Images And Images Of Cameras Essay

In the case of the Michael Brown shooting, lack of a video recording lead to mixed reports from either side. A large amount of confusion comes from the fact that no one knows what really happens in these cases. A camera would certainly lead to a better understanding of what happens in a police issue.The viewer could clearly see what happens, and a judge can make the best decision. Fingerprints can only provide so much proof, so a physical video recording would most likely be the deciding factor in the

At times, in investigation there can be confusion. This is because often suspects, witnesses, and police officers have different stories, but who is telling the truth? Body cameras can make it faster and easier to find out. In Source one, 'Political Cartoon', there is a drawing of a witness, a suspect, and a police officer all swearing that they "Always tell the truth". Now, in most cases the witness and the police officer have similar stories while the suspect has an entirely different one. This can make it easier to investigate, while in other cases it may be a bit more complex. If the witness, suspect, and police officers all have completely different stories this is where investigation will most likely be harder and take longer. However, if police officers are required to use body cameras, video footage can be played back to

Body cameras can help in many ways. " Body cameras provide richer and more accurate accounts of the incident. " Although this is true, it can be facile and more suitable for the police to gather correct information. Police officers find this a more desirable use because they think that the person who was involved in the situation would tell the

And the benefits work both ways. The article also reported citizen complaints against police fell 88 percent after the department began using the cameras. The same article cites studies from the U.K., where body cameras are more widely used, that found the cameras “aid in the prosecution of crimes, by providing … uniquely compelling evidence.”

“First, there's no guarantee that the public will ever see footage from police body cameras, especially in cases where it may be helpful to defendants or civil litigants” (Buttar, 2016). Although this may be true in some cases, laws are being made to ensure that the footage is available for not only police but the public. For example, a police department in Seattle posts their footage to YouTube so everyone can see what their police have recorded (Dunn & Lieberman, 2017). Others believe body cameras should not be worn because of possible mass incarceration issues amongst the public. “Cameras could capture footage used against defendants in criminal trials—either where the footage depicts criminal acts, like jaywalking or selling loose cigarettes, or where it merely supports suspicion of potential crime, justifying subsequent stops and searches that would otherwise be illegal” (Buttar, 2016). Some cops could abuse cameras in such a way; however, the footage collected is currently reviewed only by specific professionals and debates over sending footage directly to specialized agencies for review is still highly considered. Sending the footage to these special facilities leaves little room for tampering by police and will help ensure the authenticity of the footage. Although many may believe those body cameras will cause more harm than help to the community, body cameras are still highly useful and are statistically reported to assist police and the

One of the advantages is that the cameras would be able to record and keep track of the evidence at the scene of the crime. The cameras ensure accurate statements as well as face recognition from the witnesses and the victims. There will be no need to rely on another person’s partial picture of what took place; the police will have their own. The use of the cameras by the officers on duty is bound to give rise to hard evidence when it comes to the decisions that are made by the officers when it comes to the high-intensity situations. A judge will be provided with the chance for them to see and hear exactly what took place at an incident, which is very different from reading reports that have been written down by the officers (Drover & Ariel,

In the first place, there is a research of Cambridge University that proves that wearing a camera make the officers less prone to use physical violence in their interventions. In addition, officers are more protected against fake complaints and they are more safe, because cameras incorporate a GPS and a system called “fallen man”. This system sends an alarm signal to the control panel if the camera remains less than one meter from the ground for more than 40 seconds, interpreting that the agent is unconscious on the ground. In third place, a citizen who has been recorded may use them as evidence against a supposed disproportionate use of force by the police, as well as a police officer can demonstrate if someone attacks or insults them. Images can also be used as training material for other agents, and to verify that the protocols of action are correct or if they have to change

Once people are accustomed to cameras it is possible that "the initial reaction to them and concern about them wears off" (Stephens). There is a possibility that "officers became temporarily more restrained once they started wearing cameras, but that dissipated over time" (Dr. White). The body cameras can be very effective and can be used for multiple purposes. According to Russo, "Human nature is such that when we know we are being watched, we act differently, presumably better,"(Lightly 1). The body cameras can be" an effective tool for accountability" (Hoover 2015). Cameras can also reduce the length of the investigation process. A source says, "Cameras can cut the time to investigate disputed incidents to days instead of months"(When Cops Wear Cameras 2014).

Providing Evidence for Trials. Footage captured from police body cameras can be used as evidence in cases and trials, providing objective information relating to whether law enforcement officers and their use of force in the field are justifiable. Recorded footage has the advantage of documenting the series of events that have happened and confirms the accuracy of police reports or statements (Harvard Law Review, 2015). Police cameras and the footage that is collected can be used as an aid to help prosecutors secure evidence to prosecute

According to a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, Margaret Talbot in her article Why Cameras On Police Won't Save Us, “Maybe the bigger lesson is, again, that cameras won’t save us. Like photographs and like eyewitness testimony, video evidence is subject to differing interpretations, and to the prejudices and assumptions of individual viewers (Talbot).” Nonetheless, the videos should not differ in interpreting because videos are step by step of what happens and what occurs in a situation, supervisors and observers may have different opinions on the video at the time but that shouldn't affect the interpretation of the whole video regardless of the opinions. The video won’t

Any footage that is on a body camera that records a crime happening at that very moment, can be used in a court as evidence against the suspect. In some cases, if there was no footage to be shown there would be little to no evidence to convict the person of the crime and the suspect may be set free. Erica Baum, author of “5 Pros and Cons of Police Wearing Body Cameras” gave a great example regarding a study that was done at the University of Cambridge. The study found that when police officers are wearing their body cameras, the police and as well as the suspect was fifty percent less likely to use any type of violence. Body cameras can prevent incidents like the Ferguson case, when an African American male died due to a police officer using superfluous force and the entire incident was caught on the officer’s body camera. Unfortunately, every citizen does not trust body cameras due to the limitations of when the police can turn the camera on and off. Thus, lacking the credibility of the body cameras and if they may be potentially tampered

The name "Photography" comes from the Greek words for light and writing. Sir John Herschel, was the first to use the term photography in 1839, when he managed to fix images using hyposulphite of soda. He described photography as "The application of the chemical rays to the purpose of pictorial representation". Herschel also coined the terms "negative", "positive" and "snapshot".

What is a photograph? The simplicity of taking a photograph leads many to ponder its artistic value. Yet, it is undeniable that there are some photos that cause an emotional reaction deeper than simply observing a recorded point in time. Surely, there are photographs that cause more reaction than some modern art pieces. There seems to be two types of photographs. The first classification is the ‘time capture’ photo – an image with the sole purpose of recording a particular event or point in time. The second nature of a photo carries a ‘deeper meaning,’ which has the ability to change the observer’s mood and cause a reaction. But what distinguishes these two varieties? There are a

Have you ever taken a picture or been looking through a photo album and felt a sudden rush of emotion? Do you wonder what caused that emotion? Many find themselves captivated by a photograph and overwhelmed by the emotions that the photograph arouses. Believe it or not the arousal of emotion from those photographs was not caused by the content of the picture but by certain elements within the photograph. When a photograph is viewed it is not only the subject that triggers the overwhelming emotional response, it is the length of time that the film was exposed to sunlight, the way lighting is used and played with, and the strong detail of colors or lack thereof. While many believe that the subject acts as the primary stimuli to emotions, the

However as the authors stressed, probably more significant than the change in how images are produced, distributed and used, are the ideas to which the changes are giving rise and how digital imaging is challenging and changing traditional ways of seeing and thinking. It seems that our traditional belief that ‘the camera never lies’ has been brought into question. It also appears important to consider who