Question: Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

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

Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: 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.

Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: 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.

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: 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

Title: Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty Content: 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.

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: 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.

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: 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?

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

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

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

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: 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.

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

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

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: 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.

Title: Should all cops have to wear body cameras Content: 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.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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.

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

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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.

Title: Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times. Content: 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

Title: Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction Content: 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.

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

Title: Crime cameras Content: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras

Title: Police should not waste time watching crime cameras Content: 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.

Title: The philippines should continue the "Kill on sight if armed" law against criminals. Content: 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.

Title: Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women. Content: 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.

Title: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Content: 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.

Title: Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries. Content: Jenny Rees. "City cameras 'don't cut crime'". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - "they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments."

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Title: Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security Content: San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese said to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2008: "In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad."[5]

Title: Weapons in schools Content: So a police officer should be mandatory in every school you are saying. A police officer with a gun is understandable because they know when and when not to use it. A teacher with a gun though is much different and is a big liability to the teacher and the school. Teachers should not be allowed to carry guns on them or in their desks for any reason at all. Nothing that bad happens in a school where a teacher needs a gun and if there was a police officer in the building or on campus then there wouldn't be a reason to. Most public high schools do a have a patrol officer on campus which is enough.

Title: Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols. Content: 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.

Title: Security scans of children are not pornographic Content: Arthur Weinreb. "Full-body scanners; it's just common sense." Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: "Minors should be scanned and to link these scans to child porn is ludicrous. Police officers routinely possess child pornography all the time. Not only do they possess it but they distribute it to prosecutors who further distribute it to defense lawyers. Then the prosecutors further distribute it to judges who show juries. For some reason these people aren’t considered to have committed criminal acts because they are doing what they do to protect the public. Just like those who operate full body scanners are doing."

Title: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing... Content: 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.

Title: Benefits of crime cameras may not be reflected in crime rates. Content: John Firman, the director of research at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said a 2007 ABC article: "We know cameras enhance that capacity but saying for sure that they reduced crime by 20 percent, that's another thing. Anecdotally, we know that they have had an impact."[1]

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: 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...

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: I see what you are saying as far as the safety goes, but I still see it as a way for the government to make money. I feel that instead of having a camera watch us, we should have traffic police or Suffolk police watching the intersections just the way they used to. I find it to be annoying to have to now think about whether a camera is going to snap a picture at you, obeying the law, but being under a yellow light through an intersection. While it might make some people more cautious, safer drivers, I think that too many people are retarding traffic because they are fearful of getting a ticket. I feel that the money that they are spending to put all of the traffic lights in is almost a waste of time. By the time the government hires people to put them in, pays for the camera and the electric to run the thousands of cameras, hires people to monitor and scan through all of the pictures, and sends out tickets, it is barely worth it to even have. I think that the cameras have become a hazard to the everyday drivers and the government is taking advantage of our privacy, in a way. What next? We have cameras at every corner now, who's to say they won't start bugging our hotel rooms like NK!!

Title: Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy Content: There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled "Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: 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.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women.

Title: Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights Content: Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: "Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade."[8]

Title: Plans to introduce body-imaging scanners at airports should be shelved Content: Body-imaging scanners are expensive and they don't even show airport security staff what passengers really look like in the nude - the images the scanners produce are in black and white and are not really that much better than pornographic photographs from the Victorian era. [1, 2] That's why I propose that all air passengers should be required to submit themselves to a full strip search by security staff instead. Now, I realise some people may be embarrassed to strip naked in front of fully-clothed security staff which is why I propose that the security staff should also be naked and thus put any especially shy passengers at their ease. Even so, some frigid, ultra-conservative women might still feel uncomfortable being groped by nude male security officials so I further propose that all security staff should be female. Similarly, I also realise that some men may object to being fondled by some boot-faced hag or some fat old munter, which is why I also propose that all the security staff should be recruited from the ranks of glamour models and porn actresses. Naturally, adherents to certain spiritual faiths will object to my proposal regardless of what safeguards are put in place, but in the United States the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) have already made it quite clear that fanatical religious extremists who are opposed to full body-imaging scans (because they believe that only God should be allowed to see them naked) are not to be exempted from body scans and the same principle would, therefore, apply to strip searches. [3] Of course, the main advantage of my proposal is that it would enable security staff to conduct more thorough searches than is possible with the use of body-scanners and pat-downs. For example, smugglers may be able to conceal illicit drugs in prosthetic penises but the gorgeous nude security girls will be trained to make scrupulous and exhaustive examinations of male passengers' appendages – you know, rub and tug them properly to make absolutely sure they aren't false. In conclusion, strip searches are more effective than body scanners at intercepting drugs, weapons and explosives and they are also cheaper and for those reasons I affirm that plans to introduce body-scanners at airports should be shelved. Thank you. [1] http://factstoknow.co.uk... [2] http://i3.ebayimg.com... [3] http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com...

Title: Police officers should be more friendly Content: 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.

Title: Speed Cameras Content: Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...

Title: Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety Content: In December, 2008, an armed robbery attempt in New Orleans failed after the victim, according to police, "...advised the suspect that there were several surveillance cameras in the area," and walked safely away from the criminal.[4] The episode suggests that the victim felt that the cameras provided a critical layer of protection against the assailant. While law enforcers did not suggest that others pursue the same course of action as the victim in this story, it is clear that the crime cameras provided a real sense of safety for this man and probably for other members of his community as well.

Title: Unnecessary to train whole nation to prepare for threats. Content: Suhail Al-Enizi, aged 28, argued in 2010 that military service in Kuwait should not be mandatory: "I am certain that we have enough soldiers in the army. We don't need to train the entire nation in order to be ready for threats; we are not in a police state. This is a democracy."[11]

Title: health insurance should be mandatory Content: we all are affected by bad health and almost all of us will need medical care. it's like everyone needs firemen and police. what insurance should not be, is you just die if you aren't covered. it's easy to say you didn't get insurance therefore you can die, but this doesn't and woudln't happen in practice. why is it okay for one person to not be insured and pass the cost on to everyone else?

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Hey! So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the safety value these lights. It makes some people safer, better drivers. And it makes others more of knuckleheads than they already were. The part where I disagree is the use of our police officers and adding other employees to monitor the cameras. For one, I think it is better to have real cops out taking care of other things, rather than having them sit near stop lights. Let them do other law enforcement duties that are more important than traffic duty. Suffolk cops make huge salaries and I would rather they were out to better use. And if a few more jobs are created by the camera venture, then I am cool with that. We need jobs! And the government needs money, so let them raise some funds by snagging a few redlight runners! PS - I hope the fire dept. or police test went well, I forgot which it was. But I hope it went well!

Title: Crime cameras help reduce crime rates, Content: "Cameras have cut violence, study says". The Washington Post. February 21, 2008 - "The report, prepared for the D.C. Council by the office of Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier, says violent crime increased about 1 percent citywide last year. But, it says, violent crime decreased 19 percent within 250 feet of each of the cameras, which the city began installing in August 2006. Property crimes increased 5 percent overall last year but 2 percent in the camera areas, the report says. 'In the seventeen months since cameras were first installed in D.C.'s neighborhoods, the cameras have continued to have a positive impact on public safety in the city,' the report says."

Title: Full-body scanners violate child protection laws. Content: The rapid introduction of full body scanners at British airports threatens to breach child protection laws which ban the creation of indecent images of children. There is a certain risk that naked images of children from scans could be distributed over the Internet. But, even if such abuses are prevented, it is wrong for security screeners to be able to view these nude images.

Title: Crime cameras have not had a significant impact on crime rates Content: Heather Knight. "Crime cameras not capturing many crimes". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - "The cameras have been installed in phases on some of the city's roughest streets since 2005 with large concentrations of them in the Western Addition and Mission District and others in the lower Haight, the Tenderloin and near Coit Tower. [...] The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren't allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes."

Title: Red Light Cameras Content: Red light cameras are a great tool developed by law enforcement to catch those who drive dangerously. Police can not be everywhere at once, so cameras to catch red light runners pose the same purpose as security cameras to catch convenience store robbers. Those who drive recklessly endanger the lives of themselves and others. The distribution of traffic tickets are motivation to drive safely, and the point system used to determine license suspension keeps repeat offenders of the roads. Red light cameras benefit those of us who actually obey traffic laws. Their benefit outweighs the low cost of installation and maintenance.

Title: Throw your traffic-camera speeding tickets in the trashcan! Content: Thank you for having this debate with me, it has been interesting for me tooThe majority of people support safety cameras, which I have shown are not shifty because their aim is to reduce serious incidents which they accomplish, and police do review and make the final decision on all the videos captured by them including those from U.S. providers such as Redflex traffic systems. Also offenders are welcome to view the reliable evidence against them. The increased number of minor accidents caused after installing these cameras are explained by the behaviour of drivers who travel above the speed limit, and who fail to stop within the distance they see clear due to failing to anticipate events ahead and thus panic. If these people took the gradient, road condition and other factors affecting the stopping distance, like they are supposed to, then they would not recieve a ticket, and less people would die or become seriously injuried.In round 1 he says "I got a ticket from driving too fast in an instersection, the camera caught me, sent me a bill", so he admits he was speeding i.e. breaking the law. This is why I think my opponent should pay the bill sent to him. My main argument from the start was this: if you believe your driving is acceptable and continue to drive recklessly, it results in serious injury or loss of life. Can we rely on people's conscious? I believe my opponent simply disagrees with the way in which he was caught breaking the law. I've now read the letter by holding ctrl and moving my mouse button up to zoom in, and know now he was driving too fast in a 40mph zone and caught because the yellow light lasted 3 seconds instead of 4.5 seconds, which confirms this belief.Although it may be unlikely he will have to pay if he went to court due to the police being unable to prove he was sitting in the driver seat, the speed limit changing and the yellow light time not being adjusted resulting in the wrong yellow light time, and similar things, I do believe if you do break the law you should be punished by the law, in your case the punishment is paying a fine, if you leave it to your conscious to punish you you might just continue driving dangerously. It is therefore important to accept a punishment when you have broken the law no matter how you are caught.Thanks for reading, Kirk

Title: anything, i can be very argumentative. Content: 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.

Title: Crime cameras violate privacy no more than corner store cameras. Content: Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "The people who complain about the use of cameras on the street say nothing about their presence in their corner store, the post office, the subway, Macy’s, Safeway or just about every commercial enterprise in existence. They’re now found in taxis, buses, trains and of course, airports, let alone public buildings, such as the one that played back the proceedings at the Police Commission for a cable TV audience."

Title: Crime cameras Content: Surveillance cameras do not deter crime

Title: Speed cameras only detect 5% of all road accidents Content: Speed cameras are placed in locations where there is a significant accident record. Introduction usually leads to lower vehicle speeds and a better accident record. Speed cameras also act as a deterrent to dangerous driving and have successfully contributed to lowering average vehicle speeds on the UK roads hence lowering the accident risk. Road Casualties Great Britain 2006, found that injudicious action, which includes going too fast for conditions, following too close and exceeding the speed limit, accounts for 34% of fatal cameras highlighting that problems still exist with speed management. The 5% figure should be treated with caution as on average the police recorded two factors for each crash. With regards to speed limits, the DfT has always emphasised that they are legal guide that should be adhered to but that driver judgement should also be utilised as well. Speed cameras successfully lower vehicle speeds and have drawn attention to the need to drive at appropriate speeds within the designated speed limit. Camera policing of speed limits can only be introduced after all else has failed. In some cases, on roads identified by projects such as the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP) there is evidence that the collisions are not speed related and therefore new cameras would not be installed and other measures used. Cameras are only installed at sites where at least 20% of drivers exceed the speed limit and there have been four deaths or serious injuries on a given 1km stretch of road within three years. Research (Stradling et al, 2003) has also shown that drivers stopped by police for speeding or who had been flashed by a speed camera had double the incidence of recent crash involvement suggesting that speed cameras have been successful in targeting dangerous drivers. http://www.pacts.org.uk

Title: Crime cameras may help prosecutions, but don't reduce crime. Content: Jim Harper, the director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, was quoted saying in a July 2007 ABC article: "They are good forensic tools — after something happens, they'll tell you what happened. [...] But they do not provide protection against attacks, and that's a key distinction."[2]

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Fair points about the money. There is a good chance that the cost of doing and maintaining this is a waste of time. But I have to disagree about it being better to have cops patroling the intersection. I think people get more moronic when they catch sight of a cop. Alot more slamming on brakes and whatnot. And while you may get the occassional person who reacts poorly to the cameras, I think alot of people get used to the intersections that have the cameras. They know that when coming to Sunrise amd Waverly there is a camera, so they are prepared to drive slower and safer. And having the populace driving slower and safer is always a good thing... if it saves lives I am all for it!

Title: Cameras are money making, not life saving Content: £120 million was collected in 2006 from speeding tickets. That money helps pay for an entire industry built around designing, manufacturing, installing and maintaining speed cameras, not to mention the army of administrators or the traffic police officers who spend time sitting in wait with a mobile camera instead of going after the more dangerous 4 million estimated drivers who are on the roads illegally. The money from fines now goes straight to the Treasury. (Local authorities were once allowed to keep it) Originally when cameras were first introduced in Britain they were used with honest intentions and erected at genuine accident black spots. But when the money started rolling in from drivers caught by these new devices the authorities realised how much money can be made if they keep on planting new cameras. If it really wasn’t about the money then why have they focused so hard on an offence that causes just 5% of accidents and have done proportionally very little in preventing the other 95% causes of accidents? http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue Further to this opening argument.... The PACTS reply (and the pilot study and all their other quoted analyses) is based on a gross misuse of the figures in Highways Economic Note #1 (HEN1), which gives estimates for costs associated with a road fatality, serious injury, etc and also the value of preventing a fatality (VPF). The Costs are the true costs to the county of an incident (emergency services, hospital, repairs to roads, etc.), typically up to £10,000 (for the worst case, a serious injury). The report makes it clear that VPF includes amounts for pain, grief, loss of earnings, etc. (totalling around £1.5M for a fatality) and explains that VPF cannot be equated to costs. Any use of VPF to show return on investment is bogus and potentially fraudulent. The values assigned to pain, grief, etc are hypothetical amounts that someone might be prepared to pay to bring their loved one back, and are to be used to compare alternative road schemes. Those values do not exist and would never appear on a balance sheet. To get £58M "cost saving" from two years of "280 lives saved", PACTS are using an average figure of about £100,000 as the costs of a fatality/serious-injury/minor-injury. This is a blatant misrepresentation of official government figures by a governemnt body. Further, most of the 280 reduction in KSI per year at camera sites is due to the statistical phenomenon "regression to the mean", in other words those 280 accidents would probably not have happened anyway, regardless of cameras. It is a fanciful number and bears no relation to reality (ask yourself how any camera can save a life!). So, with a massive reduction in costs per death/injury and a massive reduction in the number of "lives saved by cameras", the return on investment argument is exposed as totally bogus. I believe the "return on investment" in terms of safety/casualties is less than 5% per annum. I am currently pursuing this issue with the Head of Scrutiny with my local County Council, who have been using the same tricks. Bripe - an advanced driver and safety professional

Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: Having forfeited this round, dasamster hasn't dealt with my analysis, rebuttal or arguments.

Title: pre-pay pumps after dark Content: it was not absent-minded at all, it was long, thoughtful, created a lot of good points (some that i agree with), and was quite humorous, at times. you are a very good debater and i would not be surprised at all if you won, due to how well you speak & argue but, still i think that it is ridiculous to make pre-payment mandatory. yes, because it annoys me but also because, as you said.. there ARE other people in the world.. many are ALSO annoyed with pre-payment. stealing is a horror, yes. but we can't just institute measure after measure after measure for everything that is a horror, we'd never be able to do anything! by the way, pre-payment probably takes less than 5 minutes, as you said, but still.. it's an annoyance that many people suffer because of SOME thieves. there are so many other measures that can be taken that DON'T annoy the honest, paying customer SUCH AS: (according to gas theft.com ) Setup surveillance cameras (even dummy cams) to deter theives, video footage is proof of theft. Do NOT authorize cars with no plates, covered plates, or who pull in backwards. Simply WATCH and make eye contact with drivers who are pumping gas, if they feel they are being watched, they will not drive away without paying. Always know which pumps have and have not paid for their gas. Knowing makes it a lot easier to spot cars driving away without paying. Train employees to write down license plate information as well as car and people descriptions for anyone suspicious. Keep a "hot list" of known theives and share information with other stations. NONE of those things annoy me! NONE of those things will cause me to pull up to a gas station, realize it's pre-pay & LEAVE to go to another one (has happened, multiple times!) if other people are like me and so annoyed with pre-pay that they will leave and go to another, they lose business. why would they want to lose business? now they have less theft AND less paying customers. i am not saying that we are arguing prepayment at other places, i am saying that it would be the same thing as theft happens everywhere! it's like "oh people steal here lets stop it by making it prepay" then other places "oh hey look what shell is doing, lets do it too!" businesses usually take ideas from one another, why not this one? that is especially scary to think about.. why should people be made to prepay before they even know what they want? what happened to options?! you say it would "force" others to learn self control.. self control is great to have, don't get me wrong, buuuut why are attempting to FORCE things upon people now? that doesn't seem too fair to me, i don't enjoy being forced to do things, not only do i now enjoy it, i am pretty sure it's not what this country is about. last i knew, usa was SUPPOSED to be a free country.. but now we have so many laws "for the good" of the people that really, imo, just interfere with PERSONAL lives & lifestyles.. it's hardly "free" anymore. (please don't take this the wrong way, i am not saying we are not a free country, as we are much more free than other countries, just that we are heading towards less freedoms) "pics or you're lying" ..clever! i don't want to be a liar, phone number? lol just kidding. :) carrying extra cash, now that you mention it, would be a wise thing with my family things that may occur.. maybe i'll begin to do so. but not for you! aand, agreeing with your wise decision to carry extra cash does not mean that i agree that it would be good to prepay! i also agree with you that it DOES help to decrease gasoline theft, i looked it up, it's gone down tremendously. still, it's annoying! just because something works to decrease a crime, does not mean it should be in place. murder is wrong, but we don't have people tailing people to make sure they don't kill someone, especially if they've never killed before, or look suspicious to kill someone.. that would be annoying. just like making people prepay, who have never stolen gas before and who do not look suspicious, is annoying! don't take this as getting off subject, i in no way want to talk about murder, just an example of another thing that would decrease a crime tremendously that doesn't need to be instituted! i am not arguing, solely, because i dislike prepayment, i am arguing because MANY people are affected by it. i also dislike taxes and would love to stop paying them, that's another argument though, but i am not saying that i have the license to stop prepaying because it's an inconvenience for me, i am saying that it should be gotten rid of! getting rid of taxes would be great too, but 1. that's a new argument 2. that's a lot more difficult & affects a lot more PEOPLE negatively.. which is what i am worried about, the people. i love that you use apathy, that's a perfect word! i am rather apathetic when it comes to the economy, you'll see that with me not actually having the psychological condition, kleptomania, but just prefering to take things over paying for them. my bad. honestly, the government, economy, corporate america.. apathetic. if that makes me a bad person, oh well. i care about myself and other PEOPLE. if people are more concerned with instituting law after law that declines crime, then by all means.. vote pro. buuut if people are more concerned with personal lives and lifestyles not being effected just because some people choose to be criminals, vote con. if he wins, fine. buuuut he should make me fettucine alfredo to make me feel better, 'cause it's my favorite.<3

Title: Surveillance cameras do not deter crime Content: Heather Knight. "Crime cameras not capturing many crimes". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - "San Francisco's 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven't deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they've only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley."

Title: #MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment Content: You've again only presented "body count" numbers, without context or purpose. I can just as easily present "body count" data to say 1,694 were killed with knives in 2"11 (https://www.fbi.gov...). Do we now ban KNIVES? The argument of "reasonable restrictions" has historically proven to be an untruthful statement. These "reasonable" restrictions, with the exception of the 1986 ban, have either been ineffectual (the 1934 and 1969 bans) or as a "back door" attempt at larger bans. Ergo, there really IS only one way forward; Either we repeal the Second Amendment outright, as advocated by certain parties, OR we raise the protections by making said carry mandatory, with certain pointed exceptions; If a judge is willing to place their name, reputation, license to practice law, and possibly their freedom on the line to say "NO! You should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms!", then that will suffice. To say "guns kill" is to say that an inanimate object CHOOSES to act of its own volition; Now, if you were to argue "ROBOTS KILL!" that might make sense; A robot CAN in fact be programmed to kill, "without human control." (That it hasn't be done "yet" to my knowledge notwithstanding, in some form, the technology COULD exist, and it might already.) That guns "are" used to kill is irrelevant; Knives, drugs, bombs, poisons of all sorts, and, in one particularly interesting case, an open window have all been used as "murder weapons." Although this is a re-statement of an earlier point, it can not be stated enough; Guns do not kill. Knives do not kill. Open windows do not kill, either. People (or maybe someday well-programmed robots) kill. I hate to boil this down to a trite slogan, but gun control really DOES kill. Mandatory Carry will save lives. All lives? NO. Situations like San Bernardino or Paris, the first few victims will probably die. At very least, they will be injured. But the ASSURANCE, to those of reasonable clear mind, that there will almost definitely be SOMEONE who is also armed in response will give all but the MOST recalcitrant, perhaps even suicidal (such as the case of Vincente MONTANO), a moment of REAL pause.

Title: Authorities support speed cameras because it’s politically correct Content: After years of brainwashing from government and police adverts, leaflets, and pressure, most authorities embrace speed cameras and take it as fact that they are correct, without scratching the surface to find out the facts for themselves. However, a few councillors have broken rank and spoken out. Recently a councillor from Swindon said they are considering removing all of their cameras and several years ago a councillor from North Somerset said “We’ve created a Frankenstein’s monster... the cameras are simply an income generator, it’s a massive job creation scheme.” http://www.speedcameras.org In favour of road safety, not revenue

Title: Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance. Content: Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.

Title: Kyleigh's Law: Mandatory Decals for Young Drivers Content: I've addressed the arguments in his RD 2 order. On his first paragraph (grouped response to my counter-arguments 1 & 2) 1. My opponent attacks the example without actually addressing the main point of the 1st counter-argument I give. The gist of that was the profiling will happen with or without a decal. Police officers profile based on age, or sex, or ethnicity just by looking into a car window. They profile with regards to types and quality of car. This is basically a wash. However, as stated in my 3rd counter-argument, since the decals do allow for an increase in defensive driving, which will inherently increase the overall safety of all drivers, I'm still winning the cost/benefit analysis. On Electronic Parking Permits: 1. How many high schools in the US are really using these? 2. Way more importantly, this is an attack on an example while totally ignoring the meat of the argument, which is about profiling occurring against young people no matter what. On decal quality and appearance: 1. Attack on the example. 2. The chief administrator shall provide the holder of a special learner's permit with two removable, transferable, highly visible, reflective decals indicating that the driver of the vehicle may be the holder of a special learner's permit. [1] This decal is perfectly removable, and the law does not mention the size of the decal. If we are going to argue about the specifics of the decal, then it can be removed any time the student is parked. This would further mitigate whatever minute harms can be gained off of the sexual predator argument, because only vehicles in motion would be subject to target, and sexual predators simply don't target their victims by following their moving vehicles around town or on the freeway. These harms are totally unwarranted. On campus security and sexual predators: Campus security is really null in this debate. Again, this was merely an example that my opponent is exploiting while ignoring the gist of the argument. Sexual predators target places where these young people hang out (i. e. are generally stationary) *like* school campuses, churches, playgrounds, parks, local hang outs, etc. He never warrants why it is that sexual predators will target vehicles. Furthermore, as I mention later, we don't have a problem with predators targeting driver education vehicles, all of which, by the way, are required by law to be marked as such constantly (those markings are generally not removable since the vehicle has been mechanically manipulated as a training vehicle). However, even if they weren't, by my opponent's logic, those vehicles and their passengers *should* be the target of predators. On the attack on my second source: 1. My opponent disregards the first source, handily, which states that: "The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash. " "Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes. 2. While I can't find the chart my opponent refers to (can I have a specific link so I can evaluate the data? ), we are talking about aggregate death, not a breakdown of the cause or number of passengers or any other important details that would allow us to assess the meaning of those stats. 3. The statistic I was specifically referring to was on the page *of* that link. It is a pie chart stating that motor vehicle deaths account for more teen deaths than any other cause. The next closest method of teen death is homicide. 4. My opponent's narrowly focused attack does not actually mitigate the argument I'm making that teen drivers are still a danger due to their relative lack of driving experience. The second source I listed is an entire government webpage dedicated to improving teen driving. Obviously, the federal government is concerned to a great extent about the safety of teen drivers. On student driver cars being marked: 1. What's the point of this rebuttal? The decals are fully removable, so the harms of these decals must be identical to those of student driver vehicles. So, my opponent is de facto arguing that we should not put markings on student driver vehicles as well. However, the safety benefits of this practice are clear. The same principle clearly supports the use of New Jersey's new decal. On my dropped 4th counter-argument and dropped alternative: 1. My 4th counter-argument is absolutely topical to this debate. My opponent directly stated in RD 1 that one of the harms of the decal, based on his profiling argument, was that teens with tickets won't have recourse once the citation has been issued. How is me addressing this fallacy not a point of contention? He is claiming that this inherent bias exists within the judicial system as well as the enforcement system, when it clearly doesn't. You can extend this as a valid offensive argument. 2. My alternative proposal is also directly related to the case at hand. My opponent is opposing this piece of legislation due to something he finds morally or ethically repugnant. I am doing the exact same thing. If the goal of this debate is to form a more just law (and, considering that the purpose of debate is to support some sort of change, even if it won't necessarily happen), then I am attempting to fulfill that goal better than my opponent. This is a pretty standard debate tactic. I'm just trying to increase education in the debate. After all, the more people know about this piece of legislation and its errors, the more people can act within the legislative system to make it more just. Furthermore, I am informing about an actual injustice within the legislation, and my opponent is not. Again, extend this as a valid offensive argument.

Title: Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law Content: Theodore Dalrymple. "Cameras, Crooks, and Deterrence". City Journal. October 16, 2007 - "A recent study demonstrating this failure to improve the clear-up rate, however, could not also show that the cameras failed to deter crime in the first place. Common sense suggests that they should deter, but common sense might be wrong. For if the punishment of detected crime is insufficient to deter, there is no reason why the presence of cameras should deter."

Title: Cameras can deter anti-social behavior such as littering Content: Adrienne Isnard. "Can surveillance cameras be successful in preventing crime and controlling anti-social behavior?". Australia Institute of Criminology. August 2, 2001 - "Originally surveillance cameras systems were installed to deter burglary, assault and car theft but their use has been extended to include combating 'anti social behaviour', such as littering, urinating in public, traffic violations, obstruction, and drunkenness (Davies 1998)."

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: 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?

Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: Being generous, I'll ignore the problematic wording of the motion. For the purposes of this debate, I'm happy to assume the resolution to be functionally equivalent to: "Cameras should be placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be publicly televised." I await dasamster's arguments.

Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: Expenses

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Sorry for taking so long! Been crazy busy! I do agree with it helping save lives, Rich. But I still see the cameras as more of a hazard to us then helping us. I think it definitley makes people act more moronic because of the cameras. I do see what you're saying about people knowing where the cameras are, but call me old fashioned- I would still rather have an actual human tell me that I am doing something wrong versus a camera snapping a picture! To me, I think we would be better off as a community if the streets were patrolled more. Maybe- instead of making jobs for people to sit behind desks and monitor the cameras, we can have police officers more frequently patrolling the area. I do, though, see the positives to having the cameras in place. I just think that it becomes mroe hazardous to us because now- everytime someone goes under a yellow light, they are cringing because they don't know if they are being put on candid camera! It becomes a sticky situation with me now because I can see both sides of the argument, however, I still see it as a money making scheme for the government's benefit and a hazard to us. Take it away, Rich.

Title: should clothing be mandatory Content: Well, I guess I'm supposed to keep going. Clothing, aside from being used to protect the body from the cold or the sun, is used to hide parts of our body. Not purely out of shame, but because it may be necessary for society. One very simple example: Imagine if you will, primitive human beings in a society. The alpha male's mate is probably very attractive. This may make things very complicated when a beta male comes across the alpha and his mate and get an erection. Thus, one cannot simply say that clothing is unnecessary and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies. Simply speaking, clothing is quite natural for us.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help deter crime

Title: Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime. Content: 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."

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: Yes; I would ask the officer to stop watching me. I would find it uncomfortable. "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants." Then I can act as I want, and speak and think that it is wrong. Do you not find it weird that people would always be able to watch you?

Title: Crime camera evidence is very rarely used in court cases. Content: Brendan McCarthy. "Crime-fighting cameras are the wrong focus, some say". NOLA.com. March 26, 2007 - "Major cities across the country that have launched crime-camera programs have seen similar results. [...] In both Baltimore and Chicago, two cities at the forefront of camera surveillance, police espouse their benefits, but prosecutors say the cameras rarely factor into courtroom proceedings."

Title: CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations Content: I don't think they should be almost everywhere. That defeats the purpose of what America is based off of, which is freedom. As far as catching all the murders, and offenders, yeah it might work. But you also have to think that it keeps the population down. Also if all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?

Title: Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy. Content: Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F." The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "I count myself among those opposed to more government interference in personal privacy, but that’s not really a big issue here. These cameras are going on public streets, not in bedrooms, and those who object are ignoring the obvious, ideology serving here as a highly effective blinder."

Title: Crime cameras Content: Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.

Title: Speed cameras are a dangerous distraction to motorists Content: If motorists are complying with the allocated speed limits then there will be no need for distraction. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) http://www.pacts.org.uk

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Yes, it IS on like Donkey Kong!!! I think the cameras are a good thing. You bring up good points about just another way for the government to get money from us. But first, they are getting money from people breaking the law, so I'm cool with that. Next, I would think it is cheaper for them to use the cameras than to beef up police patrols for red lights, so in the end it is more cost effective for tax-payers. And lastly, every level of government is in a financial mess. So if they have to make a little cash off people running red lights, rather than raise taxes or cut important programs, then I say go for it! And I find the cameras make things safer. I do think that some dopey people slow down too much, but overall I think it makes most people better drivers near the lights. I know that I now have a tendency to be a better, safer driver because the camera is there. I don't hit the gas to make the light, but I drive more responsibly because I don't want to get a ticket.

Title: Place Cameras in Courtrooms to Televise Court Cases Content: People should have a right of access to justice.

Title: Organ Donation should be made Mandatory Content: 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...

Title: School Uniforms Should Be Mandatory Content: Inappropriate

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help catch criminals and get them off the street

Title: Hi-tech crime cameras help predict and prevent criminal acts Content: James Slack. "Caught Before the Act". Daily Mail. November 28, 2008 - "CCTV cameras which can 'predict' if a crime is about to take place are being introduced on Britain's streets. The cameras can alert operators to suspicious behaviour, such as loitering and unusually slow walking. Anyone spotted could then have to explain their behaviour to a police officer."

Title: Crime cameras place security over civil liberties. Content: While security interests are important, security cameras wrongly place them over civil liberties. Constitutional principles surrounding civil liberties exist for a reason, and are meant to be immutable. Expediencies such as increased security should not be allowed to bend or break these important moral principles and lines.

Title: should there be cameras in classrooms Content: i think there should be cameras in classrooms so you can see if someone stole your stufff or more

Title: Traffic light cameras Content: Thanks, Rich! Yes, I think we should agree to disagree on that part, but I see what you're saying in many respects. I agree with the fact that the smarter driveres will become more safe and the knuckleheads will just become more knuckle-headier. In many respects, I can see what you're saying with having the police patrol other areas and take care of situations that would take precedence over traffic lights. I just feel that the majority of accidents that happen are not due to people blowing red lights, but on the other hand; people doing that won't make others safe. And you're right... if traffic cameras help the way people drive, in any way, I can see that as a definite positive. In some ways, maybe I feel like my privacy is being taken away in the slightest bit because of these lights, but like you have said... if it makes it safer, why not. I do, though, feel uncomfortable with the traffic lights because I feel as though that it was not even that big of an issue for them to place cameras, but apparently it is getting some work done considering most people probably think twice before "flooring it" through the yellow light.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety

Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: I am affirmative for the Resolve: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised. I will wait for the negative/con to accept this debate and then following their post that ONLY accepts, I will post the 1AC speech and the debate shall begin. Thanks and good luck!

Title: Cameras make a small but valuable contribution to crime fighting. Content: Ken Garcia. "Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - "The cameras by themselves are not a crime-solving strategy, but part of an overall network designed to stop criminals before or after the act."

Title: Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law. Content: 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.

Title: Crime cameras Content: Crime cameras cannot deter criminals that do not fear the law

Title: Cameras shall placed in courtrooms so that criminal trials can be puclically televised Content: 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...