Cultural Diversity And Cultural Issues

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

Today, law enforcement agencies, or more specifically police officers, are under constant scrutiny from their peers as well as outside sources. Many of these problems arise from how the police treat and deal with these citizens. There is however a solution to these problems, which can not only improve officer safety, but can also protect anyone else that the officer encounters. The solution to this problem is officer mounted camera systems, or better known as body cameras. These body cameras capture almost everything an officer see’s as well as hears. This allows for protection against a police officer as well as protection for a citizen who was scrutinized for something he or she might have done or not. Body cameras are ever increasing in policing and have many benefit’s as well as draw backs.

Recently some American police departments, large and small, have started employing the use of small body cameras on officers. These cameras are often hidden or otherwise difficult to see and discern. These cameras are costly, often an invasion of privacy, and easily manipulated. There are currently no laws or regulations regarding the use of these cameras, and no real consequences for misuse of them. As such, body cameras on police officers in the US should not be employed.

Technology has benefited developed countries in numerous amounts of ways. Most recently, body cameras has seen use in a few U.S. law enforcement agencies across the United States and has improved public relations for those police departments. However, many police officers and lawmakers question the cost and efficiency of such devices and whether the citizens should be placed under constant surveillance when near a law enforcement officer. Whether or not body-worn cameras should be required to be implemented into law enforcement agencies across America is debatable and the decision is dependent on the factors of public safety, cost efficiency, and whether body cameras will serve a practical use or not.

While implementing body-worn cameras, it is important to create clear, black and white guidelines. These guidelines should provide room for changes as the program evolves over time. It is important to consult with supervisors, officers, legal advisors, the police unions, prosecutors, and the public while implementing such a project (Miller). It is important to take your time with implementing body cameras, as there is a large amount of information available. This makes the deployment of this program difficult to uniformly disperse. There are many possible and unforeseen hurdles that may come up during implementation and early stages of the use of body-worn cameras. Agencies which have successfully implemented body-worn cameras, have stressed the importance of proceeding slowly and with caution. By doing this, we can reduce high risk high impact problems while catching most large problems early on.

For this week’s topic on technology in law enforcement, I chose to write about body-worn cameras for police officers. Many law enforcement agencies have already implemented the use of body-worn cameras due to the controversial discussions about police officers recently. A large majority of the citizens believe these cameras are a good idea, while some argue against it. One of the benefits of requiring officers to have these cameras on while on duty is that it assists in supporting police accountability by providing an actual recording of the interaction between officers and the public. This is evidence that is usually unattainable in situations and shows what the officer said or done and what the person ( criminal, suspect, etc.) has said or

Implicit bias everyone possesses it, even if they do not ament to it. Implicit bias is also known as social cognition. It refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions,and decisions. About 48 hours after the presidential debate monday night, Trump responded to what Ms..Clinton spoke about implicit bias. Trump thinks that Hillary accused the entire country of implicit bias. Trump then goes on to bashing clinton about everything she has ever said to make her seem like a terrible person towards the citizens and our cops,soldiers,firefighters,the men that severing the country.

“Cultural assimilation is the process by which a person or a group 's language and/or culture come to resemble those of another group.” (Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia)

Unconscious Bias (also known as hidden bias or implicit bias) refers to bias that we are unaware of, and which happens outside of our control. It is a bias that happens automatically and is triggered by our brain making quick judgments and assessments of people and situations, influenced by our background, cultural environment, and personal experiences. Numerous studies since the 1980s have confirmed that people

Body worn cameras are used to record interactions between officers and the public during mundane traffic stops, provide evidence for investigations to ensure arrest and prosecution, and holds accountability of both officer and citizen. The police worn body cameras could clear any false accusations against either officer or citizen. It can also help protect citizens against police misconduct and the police against false accusations of corruption. However, what may seem like a practical use of technology may in fact cause a commencement of problems.

At issue is the appropriate approach to take toward immigrant groups with cultures different than that currently dominant. There are two main schools of thought about how best to handle the situation: assimilation or integration. “Assimilation involves relinquishing one’s culture of origin in favor of a full incorporation into the new society whereas integration involves…the incorporation of the new society’s way of life but without relinquishing one’s culture of origin” (Guimond et al, 642). When surveying attitudes about the two ideologies, it has repeatedly been found that minority groups have a more positive view of integration whereas those in the majority favor assimilation (642). The explanation of this is rather simple: in the eyes of minority groups, integration “offers the possibility of maintaining their own culture and obtaining higher social status in society,” whereas those in the majority “may see ethnic minorities and their desire to maintain their own culture as a threat to their cultural dominance and group identity” (Verkuyten, 284). When one examines at the actors in the debate in America, this is borne out. The majority of those advocating for the imposition of polices that would restrict immigrant rights and push America toward assimilation are largely white Christians.

The use of body-worn cameras has the potential to provide many advantages to law enforcement officers as public safety improvement, make prosecutions more effective by recalling and documenting events, and enhance transparency, accountability and trust, reduce complaints against officers from false allegations and influence the behavior, in a positive way, for both the officer and those being recorded.

“Body cameras help to record what happens. It may not be the golden ticket, the golden egg, the end-all-fix-all, but it helps to paint a picture of what happens during a police stop,” says Clementa C. Pinckney, a member of the South Carolina Senate. The idea of police officers wearing body-cameras has caused a lot of debates on whether or not body-worn cameras are effective or just a waste of time. The use of body-worn cameras has been increasing through the years, but not everyone has been in favor of it. Some people say that body-cameras are effective in reducing police corruption such as force against citizens and there are others who say that body-cameras are useless and go against privacy rights. Police brutality has been one of the top discussions in the United States that have shifted a lot of people’s attention to body-cameras. A lot of police departments have been implementing body-worn cameras and believe it has improved the way police stops are handled. The purpose of body cameras is to have a visual record on file that can later be watched and be used as evidence. With body-worn cameras, police misconduct can be validated when and if police officers keep their camera on during their shift. Despite negative views on body-worn cameras, there are some people who support the use of body-worn cameras and believe that body-worn cameras can help our society by reducing police corruption. Although there are some drawbacks to body-worn cameras, there are

The definition of cultural diversity refers to differences among people because of their racial or ethnic backgrounds, language, dress and traditions.

Multiculturalism may be defined as the practice of treating diverse groups of people with different cultural backgrounds and beliefs equally without favor or bias. There are different factors that bring different people together, such as trade, education, or displacement due to political tensions and war. When these people with different cultural diversity get together, they should be treated and given equal attention as the native citizens of that particular country. Different cultures exhibit different beliefs and practices.