt safe" to open fire on an unarmed man? I advocate that cops feel TOO SAFE to engage in any behavior they please without fear of reprimand. As an example, feverish teasingly told Nags that he would report his father (a cop) to the bureau for tampering with police evidence (a joke). However, Nags responded with something along the lines of, "What good would that do - reporting my dad to his friends?" POs should take the liberty to act in accordance with the training they've been given. If someone opens fire on them, they should fire in return. However I doubt any police have been trained to start shooting first, meaning there's no basis to do so. If their shooting (or other actions) was *truly justified,* then they would not be punished (for instance, the cops were found innocent in Sean Bell's case because the jury did not believe the cops were being intentionally harmful). Con writes, "Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment." Again I negate -- police should feel comfortable knowing that if they do make a mistake, recordings of the going-ons can work in their favor to justify their actions. For instance, if they say they shot someone because they thought he was reaching for a gun, and the video shows the suspect reaching for their wallet, this would indeed be a tragedy but one in which police could be forgiven and understood. However in cases like the examples I've given last round, sometimes police act brutally for completely unjustifiable reasons. These people need to be caught and punished to maintain the integrity of the law. 5. In the last round, I asked Con to explain the "many regulations" officers suffer from, as he implied, considering I noted how they usually get away with murder (literally). He pointed out that many officers follow rules, but did not expand any further on this point. 5. On the topic of citizen journalism, Con says that it can be dangerous because of the blatant bias that comes with it. I agree. However, simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. In that case, the actions of the officer and his counterpart speak for themselves. Watching a police officer threaten someone is not bias against the police; it's a representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven. 6. Con continues to say that many officers are unjustifiably stigmatized because of the actions of a few, and I agree. However, recording police can be used to prove Con right - that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7. My opponent says that he agrees law enforcement should be held accountable given their authority. However, he writes "recording technology is [not] an acceptable means of achieving those ends." In that case, I invite my opponent to explain why, and more importantly, what a better way of achieving those ends would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. 8. Con writes, "If the PO's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether [recording] was legal or not?" Absolutely. If a cop acted wrongly, he'd be held accountable by co-workers and superiors, who would in turn be held accountable by their co-workers and superiors, as well as the public. If Officer Joe was recorded beating an old lady for no reason, and that was posted on YouTube, there would be a public demand for punishment, and this would be an incentive to minimize police abuse. 9. Con concludes by saying that this act could effectively hurt innocent parties. I contend that no sufficient evidence to draw this conclusion has been established, and that this would be a minimal risk. On balance, being allowed to record police would have the most benefits in terms of protecting society and our rights and safety.

A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police In all those situations a person recording the present situation would have no detrimental affect on the officers except for the press giving a live feed. In that particular situation I could understand restricting their reasoning to restrict the live coverage but I still don't agree with it one hundred percent. The raid you speak of has been the center of much heated debate because of the excessive force being used when a only a de criminalized amount of marijuana was found. The problem with law enforcement being the only ones allowed to record such encounters is that it leaves room for further corruption. For example: The officer recording a raid could be simply looking the other direction when another officer is planting drugs. One side being entrusted with the responsibility of recording such encounters leaves room for corruption. Both the civilian and law enforcement sides should bear the responsibility. It is each sides right to have the means necessary to defend themselves such as in a court of law the defense and prosecution are both represented by attorneys. Law enforcement is here to protect and serve the people so it should be the needs of the people that come first. The people are the ones that need the extra protection for obvious reasons.

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. 1. Re: With citizen recordings, cops are subject to bias. A) Unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? ----> Knowing that they're being recorded acts as a deterrent against police brutality. If an officer knows he's going to be held accountable for his actions, he's far more likely to abide by the law. B) Recording violates privacy ----> There is no violation if they know they're being recorded. It would be obvious to gauge from the tape if they knew they were or not. I would even go so far as to say that hidden cams should be allowed, so long as cops realize they *can possibly* be recorded at any time. However, I don't have to defend that here -- just that recording in general should be permissible. 2. Re: Criminals are using technology to get around police. ----> To re-state exactly what I said in the last round, Con has not presented any evidence that recording cops has or could tamper with police investigations or have detrimental results. How would recording an officer interact with you or another aid criminal activity? At best you could argue a direct transmission of data to a criminal, but again that's unlikely and seemingly unuseful. If I record a cop talking to me, how is that harming anyone? Even in a more hostile situation, I don't see how it's relevant. Con has ignored this whole rebuttal and just repeats that people use the internet for crime, which as I said is nothing new, unusual, or even relevant to this discussion. However Con did elaborate (repeat) that police are going to be subject to: A) Bias ----> I've said in the last round, "Simply recording a police officer does NOT impose any bias. The actions of the officer speak for themselves. Watching a PO threaten someone is not bias; it's a true representation of the cop's actions. Any distortion to video could easily be noted or proven." Instead of responding to these contentions, Con just repeats the fact that officers will be subject to bias completely ignoring my rebuttal explaining contrary. B) Stress caused by videos that misrepresent facts ----> Once again, there's no reason for police to be stressed about possibly being recorded -- especially if the law becomes such that they must know they're being recorded. I've explained how it's easy to prove whether or not a cop was aware of this. Why should they be stressed if they follow protocol, and the tape can verify them acting as such? I've explained that this could be HELPFUL to the cops. Moreover, I've explained in my last point how facts will not be misrepresented and in fact confirmed. C) Privacy concerns ----> I've already explained how this is BS. I notice Con never answered my question about how recording my conversation with a cop violates his right to privacy when in fact he is addressing me... hmm. Also, why is the cops's privacy paramount vs. our right to protect ourself against a monopoly (tyranny) of law enforcement which always favors another officer's word? 3. Re: There is no way to keep citizens accountable if they compromise the law or officer's safety. ----> Once again, I've explained how recording POs will probably not be harmful in any way! Remember that Con never gave us one example of how this could be a bad thing. His only contention, being subject to bias, has been negated and explained how in fact recording can eliminate any hostility toward cops in a questionable situation (unless, of course, they're actually guilty in which case recording would be a good thing!). If not, recording can validate a cop's story. In short though, Con's point about not being able to punish citizens has been negated, and that's probably why he changed the topic. 4. Re: POs may not feel safe to act a particular way, which could endanger their lives. ----> Con's source proves my point exactly. He quotes, "Over 2/3 of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol." Great! That's exactly what I want! More careful does not equivocate to less safe or more timid. Again, if they accidentally shoot an unarmed man because they thought he was reaching for a gun while he was really reaching for his wallet, nobody's saying being recorded should stop them from acting on their instincts -- in fact, it would validate their reaction. If they believe they're prone to so many mistakes to the point where this would be a problem, then perhaps law enforcement is not for them (and their authority would not benefit society). If "being more careful" translates to being more appropriate, I'm all for it. Con's quote continues to note that some officers were scared because they heard other cops were being prosecuted for unlawful arrest. I think this is perfect! Police should NOT be arresting people unlawfully! This once again validates the point that cops would think twice before acting against society and abusing their power. Also, n00b cops being anxious about this proves absolutely nothing considering n00b cops are going to be anxious no matter what, just as we all are with new jobs and especially when we're being recorded regardless of what that job is. Cops saying things will be "misrepresented" is completely false as I've explained. Further, cops being against this is totally irrelevant considering ANYONE would vote against being recorded at a new job. 5A. ----> Con's source is comical. It's titled "police regulations" but details more about what being a cop entails (i.e. how to be promoted, maternity pay, issues of retirement, etc.) rather than what cops stress out over from the job. In short, being expected to follow the rules is not a negative added stress. It should be of utmost importance and concern and at the forefront of their conscious while working. 5B. ----> Extend my argument of no possible bias. 6. ----> Extend my point that recording can be used to prove that most cops are law abiding and fair. 7A. ----> First, Con admits that recording can protect people against cop abuse and notes "those incidents should be protected under law." However, if recording is all-together illegal, how can this be protected under law? This is seemingly contradictory. 7B. ----> Con says if recording is illegal, but video survives, "it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed." I'm not sure what he is talking about here; if recording is illegal than this would be considered inadmissible evidence in any court, meaning proof of police brutality via video is 100% irrelevant to the case. In any case, I asked Con to explain what a better way of achieving those ends (catching police) would be considering I've detailed precisely why this is the best and most fair way of ensuring integrity. Con never responded to this question and can't in the last round. 8. ----> Con says a dirty cop would simply dispose of recorded evidence. First, he may not know he was being recorded. Second, this is unlikely considering it'd probably be easy to prove and he'd get in even more trouble. 9. ----> In conclusion, I pointed out that there was no sufficient evidence to assume innocent people would be hurt from this, and that indeed it's a minimal risk. Con simply repeats that if the cop is not acting wrongfully, there's no reason for recording him (which ignores my arguments regarding deterrence, protection and citizen's rights). He also restates that facts can be misrepresented (negated) and cops' privacy violated (also negated). If cops are given so much power, we have the right to protect ourself from tyranny of that power - especially if there is no evidence that recording is overtly harmful or unnecessarily hinders cops in any way. On balance, legalized recording provides us the best safety and protection of society's rights while emphasizing more trust and integrity regarding law enforcement and their relationship with society. Thank you.

A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Anyone else care to take up this debate?

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thank you, Lwerd. 1. a) As my source in Round 2 had shown, the idea that officers are more likely to "abide by the law" also comes with side effects that hamper job performance. b) My opponent indeed does have to defend that here. Officers, while public servants, have a right to privacy as much as anyone else. Now, the right to privacy and laws surrounding that are not necessarily limited to just being recorded - it's also how that recording is used. If someone records a police interaction where no abuse occurs and officers are made out to be fools, as some people are prone to try and do, and officers are not aware of this, this is a violation of privacy laws. 2. My opponent seems to have skipped over a good part of my argument, then. The point has been that videos within the possession of the average citizen have no way of being tracked and stopped if they do indeed contain harmful bias, information, or what have you, until they're on the web. This is why it's important to stop it at the soure; if we can place restrictions on the ability to misrepresent or transmit harmful information at the outset, we can save a whole lot of pain occurring on all sides. I believe this is a valid, important point, and my opponent claiming I've done nothing to back it up is ludicrous. My opponent also asks why privacy is important versus protecting citizenry from the "tyranny" of law enforcement (obvious bias is bias). To make a point clear, officers are as much the citizenry as citizens are, they're simply those charged with enforcing state laws. While there is an argument to be made over the fact that officers are a "special class" of citizens, the fact remains that their privacy, much as the privacy of myself or my opponent, is protected under various legislation and laws. Just as recording someone while committing a crime is not a violation of privacy, recording a cop during any abuse of their power shouldn't be either; but other times, what is the need? 3. I addressed this before. I've also demonstrated several times how recording officers can indeed be harmful; my opponent has never countered any way for which to indeed keep citizens accountable for any actions they may take with recordings that aren't necessarily used to stop police abuse. Indeed, she never even addressed it. 4. If my opponent had read the entirety of the source, she would see it was a mixed blessing; the introduction of CCTV indeed did make officers "more careful," but also ended up intimidating officers and keep them constantly worried about actions that could be misconstrued. It's pretty clear from the outside; officers are prone to be more careful and watch their actions, sure, but at what cost to their job performance? That is what the entire source, and this portion of the debate, has been about. 5a. Pro mocks my source (completely valid if going through all points, which I had to unfortunately and painstakingly do, because such a complete list has been hard to find on the net), and then claims that following the rules doesn't add stress. I'm not quite sure what she means by this, as my point simply was that officers are already subject to many, many rules and regulations on their actions. My opponent concedes that following the rules is of the utmost concern, and I agree - so what is the point of contention here? Indeed, my opponent simply concedes that there is an expectation to follow the rules, and by and large officers do - recording will not necessarily change that. 7. a) My opponen maybe doesn't know, but laws are often contradictory because they're full of exceptions, counter-exceptions, criteria, and judgements. It's not hard to see how a recording penalty should have exceptions, and how the evidence - namely, the recording - must be present at any trial to ensure that either side is simply not making up stories. b) Again, my opponent possibly doesn't understand how the law works. If an illegal gun is used to kill someone, that gun doesn't become inadmissable because its illegal to use. It's considered evidence, and indeed, the tool used to commit the crime. It's fully admissable in court. Even in brutality cases, exceptions can and are made for such evidence. As for my opponents other point, I've said time, and time, and time again - there are exceptions to every rule. If officers are recording committing abuse of their power, there should be exceptions to the law. But if not, then really, what is the point? What are the benefits that outweigh the drawback except for people's amusement? My opponent doesn't say, hm. 8. If the officer was unaware of being recorded, then the point is moot, no? Officers can only stop crimes they see. The second point is a little silly; if an officer is really bent on stopping you from recording, either with this law or not, they will. In conclusion, I'll just say this: I'm not defending a popular position, here. No doubt about it. But I believe I've presented some pretty serious points here, as Pro did as well. The entire, central point though, and my opponent has refused to admit this, is that police officers are people to; they feel the pressures of their job, and have rights under civil code just as the usual citizenry do. There is no doubt they hold a lot more authority than your average citizen, but there are ways to keep this accountable - recording interactions simply is not one of them. I've made and conceded that there should be obvious exceptions to the rule, but my opponent continues forward and says that, no matter what, record officers - even if they aren't doing anything wrong. Even if they're doing something sensitive. Indeed, she wants to sic papparrazzi on the police, more or less, in some valiant crusade against abuse, regardless of what it does to police performance and officer's lives. All well and fine, but if you prefer a more nuanced, balanced approach, that says brutality should be stopped but privacy and performance should not be put at risk, vote CON. Thank you.

administrative efficiency; ensuring justice This argument of course presupposes that we believe the Jean Charles Menezes case was investigated thoroughly. We have known for years that we have a corrupt police force. Stephen Lawrence highlighted the institutional racism which is inherent in our police force and the Menezes case has only served to show society that the police force is nothing more than a band of brothers who protect each others interests. With such a police force, CCTV footage can be tampered with or simply 'lost' in the administrative system. Thus, CCTV footage is merely a helpful tool for the police force, not to society as a whole.

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. To start off, I'd like to address Pro's first attack on my "positions. " Pro essentially states that police officers are to be scrutinized for every action that they commit by the regular citizen, due in part to the deference they're paid because of their authority, and because that it is a way to keep such police officers accountable. While this sounds good in theory, in practice it leaves much to be desired, because the entire idea that Pro has built her argument on this point, and indeed the entire debate, around, accountability, seems to be a one-way street. The problem with this form of "accountability" coming from Joe Citizen is that there is no ability to make them accountable in reverse. Indeed, with today's technology, there is little to no available means except outright illegality to control the use of these devices for recording purposes during police interactions. Why is this important? Because with Joe Citizen's ability to record any time, any where, police are going to be subject to that person's biases, positive or negative, and the fact that such personal media can be transmitted to people everywhere, including to criminal sources which will use such information to their advantage. This is not a random theory, either - criminals are using the internet in increasing ways to get around the police[1]. Given the fact that police officers will have no effective ability to keep those with personal recording devices from committing such acts except to stop them on-the-spot, it seems highly questionable to allow Joe Citizen to keep police officers accountable - something I support - when there is no way to keep them accountable if they themselves break the law and jeopardize officer's safety and ability to keep the peace. The second point that Pro contests is the question of whether or not police officers would be hampered by the knowledge that they were being recorded; Pro, obviously, answers that it is an irrelevant question, as officers in such a situation should not have to act outside of their own respective boundaries, and if they do, should be able to justify such actions whether or not they're recorded. A fair, if misguided answer to this important point; the question, however, is not whether the officers can explain themselves in these situations - no doubt they can if their actions are justified - but whether the officers will feel safe to do them at all. Indeed, and my opponent must agree, something that hampers an officer's ability to make quick decisions on their feet is something that should be looked at with a very skeptical eye as to whether or not it should even be there! Fear is a highly motivating factor in every decision a person makes, and officers do not have the security of knowing whether or not their actions will get accolades or boos. Adding another pressure to the situation, with cameras rolling, is not necessarily a good idea in an uncontrolled environment. The third point my opponent notes is that she doesn't know the many regulations and restrictions that govern actions that police officers take out on a beat, during operations, and even during their off-duty periods[2]. The majority of officers follow these rules, and the violators out there that don't should be dealt with, I agree. However, how lacking knowledge on police regulations, and pointing out that bad people exist is an argument, I have no idea. The fourth point my opponent addresses is one dear to my heart - citizen journalism. My opponent has wildly misrepresented my position on this, though not necessarily by her own fault - clarity is something that should always come with a statement like the one I made. My entire point of mentioning the citizen journalism aspect of this was the fact that it can be quite easily distorted for uses beyond those of Pro's noble crusade for accountability. I need not explain the fact that America's national media is already biased beyond all belief, especially to a Canadian used to relatively unbiased public broadcasting. Those biases are in fact bred and fed by the opinions of everyday people, and people seek to exploit this. Notably, people like Andrew Breitbart, or those guys who tapped a sitting Senator's phone lines[3], who try and build a career out of it. The point is this: citizen journalism is fine, and I support it, as clearly does my opponent. But citizen journalism has its positives, and its clear negatives - one of them being that information can be easily distorted to not only change contexts and situations, but often maliciously so, for whatever reason. Police officers, who are to remain impartial and trusted among their respective communities as keepers of the peace, are undermined by the actions of quite a few people who hold the view that officers, no matter their intentions, no matter their standing, and no matter their actions, are basically the scourge of the Earth. Officers, who by a large majority follow the rules and regulations of their profession, do not need such people having the ability to do so, without accountability or measure. My opponent's main argument and conclusion is simply as follows: because police officers have authority, and can abuse this authority, citizens should have means of holding to account police officers. Personal recording devices give citizens the means, and should therefore be legally allowed to record during police interactions. And you know what - I agree with her, or at least her sentiment that police officers must be held accountable. That is an obvious no-brainer, and one that is hard to argue against. But the caveat that recording technology is an acceptable means of achieving those ends is, simply put, wrong. My opponent cites cases, and how in the aftermath the evidence that was provided, photographic evidence of bruises, was not sufficient, and how if a recording device were present, and the user could record without any fear of punishment, the evidence would have been sufficient to win the case. However, not only does my opponent not know whether or not it would have made a difference, indeed it's an almost irrelevant point to bring up, as recording devices were not present anyways. Even in a hypothetical situation where devices could have been present, and recording was fully legal, would those recording still not fear some reprisal? If the police officer's authority and discretion is so great, would it really make a difference whether it was legal or not? Indeed, when you get right down to it, the question isn't whether or not recording the will make a difference, but whether or not the police should have that kind of authority at all. Do not confuse my position with that of someone who is against First Amendment rights, as stipulated in your Constitution - I fully support your ability to think, do, and say what you please. But like any civil right, it is dependent upon your ability to do so without harmful consequences to other individuals and the public at-large. The ability to record police interactions, whether or not it is in a justified situation with clear-cut abuse, is not necessarily a neutral action; while you may be able to punish abusers, you will also punish those who do not. While you may hold police accountable, the police may not be able to hold those with malicious purposes accountable. And while you may think you're doing the community a service, you may in fact be undermining law enforcement's ability to connect and protect the community they're in. Thank you to Lwerd, and I hope to continue this debate further, as I have much more to say! Sources: 1. . http://bit.ly... 2. . http://bit.ly... 3. . http://bit.ly...

Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards. Placing cameras into courtrooms encourages the judiciary and lawyers to increase their efficiency and have high standards of behaviour, because they are aware that it will be carried outside of the courtroom by public viewing. The introductions of cameras to the Houses of Parliament in the UK resulted in significantly improved standards of debate, greater punctuality, and greater attendance of MPs[1]. We can expect this same principle to continue in courtrooms when cameras are put in place. [1] http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmbroad/642/64205.htm, accessed 06/08/11

Would be very hard to maintain In saving the lives and welfare of potentially thousands of children, this hardly matters. Yes, it would be extra work, but this does not compare to the welfare of the children of our society. It would also create many extra jobs and reduce unemployment in the country. Wilkseyboy agreeing wholeheartedly with above. To no opposite there are enough police and office staff to cover it. It will give many something to do anyway. I occasions I see them it is for the curry run in the cars or vans to avoid the 400 mtr walk,or on one of the many many tv programes,cops with cameras,cop chase etc etc. Prior to Christmas there were 7 tv programmes with different police authorities across the country. Yes, more cameras,more checks,and more parents informed about deviant characters. Children are more important.

A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police Excellent point I too believe that if people were to go around recording any LEO such as an undercover officer it could have very negative side affects such as aiding a criminal escape. As with any law there are stipulations that go along with the law such as the "Stand your ground law" in Florida. You cannot simply run up to someone and start attacking them and then claim you were just defending yourself when its all said and done. A law that would give citizens the right to record interactions with law enforcements should only apply when the officer is the one to start the interaction such as a traffic stop or when an officer comes to your property. Someone recording an undercover officer should be punished for it as the officer has not engaged them. This law would be to protect the citizens from police misconduct and to validate the story of both parties. Cops are already allowed to legally record citizens even without our consent but often times their dashboard cameras don't catch the entire situation leaving gaps in the story. As for exposing traffic patrols this has been a heated debate in Florida for a while now. The people believe that flashing your lights to warn of a speed trap is a form of communication which is protected under the 1st amendment and there are some cops that will not argue that but the majority do.In 2005 a Florida judge ruled that the statute did no make it illegal to warn people of speed traps. These illegal tickets resulted in people paying over 1,042,900 to the state. Everyone should have accountability for their actions LEO included. This is just speed traps, this isn't counting all the other illegal acts that the police commit some of which are physically assaulting people. Recording interactions with law enforcement would force the police to act with proper conduct. Citizens have a right to protect themselves from an abusive law enforcement. There should also be more severe consequences for LEO that are caught in illegal acts. The first video shows the misconduct of the police but the vast majority of these situations go unrecorded. Who can protect us when the ones who are trusted to do so are the ones that threaten us? http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be... http://www.leftlanenews.com...

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thank you for your quick response, Lwerd. 1. My opponent seems to have missed the point presented; while I make no claims to the contrary that there exists police abuse out there, my point is that giving Joe Citizen a camera may not lead to the proper use of such video as my opponent describes, in a court of law to catch these abusers. Much like the "nanny cam" example my opponent gave, unless a crime is actually committed, what purpose is there to it? Given that nanny cams have also been used to violate privacy in voyeur cases, there clearly is many alternative uses for nanny cames that may not quite fall under my opponent's consent. This is the same issue that comes with recording interactions with the police; what is actually right, and what is blatantly a violation of privacy and protection? 2. My source, if Pro had followed along as intended, was to demonstate the fact that the internet has given criminal networks a completely new tool to affect police operations - nothing more, nothing less. Moving on, the entire idea has been this: the internet, modern mass media, and other things allows people with a certain bias to do what they will with whatever they have, regardless of the consequences it can create. My point has been that police - also people too - are going to be subjected to unnecessary stress caused by videos that scrutinize actions, or just plainly misrepresent the facts, not to mention the privacy concerns, recognized already by courts, for which much of the current laws in place are based on[1]. 3. My opponent forgets that, going with her example, in order to stop many drinking and driving cases, there has been a major campaign, supported by police, to stop inebriated drivers from even getting into a car - stopping the problem before it becomes one, because how do we know they won't kill someone? The same is true with recording the police; without the benefit of hindsight, we don't know what their actions will lead to. My opponent wants to punish those that breach this right; so, like drunk driving, is it not better to stop it before it even happens? I'm not talking about illegalizing recording devices, here, any more than I'd advocate illegalizing alcohol - just that we need to stop a problem, like drunk driving, from occuring before it even happens. 4. Aside from the amusing noting of using Nags as a source, my opponent misses the point. She says police should feel comfortable - they don't. Several officers have testified to this fact[2]. In a study done by a British organization, interviewing police officers who were being recorded by Britain's extensive CCTV system (their own recording system, nonetheless!), the report found "... When asked whether the introduction of surveillance cameras had affected their work, themajority of police officers interviewed initially responded by stating that the presence of CCTV had not had any impact on the way in which they carried out their duties or exercised their powers.... When pressed on the issue of how CCTV had affected their behaviour on the streets, however, over two-thirds of the officers interviewed conceded that the introduction of cameras had forced them to be ‘more careful' when out on patrol. 10 Some, for example, had heard stories of officers being prosecuted for unlawful arrest or assault on the basis of CCTV evidence, stories that had left them anxious about being watched and the possibility of their own activities being scrutinised. Others, particularly younger officers, found being under constant surveillance made them nervous and uncomfortable." The very same report also has officers praising this, and also has officers saying that they're afraid of actions being "misrepresented," apparently a very common concern among officers. Clearly, an issue exists, even if my opponent says it shouldn't. 5(a). My opponent didn't look through my source, then. 5(b). This issue was addressed above; recording, like drinking, may not lead to misrepresentative video or drunk driving, but without benefit of hindsight, we don't know - hence why preventative measures should be in place. 6. Again, above. 7. My opponent should note that I said that with exceptions; recording technology, and the ability to record officers willy-nilly for whatever reason, is not an effective way of keeping police accountable. It can, no doubt about that - and those incidents should be protected under law. But, related to the next point, even if recording has been made illegal, the video survives, as it must still be used in court as evidence of any crime being committed; for those officers truly worried about their actions and being charged, it doesn't matter if it is illegal or not, as they will try to stop it anyways. 8. My opponent missed the point; the issue is whether or not officers who are truly bent on doing harm would tolerate video recording anyways, whether it was legal or not. The common sense answer is a plain no; if an officer wants to make good on any threat, he will, and would most likely dispose of any video recording, or audio, or whatever, anyways. Under the current laws in place, the recording survives still as evidence of a crime being committed - meaning that, officers doing wrong or right being recorded must maintain the integrity of that recording in order for any charge to come up. Officers wanting to do harm, do not. 9. In conclusion, again, my opponent has not refuted my positions effectively. Recording the police in abusive situations is fantastic - but if its not happening, why should Joe Citizen be able to unnerve officers, misrepresent facts, and have free will to violate officers privacy? It makes little sense, and I urge a vote for CON. Thank you, and good luck in the last round, L. Sources: 1. http://www.citmedialaw.org... 2. http://www.surveillance-and-society.org...

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Thanks, Volkov. To begin this debate, I'd like to start by first examining the negative position before segueing into my own. In a recent forum, my opponent has cited 4 reasons for his advocacy in not allowing interaction with police officers to be recorded: 1) Cops will be unnecessarily scrutinized 2) Cops need to react to a situation quickly 3) Cops already have a lot of restrictions 4) Everyone need not be a journalist These are the statements Con should be held accountable for defending [1]. Indeed Con is not the only one to hold this position; many officials have defended laws that prohibit recording cops noting similar reasons of precaution and safety. However the laws prohibiting audio recording are actually eavesdropping and wiretap laws that were designed to protect private conversations. So the question becomes: what is private and what is not? This distinction further becomes unclear when you consider the fact that the government can legally record citizens (so why not the other way around?). Let's look at Con's first point. He notes that the problem of recording is that cops will then be judged for their actions, no matter how justified. Of course I see no problem with this and in fact regard it as a good thing. If a situation arises and a cop reacts in accordance to his or her training, then his action is *justified* and he has no reason to fear this law. Now, Con's response will presumably be that the government uses the same excuse (that only wrong-doers need worry) when justifying the privacy invasion of citizens through cameras and other means. I negate. I contend that the comparison is far from analogous considering the role and authority that police offers have in society compared to regular citizens. For instance, if I walked up to a stranger and asked to see his ID, they would probably look at me and tell me to bugger off. However if a PO made the same request, one would typically surrender their ID and follow any other instructions given. Further, if I were to randomly attack someone in the street, people may attempt to jump in or call the police to rectify the situation. However in an instance where a PO was seen in the same circumstance, people's reaction would be a lot different. My point here is this: If you're going to give someone as much power and authority as POs have, then there should be a lot of checks on that power to ensure no rampant abuse - as history shows us that power tends to manifest "power trips" among those with authority [2]. Con's second point was that cops must always be on their toes, and not have to second-guess their actions in life or death situations. However, it logically follows that if one's life was in fact threatened, that reacting accordingly would not warrant any unjust attention or punishment. Due to the risk involved in a profession such as law enforcement, it's reasonable to consider the threats one endures and assess whether or not their reaction was appropriate. Next, Con points out that cops "already have to worry about restrictions." To me this seems a bit comical. Cops are given far more leeway in their authority than almost any other profession (aside from the military or other government agencies). These 'restrictions' are completely unclear to me. In 2006, numerous cops in plain clothes approached Sean Bell and friends in a car, and shot the three of them over 50 times in a matter of seconds [3]. The officers were found not guilty of any crime. In 1999, completely unarmed Amadou Diallo was shot 41 times by more cops in plain clothes [4]. Again, all officers were found not guilty of any crime. So far history shows us that police can do the most heinous and unjustified things (not necessarily these 2 examples, but in general) and get away with it [2]. So, Con will have to expand on this point and explain to me the "restrictions" cops apparently have to worry about, considering they are typically not held accountable for their crimes. Finally, Con asks why "everyone has to be a journalist" and report things like this "whether they're justified or not." I'll be frank -- to me this is an absurd question, but one that segues perfectly into the affirmative aspect of this debate. Citizens should be empowered to impose limits on the State by holding them accountable and subject to the same standards of civilians. There are far too many circumstances in which police completely abuse their power and authority! Thanks to recording technology, we have been able to catch a significant number of police acting completely outside their realm of authority to abuse their power and subject citizens to unjust treatment. One site depicts a cop arresting a Burger King employee because he THINKS she gave him the wrong change. The site also shows a cop threatening to ruin this kids life *by making up charges* after pulling this kid over for parking a suspicious vehicle in a commuter lot. You can also watch a cop knee a 70 year old lady in the forehead [5]. Stories of police brutality or other wrongful prejudice and attacks are NOT few and far between. In fact, a quick Google search or perusal of YouTube details millions of cases. I think almost everyone can recount a bad experience with a police officer. The bottom line is this: Because cops have so much power and influence in the legal community, ensuring that they're acting in accordance with the power bestowed upon them is paramount to upholding justice. I previously mentioned a cop threatening to make up false accusations that could literally ruin a young person's life. This is criminal and officers like this need to be caught and punished. The only way to gain proof of these acts is to record it. A "he said, she said" situation with a cop usually ALWAYS winds up in the cop's favor, making tangible evidence not only an asset but a requirement if you expect results. Additionally, I noted earlier that these laws were originally derived to protect private conversations. However, if a cop is talking to me, is this a "private conversation?" It seems logical that because I am a part of the conversation, that it does not exclude me from said conversation or the rights to said conversation - including recording it. However one Chicago man was arrested and released on 20,000$ bond simply for recording his own arrest [6]. He is being put on trial for an offense which carries with it a 4-15 year jail time penalty. This makes the eavesdropping law completely baseless considering it's not "eavesdropping" if one is being directly addressed! Now, considering all of the power an officer has in not only using discretion to determine if an arrest is necessary or not (consider, for example, the Burger King case I mentioned) but the fact that cops can and do assault people in the process of these arrests signifies that recording should be an option when you factor in how many times the events that took place either directly prior to or during the arrest have an impact in the ultimate court case that ensue. When my ex was bludgeoned by officers, the plethora of pictures of her black-and-blued body taken directly after the incident were not enough to incriminate the cops because there was no proof that the bruises were from them. Had evidence been allowed to be submitted (without fear of further punishment), she could have proven her case and had the officers appropriately disciplined. However without permissible evidence, there is no way to get these cops punished. Cops' word always have greater weight. I'm out of characters for now, but I greatly look forward to further proving my case in the upcoming rounds. Back to you, Volkov! [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com...

Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary. If the defendant is convicted of a crime, they have a right to appeal in the UK[1] and US[2]. However, this is made difficult for another court to re-assess the conviction if they cannot know how reliable evidence was in the first trial. Without film recordings of court trials, judges who have the duty to re-examine the case are unable to see witness testimonies; though new evidence does sometimes come to light during the course of an appeal[3], it would be easier to assess this new evidence if the judges also had knowledge of how the first trial went. If the judges could watch a video of the first trial, they could judge the demeanour, body language and general impression given by each witness in the first trial. Body language can affect a court’s perception of a witness[4], but this information could not be gained by a transcript. However, this evidence may be important for a new verdict to be reached. [1] http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-in-detail/jud-acc-ind/right-2-appeal, accessed 18/08/11 [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28a/usc_sec_28a_00000003----000-.html, accessed 18/08/11 [3] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011213/pendle-1.htm, accessed 18/08/11 [4] http://www.maritimeconsultant.com/macnewsletters/fall90/courtroom_dynamics.htm, accessed 18/08/11

Police Should Be Armed Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gu...

Most Police Officers Should Not Carry Firearms Understanding the SituationUnfortunately, it has become all too common to hear the disturbing news of yet another incident in the United States where the use of Deadly Force via Firearms by the Police has resulted in yet another death.In 2014 alone, the FBI reports 396 "justifiable homicides" committed by Police. This represents "the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer", and doesn't include any persons killed by a law enforcement officer who were not felons. https://ucr.fbi.gov...So, what exactly is "Justifiable Homicide"?"a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...IdealsDiscussions regarding the appropriate usage of firearms in the line of duty aren't new. This essay, written in 1950 by associates at Northwestern University School of Law, depicts a strong outline for proper behaviour.One of the strongest and most emphasized points in this essay is the need for a felony to have already occurred or be currently in progress. If an arrest is being made for a misdemeanor and the arresstee is resisting or attempting to flee, the use of a firearm is not justified.Even if the crime is a felony and the suspected felon is resisting or attempting to flee, every effort should be taken by the officer to not use his firearm.A firearm is a not to be used as an intimidation device or in an effort to make a subject comply with orders. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...If we are to agree that this model of behaviour is ideal, it should be reasonable to think that officers who do not routinely deal with suspected felons have little to no need to have a firearm. Even officers who do carry should only use their firearms as an absolutely last resort. Setting The BarListen, as silly as it may seem, I am certainly not the first person to have this idea. There are many countries that do not permit their officers to carry or use firearms in the line of duty. These aren't new developments either."In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. Police are only equipped with firearms in special circumstances."https://www.washingtonpost.com...Even in countries, like Iceland, that have relatively high percentages of armed citizens this strategy of low-armament by the police force seems to work. http://www.csmonitor.com...Let's get one thing straight, despite not carrying firearms, these officers are not entirely "unarmed" or "defenseless". It's common to see many officers of type being issued Tazers, Billy Clubs/Whacking Sticks, and Mace. Again, I'm not trying to say that all officers must be unarmed. There should definitely be a contingent that is armed and ready to respond. In Iceland, the only officers that are allowed to actually carry are called the "Viking Squad". These armed units specialize in hostage scenarios, anti-terrorism, and other high-stakes operations.http://criminologycareers.about.com...This all culminates in the fact that countries that restrict firearm usage by their Police have significantly lower rates of "justifiable homicide". Even when Police in these countries do use their firearms, they do not shoot to kill unless absolutely necessary. Moral and Philosophical QuestionsI hold that it is the duty of Police to protect citizens at peril to themselves. Much like the military, these brave men and women should be expected to put their lives on the line in order to protect our freedom. To these few brave individuals we grant the power to take the lives of others. A monopoly on violence, given through the consent of the governed.There is nothing honorable about taking the lives of others.We grant Police and the Military this power not because they risk their own lives, but so that they don't have to risk the lives of the people they are supposed to protect. This is what makes these occupations honorable and commendable. This why we as a society should be able to look up to these individuals. They don't kill in order to protect themselves, they kill to protect us.ConclusionTraffic Cops do not need to be packing heat when they pull over your grandmother for running a red light. Beat Cops do not need to be packing heat as they patrol your neighborhood. Uniformed officers do not need to be locked and loaded as they respond to general calls. Am I arguing that the Police shouldn't be able to kill other people? I certainly am not. The use of deadly force can be justified in certain situations. We need armed officers to mitigate situations like Georgia Tech, the Aurora Theater Shootings, and other incidents where the lives of citizens are in grave danger. However, we have good examples of other modern countries that are able to keep the peace without arming every Officer.Obviously, these other countries are not the United States. There are a lot of other factors that affect the ability of Police to do their jobs without firearms. Officer education and training, officer pay, community relationships, and overall cultural attitudes play a major role in how successful they can be. This is by no means the solution to the the problems manifested in recent years by United States Police.However, I do believe that restricting firearms to select officers will be a major stride towards creating a relationship of trust and respect between Police and Citizens, reducing the potential for abuse of power, and creating a safer society.

Police Should Be Armed Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europ...

If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue. Cameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.

Resolved: Governmental implementation of surveillance cameras in public places are beneficial. Introduction: Former Governor of Connecticut Jodi Wells was once quoted in saying, “At the end of the day, the goals are simple: safety and security.” Security and safety are essentials to living a happy, contented life. When individuals feel insecure, problems ensue. A just government should do all they can to ensure a secure and safe life for their citizens. It is because I believe that the goals politician Jodi Wells mentioned are achievable, I affirm the resolution which asks: “Should governments install surveillance cameras in public places?” To begin, I would like to point out a few terms mentioned in the resolution. Governments: The term implies that the ones in power of the country/state/city/etc. are installing these surveillance devices. As the government in the resolution is not specified as federal, it should not be restricted to such. Surveillance Cameras: Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "surveillance" as the act of carefully watching someone or something, especially in order to prevent or detect crime. Cameras are obviously going to be a tool used to achieve surveillance. Thus, these cameras' primary purpose will be used as a form of security. Public places: I will once again use Merriam-Webster dictionary to define this term; exposed to general view. As an area where it is obviously going to be exposed to general view, privacy should not be an issue. With this in mind, let us move on to the remainder of the case. Benefits of Surveillance Outweigh Supposed Harms: Security is inevitably achieved for public places. As brought up by politician Jodi Wells, the goals of the government and for people in general includes security. It is a big problem, and we should be concerned about it. Recently, the city of Baltimore installed over 600 surveillance cameras all around the city. The reasoning behind this is simple. In a study taken by NeighborhoodScout, they found that Baltimore was one of the top 20 (18 to be exact) most dangerous cities in the United States. [1] Danger comes in all forms, but one is generally of more prominence--crime. Surveillance cameras, being their primary purpose, would assist in dealing with crime. With crime running rampant, people cannot feel secure in simply going to a public place. When individuals are in fear, they definitely aren’t secure in the power or ability of their government. These cameras can also prove what actually happened, rather than unreliable “eyewitness” accounts. The majority of the time, these accounts aren’t the whole truth. As law professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law explains, “People are notoriously bad at observing and remembering exactly what happened.” [2] Either one of two things is the result of such fallible memory: 1) they can’t remember exactly what happened, so they tell the closest to accurate tale they can, or 2) they have the liberty to blatantly lie to law enforcement. Neither result is beneficial to achieving justice in whatever matter is at hand. With surveillance cameras strategically positioned in public areas, they can accurately display the chain of events. People will be secure in knowing that judgment that is due will be given, and any harm caused will be adequately dealt with. Surveillance cameras also have benefits in school settings. They allow students to be physically, mentally, and emotionally safe. School shootings are becoming distressing problems, and many people are worried about the safety of their students. Security cameras can allow teachers and school guards (which many schools now have) to monitor any intruder that may approach the campus. If a suspect becomes aggressive, the school can monitor the actions of the attacker to prevent students from being in harms way. If the students can be mentally and emotionally safe, they will be better able to concentrate on their assignments and increase productivity. Privacy is Not a Valid Argument: The resolution explicitly states that it is referring to public places. If an individual is in a public place, it is reasonable to expect exposure to everyone. By going to a public place, every individual temporarily gives up their right to complete privacy. People (in most scenarios) are already allowed to film in public without requiring explicit consent from other individuals. Surveillance cameras only validate that right on a government level. A common argument against this relates to how the government seems “stalkerish” and how they However, the resolution clearly states that it is referring to a public place. Eugene Volokh once again explains, “These cameras are in public places, where people’s faces and cars are visible to everyone.” People are already going places where ANYONE can see them. That’s more people than would see government surveillance films. Furthermore, the information will only be accessed when needed, not out of leisure or stalking purposes. These surveillance programs simply allow the footage to exist in case a problem needs to be addressed. Even if people think privacy is harmed, the simple fact is that it is not. The security cameras are in public places, and there is always private areas which are not monitored. Problems Remain Unsolved Without Surveillance: Court decisions can only go off of the evidence they have, and from there, their only option would be to trust witness accounts. In practically every case, each witness account contradicts with another in some way, shape, or form. Solvencies for these types of discrepancies are easily discovered by systems of surveillance by the government. Police tickets for running red lights, stop signs, and other traffic related difficulties would be cleared up simply by using surveillance programs. Not only would these unsolved problems be solved, but it would discourage individuals from committing crimes when they feel they have a regulated sense of accountability and punishment for illegal or adverse behavior. There simply is so many benefits and no real arguments as to why we should not have public places under surveillance that the resolution should be affirmed by any just government seeking to protect its citizens. Once again, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and would wish him/her the best of luck!Sources:....................................................................................................................................................................................................[1] http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...[2] http://www2.law.ucla.edu...

Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy) I apologize for not knowing the specifics of policy debate and I will continue. Mandate 1. Similar as in exactly the same. But, this mandate is unreasonable because it relies upon a majority of Congressmen and women from both parties magically agreeing on this one issue, which they have not done so in the past. It may be the correct enforcement but, it is not reasonable to assume Congress will magically agree on this one particular issue. I have shown in the past bills pertaining to the exact thing you are arguing have not passed, therefore, it is not reasonable it will pass in the future. Mandate 2. You never answered the question of why can't an officers notes be admissible? Just because there is other evidence does not necessarily another account is bad. 2) The more safeguards the better. 3) If the suspect knows something that is not supposed to be publicized...then it would not be publicized. Funding I have provided a Senatorial Source showing you cannot estimate the cost of this policy. Even with my opponents logic there are problems. 1. My opponent has provided no working link for the 7,500 dollars, and this 7,500 dollars would be an INITIAL cost of outfitting each interrogation room. There is still the cost of where to store the recordings, etc. I mean certain states have found the cost to be as high as 30,000 dollars....per session (1), and on a federal level this could be much higher. 2. Why would each room be used only 10 times per year? I mean when conducting a case EVERYTHING must be recorded not just suspects, you have to interrogate witnesses, family, etc. Each case could bring in over 10 people that need to be interviewed/interrogated all this must be recorded. 3. Until you provide a working link I hold this number highly doubtable. And even if 175,000 people are interrogated wouldn't this number change year to year? 4. Why only 17,500 interrogation rooms? There are hundreds maybe even thousands of Department of Justice buildings simply because there are many, many different agencies and divisions under the Department of Justice. Including the FBI, USMS, BOP, ATF, DEA, OIG, INTERPOL, etc. You cannot estimate the number of rooms, simply because there are to many interrogation rooms to deal with. 5. You cannot estimate the total cost of this program (if there is more crime each year it could cost more that year then years with less crime). As for "police departments" choosing, on a federal level there are no "police departments". So would the FBI (for example) or the DOJ choose where these interrogation systems go? Advantage 1. 1. What about something like sleep deprivation? Or withholding food or water? They are considered improper tactics how can this be recorded? 2. How do you know there will be a deterrence factor? An there is never any physical abuse simply because that is to easy to spot. Police officers almost never physically abuse (as in punch for example) a suspect simply because it is counter-productive and any "evidence" received will be thrown right out. 3. There still will be unwarranted allegations whether or not this is used. The person would now complain they were "tricked" into confessing and they never actually committed the crime. Advantage 2. Wrongful Convictions 1. I have provided very credible sources, in a large police department and a University, giving these numbers. Furthermore, your source says three things AND a false confession meaning all of them tie to the false confession. So that statement was talking about false confessions. Advantage 3 and 6. There will still be pre-trials and motions. The defense will argue their suspects constitutional rights were violated by such and such. They will file motions whether or not the notes are hand-written or not. They want to win. Overwhelming the prosecutors with motions is a good way to do that. Furthermore, in order to see whether to confession was obtained legally they will have to review the ENTIRE confession. A suspect can be held legally without charges filed against them (no evidence) for 24 hours without charges being filed (and if it is a terror suspect this turns to indefinitely under the Patriot Act). Do you think the FBI is just going to let them sit there without being talked to or interrogated? No. They are going to interrogate this person extensively to try and gain information, yes. This can last for hours. All this has to be recorded and replayed as part of the trial meaning MORE TIME. Once charges are filed, they can be held until their trial date. Meaning this could be months. So guess what? More interrogations, all of which have to be recorded and replayed as evidence. More video that needs to be played=much more time spent. This is also discounting the time the prosecutors will have to use to review all of this video, who knows how long that would take. Interrogations are not short and sweet as Pro seems to think. Advantage 4. The state police are much different from the federal police. Anyway, I shall continue. Let's say for a second that it can be estimated how much it will cost the DOJ to implement this plan. The question is, how many manhours will be spent reviewing these long videos of interrogations making sure no abuse was carried out? All interrogations and interviews must be recorded. But, not all suspects confess to a crime, even if they committed the crime. These interrogations are long and they will have to be reviewed. Time is money. How can a defendant claim physical abuse? Physical abuse causes bodily harm. If there is no actual evidence they were abused....they were not abused. Advantage 5. My opponent seems to think this is what will happen in an interrogation. "Suspect: I didn't do it...I never jumbled up my words. Interrogator: wait a second while I go review what you said on the video screen outside" That will never happen. The interrogator is not going to get up. They still will have to take notes as to recall what the suspect said earlier in the interrogation as to use it against them later. The only difference now is their notes will not be admissible as evidence. but, they still will have to take them. Significance A questionable, 175,000 suspects are interrogated each year for hours on end. Another half of a million non-suspects, and witnesses are questioned for hours at a time. This means hours and hours of video and sound have to be reviewed by the prosecutors. Time is money. This will take much more time costing much more money. Conclusion: I believe I have resolved the issue of "fiat power" in stating it is unreasonable to assume Congress will suddenly come to an agreement on this issue when they have not done so in the past. My evidence is completely valid. The two bills show your first mandate is unreasonable to assume. False confessions being extremely rare is completely relevant as it is one reason to put it in place. My opponents advantages can be summed up as such: 1. Protection- my opponent has not showed there will in every case be a deterrence factor. 2. Decreased wrongful convictions- over false confessions which happen rarely 3. Money- logically, prosecutors and defense attorneys will have to review hours of video and sound. Time is money. 4. Increased evidence- the Interrogator will still take notes. Source: 1. http://www.legis.nd.gov...

Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised I thank dasamster for his arguments. To make my post easier to read, I have split it into several sections. === BURDEN OF PROOF === I would firstly like to clarify the burden of proof in this debate: it is on Pro to show that cameras benefit the judicial system as a whole. As Con, I need only show that what dasamster suggests isn't necessary for an effective judiciary. I will also show how allowing cameras into the courtroom actively undermines the justice system, but (although hopefully convincing) it is not strictly necessary for me to do this in order to win this debate. With that in mind, I move onto... === REBUTTAL === Dasamster's arguments can be split into four basic strands, which I shall deal with separately. Before I do so, I point out the interesting nature of the sources which he quoted - more specifically, the first one [1]. The interesting thing is that this is actually a source that argues my side of the debate, and so when I quote from it, not only am I quoting the words of a former Justice of the New York Supreme Court, I am quoting someone who dasamster apparently believes to be authoritative enough to quote himself - thus, my use of his own source against him will prove especially damaging as I lay out my case. Moving on to dasamster's first argument: 1) That public confidence will be improved This clearly need not be a speculative question, as the U.S. has had cameras in the courtroom for a long time already - indeed, TruTV (formerly Court TV) was set up for this very purpose in 1991. [2] So for this argument to be effective, dasamster needs to give us some evidence that American public confidence in the judiciary has indeed improved since then. He has not done so. Indeed, retired Justice Siracuse says in the aforementioned source quoted by dasamster himself: "...we have seen increasing television coverage of trials, not only in New York but across the country. In the same period public confidence in the judicial system -- and, indeed, in the entire legal profession -- has plunged. By any measure one cares to use, the judiciary is held in lower esteem now than at any time within memory." [1] Dasamster's appeal to an alleged "increase in public confidence" needs to survive this difficulty. It has not yet done so. 2) That the judiciary system suffers ridicule in the media, giving an unrepresentative image of the justice system I agree that this is the case. However, it isn't clear how this would change under dasamster's proposal - after all, the overwhelming majority of people would not have the time nor inclination to watch the actual court trials themselves. They generally consider themselves to have more important things to do, such as going to work and school, having dinner or watching the football/baseball/other-sport-of-choice. Even those who watch trials on TruTV will generally only have the time/inclination to watch the edited highlights - in other words, the parts deemed by the media to be the most important parts of the trial. This is exactly what they do at present in the courtroom, and any ridicule or unrepresentative image presented at the moment would only continue with trials recorded by camera. 3) People have a right to access the justice system, and so should be allowed to watch court proceedings at a time that suits them. Yes, people have a right to know what happens in the justice system. Yes, they have a right to transparency. This does not, however, lead to a right for the general public to know absolutely everything about any particular trial: too much information has a dilutary effect. It becomes impossible for them to know what information they need to know, and they become overwhelmed by what's available – this can serve no useful purpose to anyone. Instead, the general public only have a right to know the salient details: broadly speaking, the key evidence presented, the verdict given, and the reason behind the verdict. This is already given by the media in news and analysis, and by the judge and the courts in published verdicts and court reports. There is no need for cameras in the courtroom. 4) The justice system needs to serve an educational purpose, which is not served without cameras in the courtroom Dasamster specifies the two types of people who may wish to view court proceedings: non-lawyers and those in law school. But for neither of these groups is it necessary to introduce cameras. To the first group: a commentary for non-lawyers already happens through media reports, and it is not clear why dasamster believes that allowing cameras into the courtroom makes the situation better. Indeed, I've already shown how nothing would ever change if cameras are allowed into the courtroom. The second group, namely lawyers, already have enough information about what happens in the courtroom! Full transcripts of what transpired in the courtroom are already typed up by stenographers in the court, the reasons behind the judge's verdicts are already publicised and used in law classes, and many law schools have mooting and advocacy practice sessions to prepare the student for public speaking in the courtroom. Plus, after all, the law student will surely be able to supplement this already-extensive experience through actually watching a trial from the public gallery in their spare time... what more preparation could dasamster possibly want law students to have? I hope it is clear from all of the foregoing why dasamster's arguments fall. I shall now seek to solidify my case by introducing... === SUBSTANTIVE === The justice system is primarily about ensuring that the right verdict is reached according to the evidence presented: any educational purpose is surely secondary to this goal. As retired Justice Siracuse quotes approvingly in the source used by dasamster himself: "The purpose of the court is not education or spectacle or public entertainment, but justice." [1] It is surely right that transparency in the justice system is also a key part, but this is already reached through what happens anyway: the use of cameras is not necessary here. Given that it is not necessary, the dangers that surround the use of cameras should serve to warn us away from putting them in the courtroom. These mostly derive from the increased pressure on participants within the trial itself, as naturally, by making intimate court proceedings open to a theoretically infinite audience, more people will see the precise details of what goes on in the courtroom. For reasons of space, I shall deal now mainly with getting witnesses and victims of crime to testify in court, given the importance of this procedure to both sides of the case: to the prosecution, it is important to get eye-witnesses to the crime in order to bolster their case; for the defence, it is important to cross-examine the witnesses to ensure accuracy and consistency in testimony. It is already difficult to convince witnesses and victims to testify for a variety of reasons, from sensitivity to active or indirect intimidation. This problem has been identified for many decades, and indeed centuries, with one New York Times article (for instance) raising this issue as far back as 1894. [3] Publicising the identifiable faces, mannerisms and actions of witnesses, and thus putting this information into the public domain could only ever serve to increase this problem. In conclusion, we shouldn't have cameras in the courtroom. It doesn't create any of the benefits that dasamster wants to show, thus his proposition falls; in addition, the consequent active harms only serve to strengthen rejection of this policy. Vote Con. Sources [1] http://amsir.home.isp-direct.com... [2] http://www.trutv.com... [3] http://query.nytimes.com...

Absolutely! I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.

Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy) Mandate 1: Mandatory Recording My opponents entire policy reform rests upon such a law being passed by Congress. There have been multiple attempts to pass such a law (or something similar to it) within the United States. Both H. R. 6245 [111th] and H. R. 3027, state the exact policy you want implemented it did not pass Congress, it did not pass the Committee and has not been reintroduced. Congress does not want this passed (1, 2). Proposed twice, failed twice. It would be a waste of time to try a third time. Mandate 2: Inadmissibility Why can't handwritten notes not be accepted as evidence? Even if somehow a bill magically passes Congress and the President signs it into law, there is still a video so why not have another person connected to the plaintiff, not just the defense, give a direct perspective of the video. This second mandate creates a biased trial. Mandate 3: Exceptions Once again this bill is highly unlikely to pass Congress. But, if it does. .. 1) They probably would not request this but, okay. 2) Then fix the malfunction and delay the interrogation, or have backup system. 3) What kind of classified information would be leaked? Besides either way anything classified would be censored by either a video and sound technician or the FBI agent (in the case of notes). Funding: By federal agencies. Estimated Cost: 110 million dollars I do not have a problem with the source of funding, I do have a problem with the estimated cost, since my opponent has not provided whether this is solely sound or also video I will say it is both sound and video. My opponents cost for this endeavor is seriously skewed according to Senate Bill 171, the cost of such a bill is completely unknown. You cannot estimate a cost since the cost cannot be estimated. Furthermore, I have a question, where do you propose to get these interrogation systems from? Now the advantages. Advantage 1. In order for this advantage to be valid my opponent must define what an "improper tactic" is. If they refuse this advantage is null and void. Advantage 2. Wrongful confession happen so rarely that reforming the entire practices of the Criminal Justice System is not needed. According to J. P. Blair of the University of Texas San Antonio, and John E. Reid and Associates "99.6% of convictions involving confessions are true and correct. " (3) Even that is a high estimate when "using national estimates of interrogations, arrests, convictions, and error rates, researchers have arrived at estimates of wrongful convictions resulting from false confessions that range from a low of 10 (.001% of all convictions) to a high of 840 (.04% of all convictions) per year. " (4) Why should the entire system be reform for .4%? Advantage 3 and Advantage 6. These two advantages seem to contradict each other. One says expediency meaning quicker trials the other says the jury is going to have to see an entire 12 hour interrogation in order to find inconsistencies. Which one? Advantage 4. The total cost cannot be accurately measured according to the United States Senate. You cannot claim it saves money if there is no accurate cost assessment. Advantage 5. You cannot make this claim because for some people this could be entirely untrue. I, for example, find if I'm in a long boring conversation with another person (or in class) taking notes helps me concentrate. According to you, the opposite should be true. "They no longer have to attempt to recall details about the interviews days and weeks later" is that not what the notes are for? Now I have a very important question. How is this a significant reform? Significant is defined as Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. Seeing as there are some places within the government which are beginning to use electronic interrogation, your own sources state this, then how is it significant it is nothing new this would just be speeding up an already existing practice. Your plan does not fit the scope of the resolution. Source: 1. . http://www.govtrack.us... 2. . http://www.govtrack.us... 3. . http://www.reid.com... 4. . http://www.policechiefmagazine.org...

Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture.  Presently 1.8 million legally held guns are accounted for in the UK.[1] This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career.[2] If being a police officer is a safer job, then there will be a larger applicant pool to choose from, and thus better, more qualified police forces. [1] Legal Community Against Violence, ‘Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines’, 2011, http://www.lcav.org/content/large_capacity_ammunition_magazines.pdf, accessed 20 September 2011 [2] BBC News, ‘Q&A: Armed police in the UK’, 8 June 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10260298, accessed 20 September 2011

Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gu... Routinely arming police officers allows them to defend themselves. There is a global increase in gun ownership, even in countries which did not traditionally think of themselves as having a large criminal gun culture e.g. Great Britain. This increases the risks to frontline police officers of being the victims of gun crime. Police officers should have a right to protect themselves. Fewer officers may die on duty if they were better able to protect themselves. Arming the police is essentially a matter of self-defence rather than being actively involved in regular firearms incidents. This is shown by the fact that most routinely armed police never fire their weapon on active duty in their whole career.

Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy) I'll drop my mandate arguments and continue Cost: 1. Your link to the site is broken. I do see. You have not fixed the link, therefore, we cannot know if this number is even credible. SB 171 "Unknown reimbursable local start-up costs[...]Unknown potential GF trial court savings" (1). It is unknown how much it would cost. 2. Why couldn't there be more interrogation rooms used more than 10 times per year? Most of your links do not work. 3. I do not ignore your evidence...your link continuously fails. And why can it not change drastically year to year? 4. I to can provide my own math. We'll say 175,000 is correct for now. 175,000 suspects * 10 (a low number for a federal case, witnesses, experts, etc.)= 1.75 million people (low estimate) Now my opponent attempts to basically guess how many interrogation rooms the government controls by making up the number 10. But, we'll go with it. Divide by 10 and your at the original 175,000. Now even if we accept the 7,500 dollar per system (could be higher could be lower depending on the training etc.) Your already at a 1.3 billion dollars...this is not taking into account training technicians and storage of the video and sound files. You cannot accurately estimate the cost.... If each chooses their own equipment then couldn't the cost be higher if they choose more expensive equipment? Advantage 1. 1. But, the ones who are abusive will not be deterred. See number 2 for more details. And if you cannot deal with these situations why change the status quo at all? 2. Shall I bring up the DOD and the CIA? How about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharid? They were federal agents. They knew they were not supposed to be doing err...what they were doing (torture). And they did it anyway. Empirical evidence at it's finest. They were not deterred from using TORTURE. What makes my opponent think federal agents within the United States would refrain from say depriving someone of sleep on camera? 3. The United States Supreme Court held in 1969 in Frazier v. Cupp 394 US 731 (1969), that using trickery in interrogation was not a basis to disregard a confession or evidence. Other landmark cases coming to this conclusion include: U.S. v. Harris 914 F.2d 927 (7th Cir. 1990), Holland v. McGinnis 963 F.2d 1044 (7th Cir. 1992), State v. Kelekolio 849 P.2d 58 (Haw. 1993), Lucero v. Kerby 133 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998), and U. S. v. Byram 145 F.3d 405 (1st Cir. 1998). Have I backed this up enough? Advantage 2. 1. I have provided a source, 2 in fact, who have studied these topics for enough time to come to this conclusion. 2. So your source deals with false confessions. If we assume that false confessions happens for such a small minority, why should the entire system be changed for this tiny minority? If something works 97% of the time should it be changed for the sake of the 3%? I say no because we do not know how this will impact the entire system. Advantage 3 and 6. Fine less disputes, this does not change the fact, more time will be spent reviewing all of the interrogations to make a case. Meaning less efficiency and more money used in preparing for a trial...logically, the prosecutors are going to review the videos...my opponent has conceded the time spent reviewing these videos will outweigh the money saved from less disputes. Advantage 4. It's a bit more complicated than just a camera in a room and a control room...but, they are similar. Not exactly the same but, similar. A federal interrogation room is a bit more high tech than say a state police interrogation room. So how exactly does my opponent plan on figuring out whether the video is going to be evidence? By reviewing the weeks worth of interrogation. So here's the choice: video taping weeks worth of interrogations and making the prosecutors review the weeks of interrogations in order to build a case, or make an interrogator rack their brains trying to figure out what happened and come up with a detailed account of the interrogations thus, making the entire process cost less money and take less time to build the case. With detailed enough notes, an interrogator will be able to figure out exactly what happened during the interrogation. Advantage 5. It is completely relevant. I never tried to discount your source. I am merrily stating interrogators will still take notes to recall what happened later on during the interrogation. I'll give you another example, lets take a rather short 5 hour interrogation. The second question asked (this is probably completely wrong) is what color was the car you were driving. The suspect answers blue. The interrogator does not write this down. Fast forward 4 hours. The interrogator asks the same question what color was the car? The suspect this time answers red. Do you think an interrogator will be able to remember such a detail 4 hours later? Most likely, no. Notes will still be taken so they can use the suspects own words against them. This scenario is probably completely off, but, I hope you can see what I'm saying here, no human being can remember trivial details, which may be quite important later without notes. Logic. Significance: Based on logical reasoning it would cost the prosecutors office much more money which is part of it's significance. I would also like to see this survey because upon reading through Mr. Sullivan's paper (or article) I find no mention of a survey. The problem is not that I could not find the source (I figured that out). The real problem is your links were broken. I get a 404 Error Message Screen. (Besides that is the Supreme Court of NJ, not the United States). You still cannot estimate a total cost. Source: 1. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...

The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra... The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent rank and file policemen, and the bodies which speak for the senior officers. If we want them to uphold law and order, we should trust the police's judgement about the tools they need to carry out their task. Recruitment will also suffer if police officers are seen as too vulnerable, an easy target for criminals because they have no proper means to defend themselves.

anything, i can be very argumentative. Should cameras be allowed in the courtroom? I believe it should. Cameras are an amazing invention that capture important moments such as your special day with your beloved as you take your vows in front of the altar. But in the case of the courtroom, it's to capture those overwhelming moments if the defendant is guilty or not. The thing is without footage of the case, we have to rely on media to give the report and there have been cases where the information is misleading. Not only that, but we become biased. We are much more likely to hear about people who are released from prison if they murder someone than if they don't. Newspapers are not likely to have headlines that say "Released Prisoner Doesn't Commit Murder" even if that happens for hundreds of released prisoners, but they are likely to report it when a released prisoner does murder someone. Based on what we see reported, our mental image of the percentage of released prisoners that actually murder someone is likely to be much greater than what happens in reality. "People tend to trust what they can see and they are wary of what they cannot see," said Beacon-News photographer Brian Powers.

A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police The majority of people that try and record interactions with law enforcement are often times detained and told that they do not have the right to record the police. Whether or not it is illegal has been a heated topic in many debates but the point of this debate is whether or not a law should be enacted and the reasoning why.

Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Thank you, Logician. Let's begin. I would like to first define a term that is used in the resolve, as edited by Logician. Publically, as defined by the Princeton University Dictionary is in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly. My first contention is that placing cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice as a whole. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a system that most of them never see! The judiciary often appears to be a secretive and closed club, open to those involved. The occasional clumsy comments that are made by judges are ridiculed in the media. It is necessary to dispel this unrepresentative image by showing the competence, efficiency, and sensitivity of the majority of judges throughout the legal system. Judges have made efforts to improve their public profile in recent years. My second contention is that in a democratic society, people have a right of access to courts. Anyone can sit in the public gallery and watch a part or the whole of a trial, or appeal. In Britain, the public is even allowed to attend the highest court in the land, the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, just as anyone can watch the Supreme Court of the United States in session. There is therefore no constitutional reason why trials should not be televised, if they can be publically viewed. However, at the moment only a few people can take advantage of their rights. As courts sit during the week, it is difficult for people in full-time employment to watch a trial. Travelling to courts across the country is costly. The galleries for the public have only a limited number of spaces. Visitors to well- publicised trials often have to arrive several hours in advance of the hearing in order to ensure a seat. We as the american people, whom created this government, should not have to make such sacrifices of time and money in order to enjoy our democratic rights of which we created. In addition, the events in court are often difficult for non-lawyers to understand. Coverage on television could include a commentary that would make watching a trial a more profitable and educational experience. For those in law school, they can't learn off of old videos, or wing it like Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny. They need to see the current process of court procedures and what it takes to become a part of this system. In the age of the television, and even the internet, we should utilise modern technology to enhance the rights of the citizens. Sources (1) http://amsir.home.isp-direct.com... (2) http://www.allacademic.com... (3) http://www.trutv.com...

Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as "extra crime-fighting eyes". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.

Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.

This House Would Arm The Police This house would arm the police, because it is necessary and vital for the police in such way that they can protect and defend themselves fromthe attacants. If we were under attack, who would protect us without army? The best defense is the offence! And it comes the same as the military, they are armed and because it is necessary, they don"t hurt innocent people and as I previously said it is just to get scared from the attacants, this way they protect us and nobody gets hurt.

Policing is a dangerous job. Police officers should be allowed to arm themselves When a police officer carries a weapon, she faces the risk of having that weapon turned on her by a criminal. It is also more obvious to a criminal that they need to shoot first against an armed officer whereas against an unarmed one they may be more open to listening and less likely to try and pre-empt being shot. So arming the police can sometimes make the police more vulnerable, rather than more protected. If, as the opposing argument suggests, legally owned guns are part of the risk profile facing the police, measures ought to be taken to reduce the risk and restrict levels of gun ownership.  The police have had a National (legal) Firearms Database since 2006 allowing them to assess whether someone they will be dealing with is a gun owner or whether the premises they are attending contains licensed firearms. Criminal misuse of illegal firearms is a different matter although, as has been argued, protection and safety are not the same as ‘armed’ and more armed police will probably mean more shootings and, equally probably, more mistakes and armed confrontations.[1] [1] P. Squires and P Kennison 2010 Shooting to Kill: Policing, Firearms and armed  response.  Oxford, Wiley/Blackwell.

Cameras in Courtrooms Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice a...

Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy) Although Con has apologized for not knowing the specifics of policy debate, he has continued with his point under mandate 1, which again is totally irrelevant. I will now proceed. Mandate 1. Once again, this argument is completely irrelevant. Imagine if all policy debates consisted of challenging whether Congress will pass or not. It would be a nightmare for Pro. I request that Con drops this misunderstanding. Mandate 2. 1) Why is an officer’s account of an interrogation necessary if there is a video recording? Handwritten notes pertaining to the interrogation are not necessary with this plan. Mandate 3. 1) Exactly. As I said, this exception is a safeguard. I would also like to note that Con is supposed to support the status quo, he cannot propose a different way of doing things. In Policy debate, Con defends what the current system does, not what it should do. Thus Con cannot ask for more “safeguards”, because the status quo doesn’t even recording interrogations in the first place. 2) I fail to see Con’s point here. How is this a reason to vote against me? Funding I have provided my math showing you can do some estimation, although inaccurate.1. Is Con blind or what? My link was the evidence. Go back to my speech and you will see I cited evidence from the supreme court special committee saying each room costs at the most 7,500 dollars. In response to his evidence, 30,000 dollars was not per session, it was in one department. Note that a department can have more than one interrogation room.2. I agree. Interrogation rooms are used more than 10 times per year. This is why there are most likely less interrogation rooms than my estimate states, and this is why my estimate is a maximum estimate. Please note that I’m not trying to count the cost that this will take until the end of the world, I’m just calculating the front end expense. Con conceded to my MAIN link as to why my estimate is good. 3. Con continues to ignore my evidence. I provided evidence that there are 175,000 people each year. Yes, it will change from year to year, but not drastically. 4. Continuing to ignore the math. Con agrees that each interrogation room is used more than 10 times per year. I’ve provided PROOF that there are 175,000 people per year interrogated (see my evidence in that round). Thus if you divide 175,000 people by 10, (in other words each interrogation room covers 10 people), you get 17,500 interrogation rooms. Let’s say each room is used 20 times a year. Then divide 175,000 by 20 and you get 8,750. Even less. As you can see, the price can only be lower than my estimate, given that Con AND Pro agree interrogation rooms are used more than 10 times a year and that I have provided evidence for the rest (which Con has ignored). Lastly, I’d like to mention interrogation rooms are not in every agency. In fact, here in Washington the department of homeland security has no interrogation room so they have to go to a different agency to interrogate suspects. Just a thought to munch on. 5. Once again I’ve proved everything with either logic that Con has agreed to, or evidence that Con has ignored. Excuse me, I meant federal agencies will choose. I accidentally use the words police departments sometimes. To clarify this point, each federal agency, such as FBI, will choose the equipment for their own interrogation rooms. They all individually choose. This point doesn’t even matter. Advantage 1. Con is acting like federal agents are always trying to be abusive. Fact: There are some bad apples. We can’t always deal with every single situation. How do I know there’s a deterrence factor? Con keeps on bringing up points which are exceedingly nit picky. Logically, a federal agent knows what he is not allowed to do. If there is a camera recording, of course there’s a deterrence factor. You think he’ll abuse the suspect on film? Logically, NO. It’s all on film, the defense/prosecutors can easily review and see if the suspect was tricked or not. Once again, Con continues to provide no evidence for his points and is using exceedingly nit picky arguments. Advantage 2. Con’s sources are indeed credible to the point of how much they know. Just because someone is credible doesn’t mean he knows how many false confessions there are in the system. Once again, no police department or University or think tank or professor or genius can know how many false confessions there are total. This is something that can’t be quantified, evidence or not. “Furthermore, your source says three things AND false confessions…” I don’t get what Con is trying to say here. My source is saying that to more accurately assess coercion, to know if the suspect knew the facts of the crime, and to see if he confessed falsely, we need to record interrogations. I ask Con to clarify this. Advantage 3 And 6. Yes there will be disputes. But they can easily be slapped aside by playing the part of the interrogation that proves them wrong. For example, a dispute about Miranda rights could be easily thrown aside by playing the first part of the interrogation. The amount of time it takes to argue over a simple thing like Miranda rights if there’s no proof on either side completely outweighs the amount of time it takes to simply replay a recording. It can take days to argue, while playing the recording takes minutes. I don’t want to continue arguing this point because I would like to point out I have evidence from a credible source who says disputes are lower. The person in my evidence knows a lot more about recording than either Pro or Con does, let’s listen to the evidence please. Advantage 4. First, state police and federal agents are very different, yes. But their interrogation rooms are not. The cost is the same, you pop a camera into the room and maybe build a central control room, doesn’t matter whether the people doing it are federal or state. Second, a recording only has to be reviewed if it’s going to be used as evidence in court. As Con agrees, suspects don’t always confess, so evidence from interrogations is not frequent. Also you have to remember what the alternative to reviewing a recording is: writing a whole report on how it went. Let’s take this 24 hour interrogation example Con likes to use. Imagine waking up the next morning after conducting an interrogation, looking at your notes, and having to write exactly what happened during the interrogation. Good luck. That will take even longer than simply watching the relevant part of the video in which the confession happened. Lastly, defendants claim all kinds of things. There are tons of cases online, just look it up. Once again no evidence of any kind proving Con’s points. Advantage 5. Okay? Apparently Con is now an expert in interrogations and knows exactly everything that happens. Forgive the sarcasm, but I actually found this humorous because it was completely irrelevant. Once again I have evidence, Con doesn’t. Significance Con conceded significance and tied this back to money saved. The fact is, Thomas P. Sullivan, my main evidence source, did a survey of 600 police departments (state level) who record interrogations. It saved them money in the end. Con can speculate all he wants but the empirical evidence is on my side. Conclusion: Once again Con is misunderstanding fiat power. It’s there so we don’t have to have an ugly argument about Congress every single debate round. It would be a mess. Ask any policy debater whether passing things through Congress with fiat power is possible, and they will say yes. Con’s argumentation can be summed up as: nit picky without evidence. He has provided flawed logic based on assumptions and has not provided much evidence to back himself up. I have used 12 pieces of evidence (plus the definitions), while Con has used 5. I would like to clarify that in the last round the evidence that said (3) is supreme court special committee, there are two separate links on (2) since it was messed up.

Police Should Be Armed Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing ...

Police should be charged with murder if they kill anyone, including criminals. I will be supporting the fact that any Police officer should be held accountable for any loss of life caused in the line of duty. There are many cases of Officers killing the elderly, young children and people who couldn't even begin to defend themselves and getting away with it because of claims that they felt threatened by the individual. Yet if an individual (Non officer) feels threatened by an Officer, they are not afforded the same privilege. Police Officers are known to use excessive force. There is no reason in the world that an adult should ever have to slam, taze, or shoot somebody incapable of defending themselves. If the Officer can not subdue a child, the elderly, or somebody who is mentally Ill without causing extreme harm, They are not fit to be an officer of the law. In the case of somebody actually posing a threat to the officer, I believe that Mace (Pepper Spray) should ALWAYS be used as a first resort before a firearm is ever drawn. Police training should be to disable and disarm, not to kill. Police are trained to shoot to the chest and head, this is the absolute opposite of what they should be trained to do. The ONLY time a Police Officer should EVER use a firearm is if it is in defense of somebody else also using a firearm. It should not be waved around as a tool of fear. Tazers are dangerous and in some cases deadly to the individual they are used on. Police are wrongly taught that a Tazer is an acceptable nonlethal weapon to use on anybody regardless of age or health and this isnt true. There have been accounts of Police tazing people with health conditions and killing them, or people who were wet (causing the shock to intensify and cause burns) If a Police Officer cannot do his duty as peacefully as possible he is not fit to secure our streets. I believe that if Officers were told upfront they would be charged for 'crimes committed during the act of preventing other crime' Police brutality would immediately drop. It will be Con's case to justify Police not getting prison time for the death of criminals (or anyone.)

Arming the police makes communities feel safer Armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing in most European countries and parts of North America. In the UK 28 gun crimes are committed every day.[1] Much public opinion holds that something must be done to tackle this.[2] The sight of armed police officers patrolling the streets will not only deter gangs from harassing residents, but will instil in communities a confidence that they are being properly protected. Gangs are not interested in fighting the police; they are more concerned about attacks from other gangs in their area who are willing to break the law and attack them unprovoked. People feel safer when they see armed police, especially if they perceive them as a response to a heightened risk. Thus, for example, police officers at British airports routinely carry sub-machine guns, although there is no evidential pattern to suggest that this high-visibility weaponry offers any situational strategic advantage over a more subtle arming.  [1] Hope, Christopher, ’28 gun crimes committed in UK every day’, The Telegraph, 24 January 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html, accessed 20 September 2011 [2] Shearing, Clifford et al., Lengthening the Arm of the Law: Enhancing Police Resources in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge Studies in Criminology, 2008)

Mandatory Voting I have read your previous debates and am delighted to be debating someone who is well articulated and experienced. Arguments- 1. Voting is a moral and civic duty2. Mandatory voting will increase representation3. Mandatory voting will reduce polarization4. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledge When we vote, we make a conscious decision that will effect the entire nation. Often times, our choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, that could last for generations. In his book, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton philosopher Jason Brennan writes: "Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. " [1] Brennan further writes: "Voting is the principal way that citizens influence the quality of government. No activity is more emblematic of democracy. Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence. " [2] In his debate, debate. org use whiteflame writes: "[Democracy is] the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly. " [3] So in conclusion, we get this: P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions. P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly. C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory. Among the mantras of democracy is the concept of the consent of the governed. One of the many problems in the United States is the anemic voter turnout. This, in turn, creates a situation in which the vast majority of eligible voters do not consent to the current form of government, nor the leaders in charge. For example, in the State of Maine, the gubernatorial election in 2014 had three candidates. Paul LePage, the highly unpopular governor, won re-election with only 48 percent of the vote. (4) This means that for those who actually voted, 51 per cent did not consent to him being the next governor. How would mandatory voting increase representation? Whiteflame further notes (3): "Part of the reason that voting is so important is because it ensures that your views play a role in how your part of the country, and the country as a whole, are represented. Representation is enhanced by having a larger voting bloc, but that's a basic hazard of democracy in any case. What changes in a voluntary voting system? Those sectors of the public that turn out to vote. Who turns out to vote? Those with higher incomes. Voter apathy is inversely correlated with wealth, as those with more wealth tend to vote more often. This means that these groups receive less representation, as the leadership of our political parties has little reason to see to their needs over those of the rich. Compulsory voting ameliorates this problem, making voting blocs the size of their populations, and, perhaps, even reducing the gridlock that we currently see between political parties. This is what we've seen in studies conducted in Australia, a country that employs compulsory voting. In the end, this ensures that special interest groups and extremist subsets of the population have less control, and over the way U. S. policy is conducted, and have to convince broader subsets of the population that their intentions are for a larger overall benefit than simply for themselves. " Thus to conclude: P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the peopleP2: Citizens show consent by voting. P3: Mandatory voting increases representation and consent of the people. C1: Therefore, a democracy without high electoral turnout rules without consent. C2: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory. Among the issues with voter turnout is the high polarization in the United States. Justin Valasek in his research for Duke University noted: "When turnout is strategic and citizens have decreasing intensity of political preferences, I show that an incentive to maximize turnout among the base can cause candidates to take partisan positions, in contrast to the median voter result under full turnout. I then study how the results of this model change with the introduction of measures to increase turnout. In contrast to previous literature on turnout and mandatory voting, which takes candidate positions as fixed, I analyze the effect on both who wins the election and the candidates’ political positions. R32;R32;I show that at high enough levels, measures to increase turnout result in convergence at the median citizen’s ideal point. As voting is made cheaper, or strictly beneficial (through subsidies), the strategic effect of turnout on candidates disappears, returning the median voter result. " So, if we made voting mandatory, the results will be that the candidates will largely take political positions that represent a broader aspect of the said population, thus creating a more centrist government as Eric Liu writes (6): "In today’s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don’t currently vote. " One of the main arguments used by those who do not support mandatory voting is the issue of low-informed voters; however, by making voting mandatory, we will prompt more voters to pay attention to politics. Eric Liu further notes (6): "Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they’d fight for). There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don’t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you must not vote. " | Conclusion | In democratic society mandatory voting is necessary for the government to be able to properly function. Voting will also help to reduce polarization, and increase knowledge and awareness of the government. I affirm the resolution. Over to con! _______ Sources 1. Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print.2. Ibid3. Used with permission of whiteflame. . http://www.edeb8.com...;4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;5. . http://econ.duke.edu...;6. . http://ideas.time.com...;

Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.

Most Police Officers Should Not Carry Firearms Concessions/CorrectionsWoops. I'll concede that I did make a mistake with that first link. I had several of the same looking UCR FBI pages open and must have copied the wrong one. However, to be fair, Con missed some fine print as well. Here are the correct statistics.392 Citizens Killed by Police in 2010 Using a Firearm442 Citizens Killed by Police in 2014 Using a FirearmLet us not forget that these statistics are self reported by the Police to the FBI. The actual number of civillians unjustly killed by Officers wielding firearms is likely to go uncounted and unreported to any commitee dedicated to larger oversight.https://ucr.fbi.gov...ContextFirst, I'd like to give a little more context to these "assaults" that Con cites.There were 627,949 Officers employed Full Time in 2014.48,315 of those officers were assaulted.13,645 of those officers sustained injuries from assault.51 of those officers were feloniously killed.46 of those officers were killed by accident.48,315 / 627,949 = ~0.077 AKA 7.7%13,654 / 627,949 = ~0.022 AKA 2.2%51 / 627,949 = ~0.00008 AKA 0.008%46 / 627,949 = ~0.00007 AKA 0.007%https://ucr.fbi.gov...https://ucr.fbi.gov...https://ucr.fbi.gov...https://ucr.fbi.gov...Put It All Together7.7% of Officers are Assaulted.2.2% of Officers receive Injuries from Assault.0.008% of Officers are Killed Feloniously.0.007% of Officers are Killed By Complete Accident.How dare Police say their job is dangerous!? :DI kid you not, more constructions laborers (208) died in 2014 than both Felonious and Accidental Police Deaths combined. (107)http://time.com...Circumstances Of all officers who were assaulted in 2014: 30.8 percent were responding to disturbance calls (family quarrels, bar fights, etc.). 15.2 percent were attempting other arrests. 13.0 percent were handling, transporting, or maintaining custody of prisoners. Weapons of Assaulters In 2014, 79.9 percent of officers who were assaulted in the line of duty were attacked with personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, or feet). 4.0 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms. 2.0 percent of the officers were assaulted with knives or other cutting instruments. 14.1 percent of the officers were assaulted with other dangerous weapons. Weapons of Assaulted Of the officers killed in 2014, most (46) were killed with firearms. Of these, 33 were killed with handguns. (A breakdown of the types of weapons used in these slayings is provided in Table 29.) 6 officers had their weapons stolen. 5 officers fired their weapons; 7 officers attempted to use their weapons. 13 officers were slain with firearms when they were 0-5 feet from the offenders. Of the 61 officers that were killed feloniously, only 5 managed to discharge their firearms while another 7 attempted but failed.Maybe a good offense is not always the best defense? Not if you miss or get killed before you even have the chance to fire. https://ucr.fbi.gov...https://ucr.fbi.gov...ConclusionMy opponent seems to believe that I aim to "justify rendering helpless those assigned to help us". Con wants You to believe that it is necessary for me to prove that Officers display "rampant abuse of force" in order for this debate to be won.This is not the case, because I certainly am not calling for our protectors to be "rendered helpless" and Officers do not have to abuse a power for them to be unjustified in weilding it. We shouldn't be giving other people power just because they haven't fudged up using it yet. Helpless is the 100% of non-assailants that were otherwise involved with the police in traffic stops or investigations. Helpless is the 79.9% of actual assailants that only had their hands and feet to fight with when the Police had guns, tasers, billy-clubs, and pepperspray.Helpless is not the 100% of Police that would still have tasers, peppersray, and billy-clubs.Please don't get me wrong. We need for our Officers to be packing when it counts.No, I'm not talking about when the 4% of the assailants that actually use their guns against police are attacking.I'm talking about when the lives of citizens are in danger because another human being has pointed a knife or a gun at them. I'm talking about when another human decides they want the power to take another's life.We need our Police armed and ready to kill when this is the case. We give them the power to beat, maim, and kill other human beings. This power we grant them is not for their own salvation, but for ours. Even if Police Officers must risk being injured (2.2%) or killed (0.008%) by an assailant in the line of duty, it is a fair price to pay.

Resolved: Governmental implementation of surveillance cameras in public places are beneficial. :)

The police should be equipped to react to contemporary social problems The police should not be reacting in such a way that they exacerbate those problems. By routinely arming its police officers, the state effectively legitimizes the weapon as a symbol of authority. Whether or not this is pragmatic, it is an implied affirmation of the criminal sub-culture, which will accordingly be strengthened. The argument about a rapid increase in gun crime in the UK depends upon a very limited and selective use of crime data.  Recorded gun crime did indeed rise by close to 105% between 1998 (when handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane tragedy) and 2003, but a large proportion of that increase is attributable to air weapon misuse and non-firing replica weapons.[1]  Since then the increase has largely stabilised and even fallen. A temporary trend, now brought under control, is not necessarily a strong argument for changing, for ever, the nature and character of British policing. By this policy—especially in the absence of a Constitutional right for citizens to bear arms—the role of the police is essentially defined in opposition to at least part of the citizenry. This can be contrasted to the more common expectation that police and citizens operate under essentially common rules, for shared values and that policing is undertaken in a spirit of the minimum use of force and by ‘public consent’. [1] Squires, P. 2008  Gun Crime: a Review of Evidence and Policy, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/guncrime.html

Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing them to do more important things, such as solving crimes, maintaining a presence on urban streets, etc. Speed cameras pay for themselves through fines and can even provide financial support for other police work. Studies have found that much more money is saved for the state and society through prevented casualties than is gained in penalties or spent on the cameras. The public can be educated to appreciate this benefit, especially as systems which apply penalty points for speeding offences instead of or as well as fines are clearly not solely motivated by greed.

The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals. Police abusing power by planting a weapon is simple enough that if you are hearing about it much at all it is probably happening pretty often without being detected. Though in this case a camera would be a good idea, it would also be quite costly. Considering you said -which is not all that surprising seeing how poor our economy is-, this might simply not be a feasible solution for your country. Of course situations do and will happen that could put police at risk, and a solution for that is not so easy. If the economy improves, body cameras would be a good idea. A temporary solution I could see working is, instead of outright allowing officers to kill on sight, if they or someone else provides a video of the advent which shows the officer is at risk and kills they would be pardoned on the spot. Also, in the advent that deadly force need not be necessary, for instance a suspect running at the officer with a knife, carrying a strong police grade pepper spray may be a better choice. Now none of this would solve all your countries problems overnight, but could still be a good start. I have my own strong opinions on how drugs should be handled so I will give my ideas for that. First of all, drug addicts should not be punished. Drug addiction is a mental illness that is very hard for someone to kick, I have watched my own sister fight drug addiction and seen firsthand how hard it is. Often the very act of starting isn't a direct choice for addicts at all, but rather started due to other mental illnesses. My sister started drugs while bipolar, severely depressed and suicidal, with severe ADHD. Not to say at all nothing should be done, but that is the wrong target. Drug addicts should have mandatory treatment if caught with drugs, and that is a much more lasting solution. The real target should be the drug dealers, and they should get a punishment fitting of someone who lives off of ruining people’s lives. For each proven sale they should be charged with assault, and any proven overdoses murder. For lasting change more than just hard drugs should be targeted, but also tobacco and alcohol, as for most addicts that is what they start with.

Police should not waste time watching crime cameras It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.

The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra... The police are split on this issue at all levels, so it would be wrong to listen only to the loudest voices. The police should also be firmly under civilian control, with policy issues such as the carrying of firearms or stop and search policy subject to political decisions and accountability. Recruitment may well be adversely affected if the police are armed; many current officers opposed to this measure may leave, and others like them will not apply to join the force in future. Do we want a police force largely composed of people who want to carry a gun every day?

Resolved: The US Federal Government should significantly reform its Criminal Justice System (Policy) I thank Con for responding in a timely manner. Now before I begin the direct refutation of Con's arguments, I would like to mention a few clarifications to what a policy debate means.In policy debate, we have a theoretical construct named "fiat power". This comes from the latin for "let it be done". (1)Basically, when the mandates are reasonable and using the correct enforcement (such as in this case the federal government), they immediately come to pass. An unreasonable mandate would be "Iraq will stop fighting and there will be world peace, America will be victorious". Obviously, this is mis-construing the resolution that states the united states federal government should reform its criminal justice system.In fact, this is in the judging manual for team policy debate (same as policy except with two people on each side). (2)Now that we are clear on this, let's move on to Con's arguments.Mandate 1. Mandatory RecordingCon argued that because previous similar legislation did not pass through Congress, my plan will not work. This is answered to in the introduction here about fiat power. Fiat power is there to eliminate arguments about "will this plan pass through Congress" and focus on the actual merits of the plan.Mandate 2. InadmissibilityI believe Con is confused on this issue. Before this plan, Officers would make handwritten notes of the interrogation, then submit that as evidence to the court. Under my plan, handwritten notes of the interrogations would not be acceptable simply because the police department has a video/audio recording of the interrogation. It is assumed I mean handwritten notes of the interrogation. Mandate 3. ExceptionsOnce again this plan will be passed because of fiat power, but only if you vote Pro, which is another reason to vote Pro.1) Conceded by Con2) Many times malfunction does not become apparent. A backup system would cost more. This is not a reason to vote against me, especially since malfunctions are rare. This is simply a safeguard.3) The reason this exception is in here is because it's in the statutes of the states that record interrogations. It's simply wise to have this in here, although it doesn't provide any kind of hindrance to the recording process. An example of national security is if the suspect knows about something that is not supposed to be publicized. Obviously, this is a rare occurance and nothing to roll over in your grave about.Funding: Here is how I got the estimate. This is a maximum estimate based on simple logic. Step 1: Each room costs 7,500 dollars at maximum. (3)Step 2: Interrogation rooms are most likely used at least 10 times a year.Step 3: There are 175,000 suspects at the federal level who get interrogated. (4)Step 4: Doing the math, there are therefore 17,500 interrogation rooms, ten suspects each.Step 5: Multiplying 17,500 by 7,500 per room gives us the estimated cost of: 131,000,000. I apologize it is off by 20 million, but given the number that is insignificant.The fact is, it's only an estimate, but it's a maximum estimate. 7,500 dollars is the most it can cost per room, and to think that interrogation rooms are used less than 10 times a year is unreasonable. Thus, this is an estimate of the maximum my plan will cost.Remember that the agencies that pay for this plan have substantial discretionary budgets, so this costs about .00001 times their budgets. Regarding Con's question, the police departments will choose where to get the interrogation systems. Advantage 1. Officers and suspects protected1. It is not true that my evidence is void without said definition, because this is from a credible source saying that interrogators can not use improper tactics because they're being recorded.2. Improper tactics are defined by the current system. It is not necessary to know how they are defined. An example of an improper tactic is physically abusing/torturing a victim. Once again, this definition is not necessary. The evidence is merely explaining that whatever police officers are not allowed to do in interrogations would be deterred by recording.3. Con ignored part 1 of this advantage: the fact that officers are protected from unwarranted allegationsAdvantage 2. Wrongful convictions1. The actual amount of false confessions is unknown: because they're false, and they're confessions. When someone confesses to a crime that he didn't do and gets sentenced, many times it is not found whether he is actually guilty or not. 2. This is not the only reason to pass the plan.Advantage 3 and 6.This is a misunderstanding of the context of Advantage 3. Let me requote it:"Recording alsoleads to greater efficiency, in that an objective record of the interrogation would reduce the need for and duration of pre-trial hearings on suppression of confessions, as there would be a clear and comprehensive record for the judge or jury to review."As you can see, it is BECAUSE the jury gets to review actual evidence that time is saved. Basically, the amount of disputes about what happened in the interrogation room if there is no recording are diminished. Less disputes = time saved. Secondly, where did Con get "12 hour interrogation" from?Advantage 4. Money SavedThe evidence is not based on my estimation, it's based on empirical experience that recording saves money in the long run. This has been done at a state level, so we can see from past experience that it saves money.One reason it saves money is the lowered amount of disputes. For example, if there is no recording of the interrogation, a defendant can claim he was physically abused and sue the interrogator, and he might even get away with it. In that case, the amount of money lost outweighs the money for the recording equipment with my plan. Let me quote another piece of evidence regarding cost:"Many police with whom we have spoken have observed that their expenditures are de minimus [minimal] when compared to the resultant savings. As discussed in Part IV, recording custodial interviews reduce pretrial disputes, lead to inreased plea bargains, reduce the risk of civil suits, and prevent convictions of innocent persons based on erroneous testimony." (5)Advantage 5. Improved interrogationI believe this is confusion on the part of Con. When an interrogator is trying to find faults in the suspect's testimony or draw out a confession, taking notes is simply required because he needs to be able to testify as to what the suspect said, and for him to testify he needs to remember what to say. Taking notes simply distracts him from the interrogation because he has to pause to write things down. Also remember this is evidence form a credible source, not just a statement by me. SignificanceAs stated before, 175,000 suspects are interrogated each year. 175,000 interrogations are changed by this plan. That is significant.ConclusionCon has been slightly confused on the issue of fiat power, which was the reason for his attack on mandate 1. I've responded to all his arguments, and I would like to note one thing:The only evidence Con has read is that there are two bills that tried to do the same thing (irrelevant), and that false confessions are rare (irrelevant, since false confessions are not the only reason to record).He seems to be ignoring that ALL of my advantages had evidence, and the citations are in the pastebin link. In order for him to prove his point he needs to reply to my evidence with credible evidence of his own. Thank you, and vote Pro to gain six significant advantages, and to step forward in technology. (1)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(2)http://exp.etelos.com...http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us...;(Supreme Court Special Committee on Recording Interrogations) (4) http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...;(Bureau of Justice Statistics) (5) http://business.highbeam.com... (Thomas P. Sullivan)

This House Would Arm The Police In my opinion, how else can they defend themselves or others from an armed attacant? Police even in countries with very low crime people are armed. It would definitely help to stop a lot of would be criminals. And also, in my opinion I would definitively feel more safe when the police is armed, and also it is giving more violence, but in the way to scare people and encourage them not to carry guns or army!

Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards. Putting this kind of pressure on the judiciary and lawyers does not have the same kinds of benefits that it might in the House of Commons. Politicians often focus on, and are expected to uphold, the general interest of the public, which is why having public access to televised debates is an incentive for them to push those interests through as far as possible. However, the rule of law does not always correlate to public opinion. Particularly in high-profile cases, the public may wish to see the accused given the harshest sentence possible; however, this might not be the legally correct sentence to give in those circumstances. Public outrage has been known to tamper with judicial verdicts in places such as India[1], and is damaging to the principle of a fair trial. [1] http://studyshare.in/share/showthread.php?2361-Jessica-Lal-Case-Study-Public-Outrage-and-Criminal-Justice-Lessons-Learnt, accessed 06/08/11

Resolved: The police should be privatized Police services should be private for the same reason that health care, food production, and housing should be private; it is more efficient. When firms operate for profit they are incentivized to satisfy consumers' preferences quickly, cheaply, and efficiently. If they fail to satisfy consumers, they will quickly cease to exist. Examples of these incentives are evident in our everyday lives. If I order something from Amazon and it gets lost in the mail, they will send me a new item with no questions asked. If I have a dispute with the IRS, even if its their fault, the process will be a nightmare. Amazon will bend over backwards to keep my business. What incentive does the IRS have to be helpful in the least? When the government provides a service, they will generally establish a monopoly. Thus, it does not have to fear competition. This is as true for the police as it is for any other facet of government. If someone is breaking in my house and I call the police, what is their incentive to get to my house quickly and stop the intruder efficiently? Altruism? If the intruder murders me and my family, the police station won't lose a dime. If anything, they will say that if they had more funding it wouldn't have happened. Imagine what private police firms would look like. They could be licensed by the government to uphold the law. Individuals and businesses would hire firms, much like security guards now, to protect their property. Subdivisions could have a small force that everyone contributes to. These firms would probably make it a point to check on every one of their customer's properties periodically. You could let them know when you'll be out of town. They would probably keep at least one officer within 5-10 minutes of every house. If the firm had a good reputation, they would gain customers and make more money. If they didn't, they would go out of business. Firms would probably insure their customers in cases of robbery. If they are unable to stop the robbery or recover the stolen items they would pay out. Although this is all speculation, private firms would at least have the incentive to go above and beyond where the government does not. Another important benefit of private police is that violent crimes would take top priority. A private firm would have no monetary incentive to harass people over victimless crimes like drug use, prostitution, or gambling. They would be focused exclusively on the safety and satisfaction of their customers. This means that policemen would spend their time catching murderers, rapists, and thieves rather than sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun. Lastly, examine the behavior of a police officers as opposed to a private sector employee. Go on youtube and you can watch an endless supply of videos of police acting with completely unnecessary aggression. - A policewoman dumping a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair - A policeman throwing a flashbang into a babies crib - Many policeman killing dogs who posed no legitimate threat All of these actions would be unthinkable in the private sector. If a Walmart employee dumped a quadriplegic man out of his wheelchair he/she would be fired immediately and Walmart would be sued. When its a police officer they "launch an investigation"; and good luck suing the police. To my knowledge, FedEx and UPS drivers arent known for shooting up peoples pets when they come to the door. Private firms are much more likely to treat people with dignity, lest they lose business and money in lawsuits. In conclusion, private police forces would be forced to cater directly to their constomer's needs. This means that they would provide a higher level of safety, they would waste less resources in doing so, and they would be forced to act like public servants and not bullies.

An armed police force will deter criminal behaviour Arming the police can lead to a spiral of violence. In places where the police are not routinely armed, a portion of criminals will not arm themselves (since, for example, armed robbery often carries a higher sentence than robbery). Once the police are armed, criminals who do not match their capability operate under a strong disadvantage. Therefore, when the police become routinely armed, the criminal world fully arms itself in response.[1] The mere fact of increased weapons possession (by both police and criminals) will in itself result in higher use, since in circumstances where arms may not be currently used (e.g. a police chase), either side carrying weapons will mean that they consider shooting an option which they did not formerly possess. A study comparing police dispute resolution in Norway and Sweden (the former unarmed, the latter armed)[2] tended to confirm that where police have guns, they are much more likely to use them – the Swedish police shot significantly more suspects.  Thus gun availability effectively reduces the options currently available to police along the ‘continuum of force’.  For example, if the police are armed, they are less likely to use less harmful alternatives such as tasers, “stun guns”, CS spray, and negotiation, even though the lowered lethality of a technology generally seems to imply it will be used more frequently.[3] [1] Talking Point, ‘Should British police carry guns?’, BBC News, 12 February 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1156341.stm accessed 20 September 2011 [2] Knutson , J and Strype J. 2003 Police use of Firearms in Norway and Sweden Policing and Society Vol. 13(4) pp. 429-439. [3] Porter Henry, ‘Should the police ever shoot to kill?’ Liberty Central, 13 May 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/may/13/keith-richards-shoot-to-kill, accessed 20 September 2011

Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised I thank dasamster for his response. Upon reading it, it seems that this debate will turn largely into an analysis of the arguments that dasamster originally made in Round 2, rather than new arguments being presented by him and rebutted by me (and vice versa) in every round. Accordingly, I will not present any new substantive matter in this round, and will instead focus on re-affirming both my substantive case and my rebuttal to his arguments, and on showing why his counter-rebuttal is not successful. If, in a later round, dasamster presents new arguments for his case, I will re-consider my approach to this debate accordingly. === ON THE REBUTTAL AND COUNTER-REBUTTAL === As befits the way I set out my rebuttal, dasamster's counter-rebuttal can be read under the headings that I originally presented; I shall thus deal with them in that order: 1) On the question of the improvement of public confidence Dasamster's dismissal of my rebuttal here is based on, frankly, an entirely false assumption. He asserted that TruTV doesn't show court trials. The falsity of this claim is betrayed by his wording later on, when he asserts that the station has "almost" abolished publicly broadcasted court trials. "Almost" is better than "completely", but still not entirely correct. As the official TruTV website states in its Q&A section: "Q: Are you still covering trials? A: Absolutely. Our trial coverage will air under a separate name, IN SESSION, to make this important part of the day stand out from truTV. IN SESSION will be on from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (ET) each weekday. The truTV portion of the day will start at 3 p.m. (ET) and continue into the primetime hours and overnight." [1] Clearly, there is still a full 6 hours of airtime given on this station to the coverage of court trials. Therefore, contrary to his opposite assertion, dasamster really does – if he wishes his argument to be successful here – need to provide evidence that public confidence in the U.S. justice system has increased... and even if the above were not true, there certainly was court coverage during Court TV's period on the air. So even then, this question of public confidence would not be mere speculation, and requires evidence from dasamster that public confidence increased during Court TV's showing of court trials. I have already shown evidence to the contrary. Until/unless dasamster can contradict and refute this evidence, his argument here fails. 2) On the unrepresentative image of the justice system in the media His counter-rebuttal here entirely misses the point of my rebuttal. Dasamster's original argument was that courtroom cameras could counteract the current negative portrayal of the justice system in the media, and in response I argued that such negative portrayals are going to happen anyway, regardless of whether there are cameras in the courtroom or not. I specifically analysed how, even with cameras in the courtroom, the general public would have little time or inclination to actually watch trials in their entirety; thus, their understanding of trials would be reduced to edited highlights at best, which are selected and put forward by media stations. Media stations being just as likely to distort this information as put it forward accurately, the problem of misrepresentation is just as likely to happen with cameras than without. He has not substantively dealt with this criticism. His response was to say that: "many people would have liked to be in the know as to what occurred for Bernie Madoff's embezzlement trial." [Round 3, Pro] "People wanting to know the outcome of trials" does not equal "people having a right [or, indeed, wanting] to watch the trials themselves". Indeed, we already know what happened to Bernie Madoff – he was sentenced to 150 years in prison. We already know the key evidence that was presented against him, and the general way in which the trial proceeded. [3] As I said in my rebuttal, to which dasamster has not yet responded: "the general public only have a right to know the salient details: broadly speaking, the key evidence presented, the verdict given, and the reason behind the verdict." [Round 2, Con] My further response to this point falls also under my response to point 3), and so I shall move straight on to it. 3) On the ability of lawyers to remain up-to-date I am simply amazed at dasamster's argument here. He appears to be seriously suggesting that the only way for a lawyer to learn information about the law and court proceedings is to watch a video of such trials taking place. I feel the need only to re-iterate what I believed I had made perfectly clear in Round 2: that videos of court trials are by no means necessary to improve the knowledge and abilities of lawyers. As I said: "Full transcripts of what transpired in the courtroom are already typed up by stenographers in the court, the reasons behind the judge's verdicts are already publicised and used in law classes, and many law schools have mooting and advocacy practice sessions to prepare the student for public speaking in the courtroom. Plus, after all, the law student will surely be able to supplement this already-extensive experience through actually watching a trial from the public gallery in their spare time." [Round 2, Con] I add to this, that whilst they are practising, lawyers are (by virtue of it being their job) obliged to keep up with the latest facts and developments in the legal system. If they are not doing so already, I hardly understand why dasamster believes that providing them with video-recordings of trials will make them any more likely to be doing the research that they should be (and are) doing already. With his treatment both of this argument and of 2), dasamster seems to be labouring under the belief that only through actually watching an incident can one gain true knowledge of it. Applied to other contexts, this would seem to suggest that media reports are never satisfactory - that it is impossible for me to know that Barack Obama (for example) is U.S. President. The only reason I believe this to be true is because of media reports, both online, on TV and in newspapers...but such media would not be enough for dasamster, if he wishes to be consistent in the application of his argument. Re-applied to the issue of court proceedings and trials: media reports, court transcripts and judge verdicts provide more than sufficient detail of a trial. I ask again: why is this extensive provision not enough? Indeed, not only are there no benefits to dasamster's proposal, but there also exist significant harms that need to be considered before deciding whether it is a good idea to put cameras in the courtroom. I shall now move on to dasamster's consideration of my substantive argument accordingly. 4) My substantive Dasamster is correct to point out the witness protection that exists in the U.S. at present thanks to the U.S. Marshalls. This does not, however, significantly affect my case – after all, as dasamster himself made clear, the U.S. Marshalls only provide protection to government witnesses. This leaves completely untouched the greater problem that arises with other, potentially more common, crimes: street-level gang warfare, rape, domestic abuse, and so on. These crimes are just as likely to have coercive criminals involved, and just as likely to have witnesses scared out their minds about retribution. Putting their testimony, and appearance on the witness stand, in the public domain, can only serve to increase the likelihood that witnesses will not want to testify. My previous analysis also to this effect still stands. For all of these reasons, I think it is clear why dasamster's arguments fail to convince. Vote Con. Sources [1] http://www.trutv.com... [2] http://amsir.home.isp-direct.com... [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Organ Donation should be made Mandatory I will be bringing forth 3 contentions arguing for why organ donation should be made mandatory. 1. Saves Lives 2. Increases Scientific Knowledge 3. Curbs illegal activity First of all, before I even proceed on to my contentions, I would like to counter some of the arguments that I have no doubt my opponent will raise. Firstly, the point that the body is your own body, nobody else. However, after death is your body still yours? Why waste an organ that you won't need when you can save some body's life? Would you rather leave a kidney in an 83 year old man, or save the life of a 7 year old boy? Furthermore, I have no doubt that my opponent will raise the point of religious tolerance, and how religions such as Hinduism do not allow the body to be tampered before cremation. However, with the prospect of saving lives and organ donation technology, almost every religion has made allowances for organ donation [2]. I will now proceed on to my first contention, it SAVES LIVES. 1. SAVES LIVES A new nickname has appeared amongst the medical community. The nickname is for motorcycles. The new name for motorcycles are "Organ Cycles". Why? Because of how dangerous driving a motorcycle can be. The increased risk of car crashes increases the chance that the drivers will donate their organs to those on wait lists. Horrifyingly, people do listen to the radio hoping to hear the news of a car crash. Currently, in the United States, 114 827 people are on a wait list, waiting for an organ. Everyday, 18 people die waiting for an organ. Furthermore, just donating 1 organ can save 8 lives. [1] Organs can survive for a very long time after death, allowing for time for the organ to be transported and the person receiving the organ to be contacted. Heart/Lungs: Can be preserved for up to 4 - 6 hours after death Pancreas: Can be preserved for up to 12 hours after death Liver: Can be preserved for up to 24 hours after death Kidneys: Can be preserved for up to 48 - 72 hours after death Corneas: Can be preserved for up to 5 - 7 days after death Heart Valves, Skin, Bones: Can be preserved for up to 3 - 10 years after death [2] After death, the organs can be removed and prepared for transplant to another human being. Making organ donation mandatory could prevent 18 people from dying each day. Organ donations can also be used for scientific purposes, which I shall now move on to in my second contention. 2. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH Donating organs (or whole body donations) furthers scientific research as more test subjects are available for testing. This is also an alternative for someone who donates a diseased organ. This will undoubtedly save more lives in the future as cures could possibly be found from conducting tests on these diseased organs. Donated organs have resulted in an increase of understanding and research for these disease: Heart Disease Diabetes HIV Spinal Injuries Joint Replacements Cancer Research Osteoporosis Colon and Liver Treatments Breast Cancer Reproductive Advancements Advanced Drug Delivery Paramedic Training Alzheimer's Research Cochlear Implant Development [3] This increased knowledge will lead to a change in future health care, making it more efficient and effective. 3. CURBS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY In the current desperation of those who are impoverished, one of the options is to donate one of their kidneys on the black market. In Bangladesh, those who donate a kidney on the black market receives around $1500 [4]. Furthermore, in American these organs can be taken by force when the body is waiting for cremation. Organs and tissue is taken from these bodies and donated to hospitals and research facilities around the country. When these tissues are donated, tissues that have diseases are often passed off as "healthy" with forged papers. Illegal tissue from a single cadaver has reached 90 tissue transplant recipients. Clearly, the black market organ donation is very dangerous to the health of those who need organs. So, what have we learned today? Organ donation saves lives and has been associated with advanced research and knowledge in the field of medicine. Furthermore, mandatory organ donation curbs the need for black market organ donations. For these reasons, Vote Con. Sources: . http://www.organdonor.gov... . http://www.donatelifeillinois.org... . http://www.sciencecare.com... . http://www.abovetopsecret.com...

CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.

Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary. A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals[1][2]. Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law[3][4]. Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant. [1] In the UK: https://nextstep.direct.gov.uk/PlanningYourCareer/JobProfiles/JobProfile0884/Pages/default.aspx, accessed 18/08/11 [2] In the US: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos152.htm, accessed 18/08/11 [3] in the UK: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Thejudicialsystem/DG_181788, accessed 18/08/11 [4] In the US: http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/liberty/litb04.htm, accessed 18/08/11

Classrooms should have closed circuit cameras First of all, I will go on to my rebuttal, The rules never stated that I could not, as you say, "plagiarize", or in other words, copy and paste, therefore your rebuttal on plagiarizing is invalid and should be disregarded. I would also like to state that you only provided only TWO sources for your argument, which is not sufficient enough. You also provided only two statistics. There have been many other sources that contradicted your first point, such as: 1. http://www.college.police.uk... 2. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org... 3.http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au... Another statistic provided by USC College also states that the cameras will reduce crimes. My second contention is that the bullying rate will go down. 1. Nearly 1 in 3 students (27.8%) report being bullied during the school year (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). 2. 41% reported being victims of physical bullying, and 45% reported being victims of psychological bullying (Zweig, Dank, Lachman & Yahner, 2013). 3. Students who experience bullying are at increased risk for depression, anxiety, sleep difficulties, and poor school adjustment (Center for Disease Control, 2012). 4. Students who experience bullying are twice as likely as non-bullied peers to experience negative health effects such as headaches and stomachaches (Gini and Pozzoli, 2013) 5. Although school staff reported a willingness to intervene in bullying situations, less than 40% of staff reported being directly involved in formal bullying prevention activities (National Education Association [NEA], 2011). 6. Approximately 58% of kids admit to never telling an adult when they've been the victim of a bullying attack (i-SAFE, 2004). 7. 160,000 students per day stay home from school because of bullying (National Education Association, 2003). These are all statistics that back up my second contention. Again, thousands of students are being bullied by the minute. Less than forty percent of teachers will interfere with the bully and victim. With CCTVs, teachers and victims won't have to worry about bullies. All of the bully causing negatives will be washed away due to these cameras. Although my opponent attempted to shoot down my point, he has utterly failed in doing so. He also failed to provide a link from his point to the topic. So, to summarize, My opponent's point should be disregarded due to my list of credible sources and due to his weak rebuttal. Side Note: I would also like to add that he has portrayed me as a male, although I am a female.

Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime. Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F." The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "There’s no doubt that people with thick rap sheets don’t like them, and they’re the people who are really infringing on our civil liberties."

CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations How do cameras stop American's from experiencing freedom? Freedom to commit a crime without being caught? Cameras merely observe; they do not stop you from doing what you want to do, but if that happens to be a crime, you will be seen doing it and appropriate action taken. Not sure what you mean by keeping the population down. "If all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?" -- Cameras will not stop crime altogether, but it will help to bring people to justice and reduce crime. Some people do not care about consequences, so I know that there will still be crime in the world. When the bad things happen, we will deal with it by watching the recorded evidence and arresting the suspects. Simple really.

Most Police Officers Should Not Carry Firearms No arguments will be presented by either side. The subsequent rounds will consist of opening arguments, counter arguments, and closing arguments. Most Police OfficersThe following kinds of officers are included"State police officers, sometimes called state troopers or highway patrol officers, arrest criminals and patrol highways to enforce motor vehicle laws and regulations. ""Uniformed police officers have general law enforcement duties, including maintaining regular patrols and responding to calls for service. Much of their time is spent responding to calls and doing paperwork. They may direct traffic at the scene of an accident, investigate a burglary, or give first aid to an accident victim. In large police departments, officers usually are assigned to a specific type of duty. Many police agencies are involved in community policing–a practice in which an officer builds relationships with the citizens of local neighborhoods and mobilizes the public to help fight crime. ""Specialized assignments Officers can specialize in a particular field, such as chemical and microscopic analysis, training and firearms instruction, or handwriting and fingerprint identification. Others work with special units, such as horseback, bicycle, motorcycle, or harbor patrol; canine corps. ""Detectives are plainclothes investigators who gather facts and collect evidence for criminal cases. Some are assigned to interagency task forces to combat specific types of crime. They conduct interviews, examine records, observe the activities of suspects, and participate in raids or arrests. Detectives and state and federal agents and inspectors usually specialize in investigating one type of violation, such as homicide or fraud. They are assigned cases on a rotating basis and work on them until an arrest and conviction is made or until the case is dropped. ""Fish and game wardens enforce fishing, hunting, and boating laws. They patrol hunting and fishing areas, conduct search and rescue operations, investigate complaints and accidents, and aid in prosecuting court cases. ". http://discoverpolicing.org...ExceptionsThe following kinds of officers are not included. Any Officer involved in a raid or planned felony arrest for the duration of the operation. i. e. SWAT forces, Detectives, DEA, etc. Special Jurisdiction Police agencies have special geographic jurisdictions and enforcement responsibilities. Public college and university police forces, public school district police, and agencies serving transportation systems and facilities are examples.

Arming the police makes communities feel safer Arming police would negatively impact the relationship between the police and the community – this is especially so in relation to some communities which feel that they bear the brunt of heavy, enforcement-led policing  (for example young men in urban areas, ethnic minority groups).[1]   Arming the police might delegitimise their role as community standard bearers. Many law-abiding citizens who have no connection to the criminal underworld are horrified by armed police, whom they regard as alien to their cultural frame of reference. Guns potentially place a distance between the people and the police and impact the relationship in a negative way. It impacts not only those who would perform potentially criminal activity, but even day to day police interaction such as breathalysing and spot checks on vehicles. The police would no longer be viewed as ‘upholding the peace’ but rather enforcing through threat. Even worse than the distancing effect, lethal weaponry is also a potent symbol of brutality. This can undermine the ability of the police to be seen as a key constituent part of civil society. This problem is exacerbated when this symbolic brutality is applied in ways that deviate from the expectations of civil society, for example through unfair racial profiling. Finally – arming the police may well alter the profile of police recruits.  Police managers sometimes remark that the very last person to trust with a firearm is the one who wants one the most. [1] Jefferson, T. (1990) The Case against Paramilitary Policing, Milton Keynes, Open University Press;  P. Scharf and A. Binder 1983 The Badge and the Bullet: Police Use of Deadly Force, New York, Praeger; Kraska, P. and Kappeler, V.E. 1997  Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units  Social Problems, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Feb., 1997), pp. 1-18.

Police officers must shoot to kill ==Definitions== I define Police Officers as a warranted employee of a public police force. This is distinct from private security guards and citizens acting in self defense. ==Analysis == Pro's case implicitly assumes the value of PRAGMATISM. Pragmatism is not an end in itself. We need another weighing standard. Con chooses the value of Libertarian Justice, defined as the respect for self ownership and homesteading rights. Self ownership is a prerequisite of morality, because morals must be chosen, not forced. The universal self ownership of libertarian justice allows for maximal individual flourishing. Homesteading rights are merely an extension of self ownership. They have historically manifested themselves as "property rights", but the CON by no means endorses molecular or cardinal theories of ownership. Homesteading will be clarified further if necessary... ============ Pro Contentions ============ 1) Fine 2) Fine 3) Fine Pro simply says its pragmatic for the police officer to shoot2kill. Pragmatism is not an end in itself, particularly not the pragmatism of one individual. Even if it were, there is no reason to consider the resolution only from the point of one hypothetical police officer. So for many reasons, we need to broaden the analysis! ================================ Con Case – Most Police Officers Should Die ================================ Not the well meaning ones... but its a shame that they are public police. They should quit and do private work. I don't want to hear a bunch of crap about how someone's uncle is a dedicated public servant who's got three bullet wounds and lost his partner the day before retirement. A) Police Attack Innocent People Nearly ï¿½ of federal prisoners are serving time for non-violent offenses[1]. Federal law may say these men are guilty, but possession of minor drugs is no justification for incarceration. People smoking weed are within their libertarian rights and should not be threatened or attacked in any way. Given that 42.0% of Americans have tried marijuana, a large minority are potential targets of the mass kidnapping otherwise known as the "Drug War" [2]. The police who fight this holy crusade against teenagers and hippies are tearing civilization apart. A LEO trying to arrest peaceful and harmless drug users has no business killing anybody. The innocent people who he is attacking have every right to defend themselves. He has no right to apprehend them in the first place, much less a right to murder them. This logic can be extended beyond the drug war to any time police attack innocent people, whether it is in upholding barbaric "laws" against peaceful citizens, or a mistake, etc. The drug war is just an illustrative example. B) Police Protect Real Criminals The US government manages to confiscate more than 36% of national income [3]. M-W defines theft as "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it". I guess taxation is theft... Burglary and muggings were responsible for less than .04% of total theft in the United States [4]. Its clear that the real threat to our liberty comes from Washington. Bla bla bla radical libertarian nonsense. Let's get some leftists on board with some more obvious topics. The US federal government is responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children who died in Iraq due to economic sanctions following "Gulf War I: Next Time, Its Personal" [5]. There is a very long list of illegal and immoral things the US government has done. Police protect this criminal organization. They are accessories to crime. As such, police defending the state forfeit any rights to self defense or use of deadly force. C) Police Shouldn't be Invincible Even the most naï¿½ve advocate of the status quo admits that some police should go to jail. In order to force someone to go to jail, you have to threaten them with deadly force. A guilty police officer should not have the right to shoot at Just Apprehenders. [1] http://www.sentencingproject.org... [2] http://www.time.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] You have to do math... http://www.ncvc.org... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Should There Be Security Cameras In Schools My opponent makes the claim that we need security cameras installed in school to catch illegal acts and that since there are security camera's in malls and movie theater's they should also be in schools. He goes on to claim they can prevent illegal activity, prevent bullying, and even school shootings. My rebuttal's 1. Security camera's are expensive to buy, install and maintain. The cost of a good security camera can cost up to hundred's of dollars and it also would cost another large sum to install and run them . [1] In a time when schools across the country are having budget cuts, good security cameras costing up to 1000 dollars each would be a huge financial burden on the school which would more than likely result in the lay-offs of employee's, academic classes being dropped, extracurricular activities such as band and athletics being eliminated, etc. Simply to buy security camera's. 2. Security camera's would be useless. My opponent also claims that security camera's could stop school shootings as well. In order for camera's to prevent a school shooting, the school's we all need to hire armed security guards to constantly monitor the camera's and act in such an event. School shootings are also highly unlikely as only a handful occur in the U. S. every year which normally result in either no casualties or mere injuries and many time are perpetrated by adults who simply walk onto campus, a situation where cameras will have no effect. [2] A better way to prevent school shootings would be to allow teachers to have permits to carry their weapons at home on campus. This would not cost any money at all as the teachers would simply bring weapons from home. This would turn a significant amount of teachers into persons with the ability to put down an armed intruder or student faster than a single guard watching the screens of dozens of live security camera's. Many schools in the U. S. are already following this method as well as countries such as Israel and Thailand [3] Most if not all illegal activity on school campuses, do not occur out in the open such as in the quad, in the gym, etc. They occur in the bathrooms, the locker rooms, etc. The sale or use of illegal drugs, weapons, etc occur in those private areas. In order to make security cameras somewhat worthwhile, we would need to install security cameras in those areas. The girl's locker room, the boy's bathroom stalls, etc would need cameras. It would be extremely inappropriate and a major violation of personal privacy if the students were forced to appear naked, half dressed, and using the restrooms to school personnel. Young females and males should not be forced to appear nude, half dressed, etc to school officials. It is a violation of personal privacy and is extremely demeaning and stressful to students, who will now know that their math or science teacher has seen how large their breasts are, or who will now know how small their penis is, or how fat they are, or how skinny they are, etc. For these reasons security cameras are extremely costly, and in order to avoid the violation of the personal and intimate privacy of students, cannot be placed in the areas where illegal activity can occur the most. Vote Con [1] . http://www.supercircuits.com... (Costs of various security cameras. Prices range from over $250 to $1000+ each. ) [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (List of school shootings) [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... (Schools with "armed classrooms" have already been implemented in the U. S. , Israel, and Thailand. )

Resolved: Governmental implementation of surveillance cameras in public places are beneficial. My opponent has forfeited. Extend all arguments.

CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Experiencing freedom is not being watched almost 24/7. There is something called privacy. "Cameras merely observe," no cameras watch. And that would be counted as stalking. Yes; I agree that it will help crime rates, but it makes people more creative. They are going to commit crimes where cameras aren't. And what happens if power goes out, or the cameras break?

Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals.

Absolutely! Firstly, the statistics show that knife and gun crime are over represented in the news. There is a moral panic in which people think if they are attacked it will be by a knife wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street. Secondly, if you arm the police, it will only serve in arming the criminals to a higher level as well. Look at Japan, the police are trained in hand to hand combat and carry no weapons. The criminals carry no firearms, partly because of the tight gun control laws and enforcement. Thirdly, arming the police will normalise guns and make them seem less threatening. This will encourage people to have them as they become 'desensitised' to guns. Fourthly, the police already have an armed response unit set aside for the rare occasions when firearms officers are needed. Having every police officer trained to use a firearm will increase training time and cost.

Should There Be Security Cameras In Schools Cost"Smart boards are being put up in the Spanish and band classrooms which is useless because this whole entire year, my teachers have used the expensive boards only to draw on because they are confused by all the devices"This is your mere assertion. You have no evidence smart boards are expensive, no evidence smart boards are put in unnecessary clases, no evidence that teachers don't know how to use them, no evidence they aren't worth the cost, etc. If bullying is a major issue in school the child can report it for free. The U. S. tax payers should not have to shell out millions of dollars because kids are to scared to tattle on a bully. That's ridiculous. If kids really want bullying to stop they can report it themselves. They don't need a $1000 dollar camera to do it for them. I'm also assuming the cameras will be on for 6 hours and that you are requiring teachers to view all of that. That either require you to pull teachers from their jobs to pay them watch hours of useless footage and they might miss something like the sale of a drug. Or you will have to pay a security guard more money to view the footage. Cameras are too expensive. SecurityI have already explained that school shootings are unlikely and that a cheaper and more effective way would be to allow teachers to carry their firearms on campus. You are asking schools to spend several thousands dollars plus the cost of a security guard to prevent an event that will more than likely never occur. If 2 or 3 teachers at a school kept guns at a home allowing them to bring them to school would be free and would be more effective at stopping a shooter than mere cameras. PrivacyRegarding privacy, in gym class, people don't mind dressing with members of the same sex. There also aren't teachers watching. Even moreso people don't use the same bathroom stalls, which is a popular place where the sale and use of drugs occur. In order to prevent a good deal of illegal activity, cameras need to be installed in bathroom stalls. Now I for one don't mind being seen naked if it's for a good security reason such as when I go through security at an airport. But many do mind and therefore they don't go to airports. You are forcing everyone who doesn't make the choice to go to school to be forced to reveal themselves naked, in the bathroom, etc to school officials. Yes we know teachers won't go around telling others what they saw, but we don't want them to see us period. ConclusionIn conclusion my opponent has offered no evidence that smart boards are useless, expensive or implemented in many classrooms unnecessarilyMy opponent has no proven that forcing schools to spend thousands of dollars on security cameras is more effective than simply allowing teachers to carry their firearms at home on campusMy opponent has not shown how it makes sense to force schools to spend thousands on security cameras to catch bullying when kids aren't willing to do it themselvesMy opponent has not shown how it is ethical to subject students to the embarrasment and stress, who are forced to go to school to have themselves, without choice, be displayed naked, using the bathroom, etc to the very teachers that teach them.

Speed cameras encourage responsibility for our actions The presence of speed cameras on the roads gives motorists the sense that their actions are being monitored and that if they break traffic laws they will get caught. This will heighten their awareness, even while driving outside of the areas where the cameras are installed, and make them drive more carefully. If we remove the cameras, this sense of surveillance and responsibility will be removed and motorists will be more likely to take dangerous risks.

Resolved: We must remove paramilitary tatics/military weapons from U.S. police forces Alright, since I've already argued my case, I'll go ahead and rebut. "As many have noted, Ferguson, Missouri, looked like a war zone. And its police"kitted out with Marine-issue camouflage and military-grade body armor, using short-barreled assault rifles, and rolling around in armored vehicles thus being indistinguishle from soldiers." While I understand the blatant racism that went on there, molotov cocktails were found in a car. While I understand the protesters were peaceful, the looters were not. The police force focused their energy on the wrong battle. I'm really not sure how it happened, it seems fairly obvious, but it did. This was mainly because this form of weaponry is new to them. But the town looks like a war zone because of the looters. Police tear gas cannot tear stores apart. ""Basically killing our own people with our own security which increases the already popular hatred of security . We want people to look at police officers and admire, or respect them not regret or fear them. Nonviolent crime should= a fair just non-violent punishment so in order for that to happen must remove these tactics. Giving a unfair death punishment also violates the 8th amendment so this practice is unconstitutional." While police may be hated, they are necessary. I agree the shootings of the innocent black men were wrong, and bound by racism, but the police had to step it up to deal with looters. I'll note that when a police car pulls you over, do you feel worried, or protected? Probably worried, because your about to get a ticket of some sort. Whether he has on camouflage of his blues, it's not a fun situation. I'd also like to note that while I do not support the death penalty, It is protected under the 8th amendment. I know this because the death penalty existed when the constitution was written. However, as times change, so do we. So I understand that we need to remove the death penalty. "he police don't just walk around with this equipment ready in hand, it is only used for drug crimes and sometimes riots as I stated above. 2.50 deaths a year from raids" I'd argue that weapons used in drug searches do protect us. They keep our streets clean, and put the bad people who might hurt us away. The SWAT teams really weren't involved before, seeing as to how they basically already have military grade assault rifles. "So as you can see this equipment is used wrongly at a daily basis just because it's free and available." I'll agree that right now, the weapons might be abused. With proper regulations from the state, and proper training, the police force could be turned into something good for all. " His first contention A is that police need this equipment to keep America safe but this isn't possible. Police are not trained to use this equipment info I provided in case so since they are not trained cannot provide safety to Americans will actually harm. There are many examples some cited by the blaze is when they throw in flash grenades in homes randomly. Not only in cases on fox news and on articles did this result in the person firing back but in most of the cases this type of engagement wasn't needed." Again, this would go back to proper training and discipline. Those types of people shouldn't be allowed on the force, whether they carry a pistol or an M-16. There exist good cops, ones that wish to help America. That is the proper cop that deserves some up grades. " I will attack his 2nd contention B now which mainly talks about how pistols and tear gas only go so far. I agree but what my opponent has to understand is usually this equipment is only used for drug crimes and every once in a while a riot like the Ferguson incident also SWAT and other agencies are available and again the police are not even trained to use the equipment and since it is mainly used for drug crimes or minor things then it isn't justifiable to have the equipment since paramilitary tactics or "strategies" are only used mostly on drug crimes which is what they were originally made for under Reagan." Pistols are only used for drug crimes? Someone better tell every cop, ever. Tear gas has been used countless times in American history, and not all just in drug raids. http://www.usatoday.com... This article directly pertains to our debate, so I feel like it's a good source. Once again, the police must be trained and discipline before they carry military grade weapons. They don't right now, but as this policy is accepted, they can receive proper training. I also think that drug raids are a justified use for these. Especially in a home, where the drugee has home turf. Improved weapons would help in that case. " I will now attack his point C which overall which is saying to restrict weaponry. I would agree with this if it was possible but its not, what my opponent must realize is that the equipment is given for free by the town or city or area so it is locally managed. Paramilitary tactics include general military weaponry so probably not possible to restrict it as well. And last but not least if the police aren't trained to use the equipment more causalities such as the 50 deaths." IT IS POSSIBLE TO RESTRICT WEAPONS IN THE POLICE FORCE. IT HAPPENS RIGHT NOW. Police are only allowed to carry licensed weapons. When a cop has proven that he would be okay with improved weapons, he will be issued a new gun, and then still be taken to court for a death, to see if it was justifiable. I also stand for cameras on police, simply because theirs too much "he said she said". For like the 1,000 time, I would require the police to be trained!!!! "So since this equipment is angering Americans, causing deaths, used wrong, free so overly used, and asked for the wrong reasons I suggest a pro vote on this topic. I also would like to point out that their has been screening process to make sure this equipment is used right but they have failed. For example on the news their was this group of police using paramilitary tactics. They had this guy and this guy had a gun. One police man told him to put his gun down. The guy listened but after the guy put his gun down the police offer shot him 6 times with a rifle for no reason." It's only angering a select number of Americans. The police who have access to these weapons right now are wrong. They have not been properly trained, and overall they are just bad people. Now, that's not to generalize the police, but the bad seem to be outweighing the good right now. Also, I really can't argue this because you didn't give me any facts. This s basically invalid only because I have no where to go to see this case. Finally, if we were just to give certain cops, who have several years of experience better weapons. We would see dramatic change in society, for the better. So long as they are uncorrupt and trained well, we should not remove military weapons from the police force. I agree Ferguson was out of control, but those police were not trained. Thanks, I am finished.

Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice a... Putting cameras in court will improve public confidence in the judiciary and the system of justice as a whole. It is difficult to see how the public can have confidence in a system that most of them never see! The judiciary often appear to be a secretive and closed club. The occasional clumsy comments that are made by judges are ridiculed in the media. It is necessary to dispel this unrepresentative image by showing the competence, efficiency, and sensitivity of the majority of judges throughout the legal system. Judges have made efforts to improve their public profile in recent years.

Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.