Example of “A” Argumentative Essays: Body Cameras 2016-2017
Example #1
Dear Mr. Price:
Imagine a police officer who returning home after risking his life, to see on television that the citizens of the city he protects ridicule his profession for brutalizing them. That said officer could think back to when he took his first pay reduction because of the cost of the body cameras he was recently required to wear. The officer would look back at the television to see that the people who once criticized him for not having a body camera are the same people that now are biased against the footage they fought to obtain. This is what life would be like for a police officer required to wear a body camera by the recent proposition. The proposed body cameras would be chest mounted devices worn by field officers. They would record a police officer’s dealings with the public. The cameras would be used in the field to help the judicial system in seeing an officer’s perspective. These cameras would raise taxes and burden the people of Fairfield. As the mayor of Fairfield, the current proposition to increase the amount of body cameras should not be approved because it would hinder the police’s ability to do their jobs while simultaneously not affecting the current criminal justice system.
Taxes should not be raised in Fairfield to fund the use of body cameras because they would cost too much for the city. An increase in taxes would be a burden on the people of Fairfield, as the taxes would forever stay at a raised level. The cameras would individually cost a large sum of money that could be used elsewhere, according to one survey, “One survey found most agencies spent between $800 and $1,200 per camera to purchase them. That can be a huge cost for departments that are already struggling to pay for equipment and police salaries’’ ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This shows how much a single camera can cost, almost crippling struggling departments. Not only could the money for the cameras hurt single police departments, it could be harmful for the entire state’s budget according to a Texas study, “A possible law in Texas would spend $50 million in state money to require that officers across the state wear cameras” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This means that an entire state could take a huge financial hit to afford the body cameras. This all shows that the cameras would cost the citizens of Fairfield a large sum of money, which is important for the financial state of the city. Think about the people of Fairfield being able to not suffer the consequences of a tax raise. The police will also be able to do their jobs properly without the hindrance of worry about the monetary effects of their new equipment. The body cameras would simply just be too costly. All of this means that the body camera’s tax increase would be a huge drawback to both the people and police of Fairfield.
Moving right along, not only would the cameras themselves be costly, but a potentially overlooked expenditure is the cost of storage for the video. Every camera would have to record almost a million hours of footage, and because of this the cameras would amass more footage than can be stored. The money for the cameras could be largely consumed by the fees for storing the video as shown by the New Orleans police department: “The New Orleans Police Department… is planning to spend $1.2 million over five years. Most of that money is for storing the videos” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This shows the consumption of the budget by the storage The compilation of storage could cause more funds to be needed according to one police chief, “De Anda said they spent $100,000 on the cameras over the two years. The money went not only to purchase the devices — each cost about $1,200 — but also to run an internal website to store the images”("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). This means that the majority of the funding this police department received was used to maintain the storage instead of the cameras themselves, furthering their financial problems. Think of the budget of the Fairfield police department, and how it would gradually dwindle as years of storage build up. This would be a massive financial strain on one of the most important basic necessities of the city. This all means that the body cameras would be using the money that the police departments barely has, in addition to creating more fees for the storage of the video.
Furthermore, even if the there was a way to afford the insurmountable amount of video along with the purchase and replacement of the cameras, the video would still be presented to people with an undeniable bias to the footage. The viewer’s prejudice would completely ruin the body camera’s footage, as it couldn’t be used without the viewer’s judgment being subjected to a lifetime of bias. When someone watches a video, no matter how hard that person can try, they will always be subjected to a bias that has built up their entire life according to former officer Professor Stoughton, “Our interpretation of video is just as subject to cognitive biases as our interpretation of things we see live” (Williams, et al.). This means that the footage used in court cases could be potentially useless when faced with the viewer’s predisposition to favor one side or the other, even with appropriate evidence. For example, in some instances the person watching camera footage would feel compelled to feel a partiality for the person recording as explained by Professor Stoughton, “When video allows us to look through someone’s eyes, we tend to adopt an interpretation that favors that person,” Professor Stoughton said, explaining a psychological phenomenon known as ‘camera perspective bias’ ” (Williams, et al.). This means that when a person watches a video, they will instinctively favor the opinion and story of the person that was recording, thus leaving out the recorded person’s input. Think of the countless court cases that will be ruined by the bias in every person’s mind. Those that base their claims with evidence from police body camera footage will fail because of simple human bigotry and impartialism. That will surely happen if the proposition to increase the amount of body cameras is passed. To sum this up, the inevitable bias of those viewing the camera footage will render the body cameras useless and could actually hurt those the cameras were intended to protect.
On the other hand, some citizens may believe that the proposition to increase taxes for body cameras should be passed. These people think that it will bring more evidence against police brutality and the tax increase will not affect them. They think that the evidence will help bring stop police brutality because the video could serve as potentially incriminating evidence against the officer. This is supported by the thought that in some remote cases, like in San Diego the official reports for police violence dropped after the introduction of cameras. What they don’t understand is that due to the previously discussed bias when viewing video. For example, people who already trust police are a staggering twenty eight percent more likely to side with the police, even with the introduction of body cameras ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This shows quite clearly that the years of built up bias will cloud people’s judgment of the video they strive to obtain. Think about how useless the body camera’s footage would be if it was dismissed by those who have a predisposition to favor one point of view. The video will do nothing to change the years of built up bias in the minds of the American people. Some may also think that although the tax would call for more money, they believe that the storage wouldn't be a budgetary problem. Those people may think that newer models of the body cameras could store more total footage. These people seem to not understand that the newer models of body cameras film the footage in high definition, which would mean that it would take up more storage, further contributing to the storage problem. Police departments would spend large sums of money on newer models of body cameras, only in turn to spend more resources on the storage of the high definition video ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). No matter what type or model of camera purchased, the police department will be practically spending money on something that will inevitably cause them to spend more money. All of these reasons mean that the proposition should not be passed, as body cameras are not a necessity for the police only a nuisance.
The cost of purchase, storage, and viewer’s bias all render the body cameras useless, making a proposition to increase taxes absurd in Fairfield. If Fairfield becomes a place filled with body cameras, it will soon become a ghost town, as the residents will have left to not face the burden of insurmountable tax increases. The city’s budget will soon become devoured by the ever growing hours upon hours of video footage if its taxes increase The few people left will eventually be completely biased to the video that has caused the financial ruin of their city. This ruin will spread to other cities, as the American dream will grow weaker and weaker every year. Until one day the American Dream will shrivel up and die, like a prized dog that has been mistreated then abandoned by its owners all in the name of monetary gain. Mr. Price, think back to the police officer in financial and social struggle whose life was ruined by a tax increase. Now think how this can be prevented by simply not passing the upcoming proposition.
Regards,
Student’s Name Withheld
Example #2
Dear Mayor Price:
Imagine a city, with innocent people, families, and law abiding citizens struggling to pay their raised taxes. The very air is filled with the sounds of sirens. What used to be a calm, safe environment has recently turned into a mess. There was such an abrupt change in the economy, with citizens under the sudden qualification to pay taxes for body cameras, leaving the majority of the citizens underpaid and in poverty. Children who had grown up with proper food and clothing were now spending their spare time working the bills with their parents. Still, the taxes had yet been able to buy the needed supply of cameras, and with the police department occupied and undersupplied, many of the criminals who were hiding in the dark have taken their chance. The city was now no better than a battleground, for people and their income, criminals and the police. In the near future, Fairfield may begin paying taxes for body cameras, which could be disastrous; these small cameras that would be worn by field officers would, in theory, be used to help the public when there is action taking place. The cameras, in the ideal situation, would be used to record evidence for court cases and as proof of the events that occurred. However, purchasing body cameras would spread a burden on all of Fairfield’s taxpayers. As the mayor of Fairfield, you should not raise the taxes of your city to supply the police department with body cameras because this community is not prepared to support such a large change.
Taxes should not be raised in Fairfield to fund the use of body cameras because they are very expensive, and the city’s economic state is not prepared to support the costs of such technology. Deciding not to fund body cameras would benefit Fairfield by making sure that the city will not be overwhelmed by new taxes, which will help struggling citizens to get by. If taxes are not passed, people will not have to worry about new payments and if they will rise or become permanent. According to this article, body cameras carry a large cost compared to its small size: “The price of a single camera ranges from less than $100 to more than $1,000” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This explains why the price of body cameras is such a big deal. If one camera is so pricey, and hundreds are needed just to supply the city’s officers, then the cost will add up… and the taxes will too. This could cause families to struggle to pay their bills, and make buying enough cameras improbable. In the same article, it is shown how big of an impact that these costs can have: “$50 million in state money to require that officers across the state wear cameras” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). A single state had to scrape together $50 million… this means that Fairfield could also have to pay millions as well, which is something that the city should not have to worry about. All of these costs make a difference, and the amount of taxes needed to raise so much money could corrupt the economy of Fairfield. This proves that the cost of body cameras is just too much to ask the citizens to pay for, making it a risky idea. Furthermore, it is important to realize that the costs of body cameras are too much because the body camera’s job is to protect the citizens, so they should not cause the citizens to struggle in the first place. Just think about it… doesn’t the idea of body cameras contradict itself if they are meant to help the citizens but harm them instead? People are priceless and worth much more than a simple camera; it is not worth risking their economic stability. Not raising taxes allows the citizens of Fairfield to continue carrying out their lives, and build upon their own income, not having to worry about new, challenging obstacles. The costs of paying for body cameras could backfire, which would take a huge toll on the community.
Not only do you have to consider the individual costs of the cameras, but also the price of them years after being bought… due to storage. Body cameras are used to record footage and evidence, but that footage has to go somewhere. Long after buying the cameras, the community could still be struggling to pay for space for storage. Just imagine how many videos would be required to be stored, just per year; “Officers could record millions of videos a year” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This shows that having so many videos coming in could be impossible to store. Officers will never know when you will need the footage for a case, so many films will not be thrown away, meaning that Fairfield will have to store all of that video, and pay for space. If 1,000 officers are equipped with body cameras, then in a year, over a billion videos could be collected. With all of this footage, the storage cost could be more than the actual cameras, and they never go away: “planning to spend $1.2 million over five years. Most of that money is for storing the videos” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). If the cost of the cameras themselves are already overwhelming, then the additional costs of so many videos would be insurmountable. Paying millions of dollars for some cameras is not worth it; the taxes will never go away as long as new cameras are being produced, and the burden on the citizens would be permanent. This proves that paying for body cameras also has hidden and on-going costs. Although this may seem like a minor problem, it is very important because the taxes will not end and will only increase, which could begin to harm Fairfield’s economy. Just think about it; the footage will pile up, and most of the videos will be irrelevant, but the citizens will have to keep paying for their storage. Deciding to not concern the citizens with taxes for body cameras will free them of a constant tax that would stretch on long after the payment of body cameras. Storage problems make the idea of body cameras riskier by ten-fold; taxes on the community will continue to eat away at the economy.
The price, on top of the storage, is almost unbearable; however, there is more… the videos taken might not be accurate, thanks to perspective. Paying for body cameras is one thing, but faulty technology is another; body cameras are actually built in a way so that they only get one side of the story, and it’s the officers. Body cameras are meant to be used to film evidence of a crime, but that won’t work if the cameras are biased: “People must be careful how they interpret the footage, keeping in mind the cameras’ limits and viewers’ biases” (Williams, et al.). To bring the innocent to justice or guilty to punishment, courts need evidence. Body cameras would be a great way to supply this information. If it weren’t all wrong. Many would think that these cameras provide accurate evidence, but even this technology is limited; the movements will look sharper, the images will be unclear, and the full story will never be told through just one window. What is even worse, the body cameras will put the police first, making the suspect’s story clouded: “Sometimes police video footage cannot answer the most pressing questions… Body cameras prioritize the officer’s point of view” (Williams, et al.). This shows that body cameras may actually turn out to be false evidence, because not only do their stories seem unclear, but the actual footage is made to be biased and sometimes incorrect. This could prove to be a major problem; innocent suspects could be given unfair sentences or a guilty police officer may not be punished for using excessive force. The city will have to pay out of their own pockets for body cameras that should give a clear witness to an event, but could actually show a different story, proving that body cameras are impractical. This is important to know because it is clear that you would never want to see your citizens struggling to pay for cameras that actually tell a false story. Consider this: the cameras will have no purpose if they cannot provide truthful evidence for the court, so why spend Fairfield’s money and time? It will be the right choice to avoid body cameras because they will only confuse the judge and jury with false evidence, which could result in a false accusation. The biased nature of body cameras ruins its purpose; there is no point in paying for technology that could serve as inaccurate evidence.
On the other hand, others may believe that that taxes should be raised to fund body cameras for the Fairfield police. They believe that it will lead to public appeal and a surplus of court case evidence. One reason that they may believe that body cameras will appeal to the public could be because many people want to see proof of criminal or police activity, especially since police brutality and racism is becoming a problem. This is supported by the thought that people don’t trust the police without body cameras, which is leading to riots ("Millennial Generation Doubts Fairness of Justice System, Poll Finds"). What they don’t understand is that the root problem is not that the police need to be under constant surveillance. In fact, the main issue is that some officers may hold beliefs that are racist or show inequality, and that cannot be solved by cameras. People here are hoping that having body cameras will scare the police into being kind, but the police have a job to do, and their own opinions won’t be stifled by a small camera. Still, more may think that body cameras could provide court case evidence because they will have footage of the crime scene. This thought could have originated when it was released that body cameras could be used to prove the actions of the police or criminal ("Police Department to Get More Body Cameras following Shooting"). However, body cameras are likely to do just the opposite. Because the cameras are placed on the officer’s chest, they will only give one perspective of the story, and therefore be biased. What people believed would be great as evidence could actually give the wrong story, and condemn the innocent to a sentence that they did not deserve. This, among many reasons, proves that Fairfield should not be hindered by paying taxes for unreliable body cameras. Body cameras are not essential or helpful to daily police patrols, and should not be funded by citizens and their tax dollars.
Mr. Price, as an individual with much power, you should avoid forcing your citizens to pay taxes to supply the police department with body cameras, because it would be a tremendous burden that Fairfield cannot support. A city that increases its taxes for body cameras is a city where citizens are struggling to afford the basics of life, a city where the population is decreasing by the moment to avoid the high taxes, and a city that is trying to protect their citizens but failing. A body camera is no more than a small gadget, and it is not worth risking the comfort of all of the citizens of Fairfield. People are not prepared to pay extra taxes, and the city is bound to fall under such a large weight. Just consider the future without body cameras; citizens all around America will be given a chance to thrive without the oppressive taxes that would dull their “American Dream”. People here are expecting greatness and opportunity, and body cameras should not take that away from the citizens. The right thing to do is to let America, starting with Fairfield, carry out their dreams without the constant worry of taxes for some defective cameras. Think back to the moment that proud Americans claimed this land as a place for liberty, and new opportunities; don’t let these taxes ruin this image, the “American Dream”.
Regards,
Student’s Name Withheld
Example #3
Dear Mayor Price:
Imagine an innocent citizen getting shot or hurt in an incident because the police officer at the scene had to stop and turn on their body camera, directing their attention to something other than the situation at hand. People who did nothing wrong being victim to the faults of officers learning how to use new technology. Imagine the hate people would develop towards the city as a result of having to pay taxes for an unneeded accessory. Investing in body cameras would have more detrimental effects than beneficial. Body cameras are miniature cameras that are meant to be attached to the uniform of police officers. These cameras would be used to document live video footage of events officers might encounter on the job. Investing in these body cameras would require an increase in taxes on our city’s citizens. Mr. Price, you should not raise the taxes of Fairfield to supply the police department with body cameras because the process of working to obtain the body cameras would negatively affect officers and the city in many ways.
As the mayor of Fairfield, it is your job to realize that investing in body cameras would not benefit our city because the cameras would cost too much. Funding body cameras would cost a very large amount of money, most of which would have to be taken from our citizens as taxes, so it would take varying amounts of effort to get them. Research shows that, if the cameras were invested in, they would cost a lot of money that the city might not be able to pay. According to the article, “The price of a single camera ranges from less than $100 to more than $1,000” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This shows that the cost of body cameras can be very high. Furthermore, not only will the cameras cost a lot, but if the city were to already be struggling with paying for other equipment, it would be even harder to pay for storage. An example of this is that,“In addition to buying the cameras, departments also must pay for storing the videos” ("Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, But Cost is a Struggle"). This shows that not only will the cameras cost a lot, but storing them will as well. This proves that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the cameras themselves but also for the storage of the video footage. Funding body cameras would result in the people of our city losing money for a piece of equipment that is not indispensable. Moreover, taxes should not be raised to fund body cameras because they would cause the city to lose a lot of money that could be put to better use.
Another reason that body cameras should not be invested in is that police officers would have to train and learn how to use the body cameras before they’d actually be able to use them in the field. Investing in body cameras would require that officers undergo training for an unnecessary accessory. This would use valuable time that they could spend doing something more beneficial to their jobs. Furthermore, the article states that the mayor of North Charleston, South Carolina who is working to make it a required law that all officers in his city have to wear body cameras,“cautioned that it could take some time before officers would wear them on patrols” ("Police Department to Get More Body Cameras following Shooting"). This proves that they would most likely not be able to use the equipment right away and suggests that they would have to undergo training to learn how to use them. In addition, the articles also suggests that in order to safely use body cameras on the job without putting people at risk because the officers are inexperienced with this technology, “The officers need to be trained” ("Police Department to Get More Body Cameras following Shooting"). This displays the fact that officers would infact have to learn how to use the cameras before actually being able to use them. This could take varying amounts of time. If body cameras were to be invested in, they would not be able to be used right away. Officers would have to spend time practicing with the cameras until using them came naturally. Therefore, body cameras should not become a required accessory for police officers because they would require officers to use valuable time training.
Furthermore, raising taxes to pay for body cameras would not fix the criminal justice system. Body cameras would only slightly reduce the amount of crimes committed. They would not stop all people from committing crimes, nor will body cameras always provide evidence to solve criminal cases. Although police body cameras would capture footage that could be useful in the event that a crime is committed, but they would not always be able to help provide evidence. Research has shown that not very many people believe the cameras would be very effective, for example, “American millennials aren't confident that the movement will be effective in bringing meaningful change” ("Millennial Generation Doubts Fairness of Justice System, Poll Finds"). This shows that body cameras would only be useful when helpful evidence happens to be captured. Likewise, has also been brought to many people’s attention that “...49 percent of millennials have little or no confidence that the judicial system can fairly judge people without bias for race and ethnicity.” ("Millennial Generation Doubts Fairness of Justice System, Poll Finds"). This displays the fact that even if footage were to be captured on body cameras, there is no guarantee that the video footage would prevent biased judgements would not be made. This proves that investing in body cameras would only help so much. They would not completely solve criminal cases or stop unfair judgements in court.These, among many other reasons are why taxes should not be raise to fund body cameras.
On the other hand, some people might believe that taxes should be raised to invest in body cameras for our city. These people believe that they would be beneficial because there is a chance that they won’t cost that much and that they will allow people to see an officer’s point of view in certain situations that could benefit from a second point of view. They believe this will lead to the provision of another helpful point of view because it will allow officers to capture what they see. This is supported by the fact that body cameras capture what officers are seeing ("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). What they don’t understand is that body cameras would only provide an officer’s point of view which might not capture the whole story. In addition, if there isn’t any other video footage other than the officer’s you would only see what happened through their perspective. This means that video footage captured with a body camera could be no better than a random bystander's video footage in the fact that it only captures their perspective. They also think investing in the cameras will be helpful because they don’t necessarily have to cost as much. They might think this because the price of many items ranges depending on the brand, quality, or amount. This is supported by the fact that not all cameras cost as much as others ("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). On the other hand, this would not be beneficial because often times, the cheaper cameras are worse quality. Moreover, although it is true that cheaper cameras could be invested in, they would not be the best quality which many people would agree, means they are not worth investing in. Because body cameras are not necessary or an essential accessory to the function of an officer’s daily job, they should not be funded with taxes from our citizens.
Because they would cost a very large amount of money, they would require officers to undergo training, and they would not completely fix the criminal justice system, you should not raise the taxes of Fairfield to invest in body cameras. These things are very important to consider because they can greatly affect our economy, how money is spent, and the city we live in. Likewise, a city where body cameras are required to be worn is a city where people are forced to give their money for something they might not support and officers would be forced to alter their daily routines to fit around the use of body cameras. If all police officers in the United States were required to wear body cameras, people who do not agree with body cameras would become angered by the fact that they have to pay taxes for something they do not agree with. In addition, our city would would lose money and time would be wasted. Consider a world where officers are forced to put time and effort into something that they themselves might not agree with. Is that an acceptable world to live in?
Regards,
Student’s Name Withheld
Example #4
Dear Mayor Price:
Imagine a town once full of life, now eroding and falling to pieces as time goes on. Parents who work incredibly hard, struggle to make ends meet. Parents sit at the table with bills piling on top of each other. With a calculator, the breadwinner crunches the numbers to see how much they have to live off for the next two weeks. It’s less than the last paycheck. Taxes have gone up and it has taken a minimal toll on their money earned, but a large toll on their overall financial stability. The money that allows them to live comfortably and stay off the streets has diminished. This could be anyone in our town. The brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers, and fathers of the Fairfield community. This is what will happen if the taxes are raised for body cameras. After a recent storm of police shootings officers are coming under question and some think that body cameras are the answer. Body cameras are small cameras mounted on a field officer's chest. When turned on before the officers exit of the car, they continuously capture footage until turned off. Patrol officers would use the cameras during traffic stops or when responding to a call. To pay for these body cameras, taxes of citizens will be raised. Although the taxes for each person will be minimal and some will not notice, others barely making it will be affected. You, the Mayor of Fairfield, should not raise the taxes of Fairfield to supply the police department with body cameras because the effects could be detrimental to the community as well as the police department.
As the mayor, you know that body cameras and the costs that come with them are extremely expensive thus making it a bad idea to have body camera. The hefty cost of the body cameras would be funded by raising taxes of Fairfield citizens causing them to struggle. According to a survey “most agencies spent between $800 and $1,200 per camera to purchase them” (“Many Agree Police Body Cameras are a Good Idea, but the Cost is a Struggle”). The Fairfield Police Department has least one hundred patrol officers, which results in each of those officers needing a camera. With a single camera costing up to twelve hundred dollars, this large sum of money would come out of the paychecks of hard working Fairfield citizens. Not only do the cost of the actual cameras have to be covered, money would be needed for storing the footage captured by them also. One article states that “$100,000... to run an internal website to store the images” (“Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams”). With every one of the hundreds of cameras, comes the several hours of footage captured each day. Every piece of footage must be stored. Tens of thousands of dollars must be put towards storing the videos, all the while spending money towards updating and improving the storing system over the next years. The fact that there are hundreds of officers within the Fairfield Police Department who will need body cameras prove that having body cameras will be extremely expensive. By having body cameras, each camera's twelve hundred dollar cost, along with the storage of its footage, will need to be funded by tax money. These costs could add up to several hundred thousands of dollars which would ultimately be taken out of the paychecks of Fairfield taxpayers. This, in turn, causes new struggles . For the people of Fairfield who are already struggling to get by without this new tax, handling the tax that is financing body cameras could be especially difficult. Civilians could soon be living from paycheck to paycheck trying to support their family. With this happening to several people, the community could be harshly affected. This is also important because money that could be used to make Fairfield a better place, is being wasted on body cameras that don't convenience the city, but rather put it at a disadvantage. Further taxing taxpayers to purchase body cameras is a misuse of money. Not raising taxes to provide body cameras to the police department will ensure that no fairfield citizens will struggle financially at the hands of tax that they bring, allowing the Fairfield community to continue to thrive.
People overestimate what body cameras can do which is why you should not raise taxes for body cameras. Many of the people of Fairfield believe that body cameras will solve major problems while answering important questions but one article proves that to be wrong: “police video footage cannot answer the most pressing questions... details were not captured by the police body camera” (“Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?”). This means that although the cameras on officers record traffic stops and confrontations, you cannot always tell what events occurred in certain situations making it useless to tax citizens. The video recorded by the cameras will not provide the answers to questions about what an officer or suspect did or did not do. As a result, the footage is as good as the officers word which defeats the purpose of body cameras. In addition to not providing details about a situation, body camera footage can be difficult to correctly interpret. For example the article “Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?” states “the ‘struggle’ appears to be far more involved than it actually is because the camera is mounted on the officer’s chest, producing herky-jerky movements that exaggerate what’s going on” (“Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?”). This means that while the camera captured footage that seemed to depict a threatening and confrontational scene, it was actually far from that. Also, the camera offers shaky video which results in overemphasized movements that give off a false image of what happened. Several presume that the cameras will capture clear, precise footage which results in them conjecturing an exaggerated view of what the cameras will do. This, in turn will hurt the police department as it is not able to provide what the city expected. If the city is let down by body cameras, the blame will fall onto the police department. People will start to distrust the officers and the city of Fairfield will become disconnected with its source of protection. You, as mayor, shouldn't raise taxes for police body cameras because the cameras won't provide what many expect them to.
Another reason why taxes should not be raised to supply the police department with body cameras is because people have their own biased opinion which could affect how they perceive the footage. These videos that the body cameras will capture could be used in court but the question still remains: Do communities trust judges to interpret them? One article writes “49 percent of millennials have little or no confidence that the judicial system can fairly judge people without bias for race and ethnicity” (“Millennials Doubt Fairness of Justice System, Poll Finds”). This means that almost half of thousands of people around the age of 35 surveyed, do not believe or trust the judicial system to judge people without racial prejudice. Even with the footage millennials most likely still will not trust judges to fairly judge the footage to provide justice in situations. According to the article “Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?” “‘When video allows us to look through someone’s eyes, we tend to adopt an interpretation that favors that person,’ Professor Stoughton said” (“Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?”) . This means that while viewing footage from a police body camera most people will interpret it in favor of the officer. In other words, someone's interpretation of the recordings could be swayed by cognitive bias. Biased opinions, which almost everyone has to a degree, eliminate the purpose of body cameras. No matter what the footage depicts, every person will interpret it differently due to bias. More importantly, a judge’s biased perception of body camera footage could result in a person being unrightfully convicted. This could cause conflict between the officers of the Fairfield Police Department and Fairfields residents. Conflict between the officers and citizens can negatively affect the close knit community of Fairfield. A citizens biased point of view of the recordings could lead them to believe that the police officer didn't do anything wrong in most circumstances, while another citizens biased viewpoint of the tapes could cause the individual to the believe the opposite. Paying taxes for footage of situations that would footage that will already be judged with prejudice is ineffectual. No matter how you look at it, biased perspectives are all around you which is a reason why you shouldn't raise the taxes for body cameras.
Now, some may argue that taxes should be raised to fund body cameras for Fairfield police. They believe that body cameras will put a stop to police brutality and result in a decreased use of force. They think it will lead to a decreased use of force because officers will know they are being watched. This is supported by a San Diego police department’s use of force rates going down by 45 percent when body cameras were put to use (“Police Body Cameras: What Do You See?”). What they don't understand is that although the use of force rates may have dropped it in San Diego, it may not drop in other places. In other words, all departments are different. While body cameras may provide a solution to problems for one department, it may not do the same for the rest. If body cameras don't provide solutions to just one police department thousands of dollars provided by taxpayers would have gone to waste. Money that one parent could've used to put gas in their car and money that another parent could've used to provide medicine for their sick child, washed down the drain for police body cameras that didn't help the community. Some also think that police body cameras will put an end to police brutality. This belief is fueled by complaints about the police being decreased by almost 80 percent (“Police Departments Weigh The Benefits Of Using Officer-Cams”). The point that many are missing is the fact that complaints about the police should be minimal without body cameras. If complaints are high then there is a complication in the police department and it should be fixed not by taking money from taxpayers to provide body cameras, but by reviewing protocol and further training officers to lower the complaints. Providing body cameras is just a way of throwing money at a problem. Police departments have the great responsibility of choosing and recruiting officers who won't abuse their power, but instead protect their community. Body cameras are not essential to daily police patrols and should not be funded by citizens and their tax dollars.
Biased opinions, along with the high costs and underperformance of body cameras, are all reasons why you should not increases the taxes of Fairfield to supply the police department with body cameras. A city that increases its taxes for body cameras is a city where hard working taxpayers are struggling. Struggling leads to people not being able to pay the bills. Some will end up homeless or at food shelters. Before long this could turn into dozens then after time with no change, hundreds. It's a city where people's expectations will being let down causing them to distrust the police department. Finally, a city with police body cameras is a city where justice is not being fairly served. Bias will put people in the wrong places, the criminals on the street while the victims are in jail. The city of Fairfield will become a city with conflict between its citizens and it police officers. If you, Mr. Price don't raise the taxes for body cameras, families can continue to provide and support their family living the life they were meant to and Fairfield can continue to thrive and succeed. More children have a chance at a bright future due to the fact that their parents can provide for them. Think about it, what's better, a city that has body cameras and is struggling tremendously, or a city without them that can flourish and prosper?
Regards,
Student’s Name Withheld
Example #5
Dear Mayor Price:
Imagine a situation with a police officer and a Fairfield citizen. The police officer suddenly shoots the, what seems to be, innocent bystander multiple times in the back. People around the scene pull out their phone to record the shooting, but not the ideal situation that was between the officer and the victim. Social media blows up with people sharing the shooting clip and spreads worldwide. Many people accuse the policeman of being guilty and hurting the city community. If the police officer had a body camera, the world would realize that the citizen was armed with a pistol, and the policeman was actually right to shoot the person. This would be evidence that the police officer was innocent because he would’ve had video proof of the person pulling out a gun. Body cameras are gadgets that will record the point of view of the person using it and then store them as footage. These body cameras will record the user’s perspective and can serve as evidence in some situations. These body cameras will be used by field officers when they are interacting with the public. By purchasing body cameras, the city’s taxes are raised by a minuscule amount, and so the economy won’t be damaged. As the mayor of Fairfield, you should raise up the taxes of Fairfield to supply the police department with body cameras because it will appeal to the public, it will be beneficial for tough situations, and it can positively reform the judicial system.
As the mayor of Fairfield, you should invest in buying body cameras because it proves the police’s actions and in turn, have public appeal. Paying for body cameras by increasing taxes would allow the citizens to view the police officer’s activity, and so they won’t receive so much criticism when they make a decision in an event. An officer named Michael Thomas Slager was reported to have allegedly shot an innocent male, which was seen by bystanders all around, “Slager had said that Scott had taken his Taser, … Saturday morning. Video footage … showed that Scott, who was 50, appeared to be unarmed when he ran away” ("Police Department to Get More Body Cameras following Shooting"). This would represent a situation that will occur if cities, such as Fairfield do not fund the cameras because video proof from cell phones are not as reliable as the cameras mounted on the officer’s chest. As well as that, California democrat Adam B. Schiff says that police officers will hold off on their brutality if they know that they are recorded, “Having a video record of events not only deters the use of excessive force, but it also helps dispute or demonstrate claims of police brutality” ("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). This explains that the police can be held accounted for their actions, whether it be positive or negative. Raising taxes to receive body cameras would allow the citizens to see the true situation between an officer and the suspect. The body cameras would prove if the officer used excessive force towards the person they are dealing with. This is important because the public will be able to realize if the police’s actions were correct in certain circumstances by using the footage from the body cameras, and not simply from a cell phone recording. This would lower social media rumors and criticism towards the community because the police department would have a recording of the officer’s point of view, which will act as evidence for his actions. Consider a suspicious problem regarding one of Fairfield’s citizens, wouldn’t it be very helpful if you had strong evidence to shine light on the matter. This proves that body cameras have the ability to protect many cities, its police officers, and citizens. By raising taxes to buy body cameras for the police officers of Fairfield you are helping the city form a good relationship between its citizens and police force.
Another reason why police officers should wear these body cameras is because they will become beneficial in court cases concerning the people of Fairfield and the police. Investing in these body cameras will enable government officials to receive much more proof of the problem rather than a bad quality cell phone video clip taken by a witness or than no one there to witness the event at all. Police departments have realized that body cameras will be helpful in cases like this, “The video will probably play a key role in deciding whether the officer is disciplined, prosecuted or cleared”("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). This explains that the footage found from the body cameras can act as evidence to determine the officer’s or even suspect’s future. In addition, the footage can decide whether or not the officer inflicted an unnecessary amount of force on the suspect, “The footage allowed police to defend themselves against allegations of excessive force”("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). This shows that when the officer is held on trial, the body cameras will act as a way to prove the truth of what actually happened. By raising taxes and funding body cameras Fairfield will have justice that will be served throughout the city. This is important because criminals will have video evidence committing the crime. This way, those that are suspected to be guilty will be protected and not be thrown in jail simply because of a faulty cell phone clip. Think about it, if a citizen is being held on trial for a crime they didn’t commit because no there was no sufficient evidence, wouldn’t you want to use body cameras as a way to prove them not guilty? Police body cameras can aid innocent people and prove people to be guilty during trial. As a result, you should raise taxes to provide body cameras for police officers because it would provide many court cases with reliable evidence and video proof.
Furthermore, as mayor, you should fund body cameras because it will begin the change of how the city’s judicial system works in a positive manner. Increasing taxes for body cameras would allow the city’s community to put more faith in the police departments and judicial system because there will be less biased decisions based on race and ethnicity. By buying into these cameras, the city’s society will have a fairer criminal justice system, according to a survey released recently by Harvard University, “About half of millennials believe that America’s criminal justice system is unfair… ”("Millennial Generation Doubts Fairness of Justice System, Poll Finds"). This explains that if cities were to invest in body cameras, the public will believe that the justice system will have more equality throughout society. As well as that, based on a poll that was taken by many young people, it said that the cameras will be beneficial, “About 80 percent believe requiring police officers to wear body cameras can be effective” ("Millennial Generation Doubts Fairness of Justice System, Poll Finds"). By having body cameras, the general public will have confidence in how the judicial system works because it will be advantageous when it comes to resolving issues, since it will give solid proof without any unfairness/one-sidedness. With you being mayor, raising taxes to fund body cameras would result in a city that has citizens that not only trusts in their justice system, but has faith that it will do the right thing. This is important because this will provide the citizens and police departments with a clear relationship between them. As a result of using body cameras in Fairfield, the judicial system will be reformed and be equal to everyone no matter what the race/ethnicity. Think about it, if one of Fairfield’s citizens had a problem that could be resolved using help from government officials and their body cameras, wouldn’t you want the citizen to be able to trust them? Therefore, police body cameras would benefit the city as whole and not be biased. All in all, you should raise Fairfield’s taxes to be able to invest in body cameras because it will help enable people to put their trust in the judicial system.
Now, some people may believe that taxes should not be raised to fund body cameras for the Fairfield police. They argue that it will lead to the increase of cost and training issues. They think it will lead to an increase in cost because cameras are expensive as well as its footage. This is supported by how much the cameras are costing $1,000 along with the cost of storing the footage ("Police Departments Weigh the Benefits of Using Officer-Cams"). What they don’t understand is that cities can purchase cheaper cameras. Cheaper cameras will suffice because they are all the same. And it doesn’t matter whether it is high-end or not. For example, both cheap and expensive cameras both record the person’s point of view, and so the type of cameras don’t matter. In addition, they believe that it will lead to training issues because training will take time. This is supported by how many days it will take for the police to get used to cameras ("Police Department to Get More Body Cameras following Shooting"). What they don’t understand is that it is only a few days. They prove themselves wrong in their own argument because a few days is better compared to months and years. For instance, the officers aren’t that dumb to know how turning on a camera works. Cameras are easy to function and it can only take, once again, a few days to learn them. Body cameras are essential to daily police patrols and should be funded by citizens and their tax dollars.
Mr. Price, as the mayor of Fairfield, you should raise taxes to supply the police departments with body cameras because it will be beneficial to the city as a whole and not to one group, whether it may be to officers, citizens, etc. A city filled with body cameras is a city where crime doesn’t run rampant. Body cameras will show how the city cares for its citizens. There will be fewer protests against how the judicial system is ineffective and so the community will come together as one. These cameras will make Fairfield safer for citizens to roam the streets. If body cameras do become in effect, the nation will be out of harm’s way. You cannot put a price on a human being’s life. Body cameras will protect this nation’s people for future generations. This country’s well-being will improve with body cameras because lawbreaking will decrease. Think back to the officer that shot the guilty man. The body cameras can prove the officer’s action and show the circumstance that he was in, and so the public will have a greater understanding of what had happened. This would make the citizens have faith in the government.
Regards,
Student’s Name Withheld