3 ms·

> A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story This just provides an incentive for the police to wear their own cameras, no? Wouldn't this solv

by rlpb 16y ago

> A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story This just provides an incentive for the police to wear their own cameras, no? Wouldn't this solve your problem? What if it became irregular for a policeman to be on the stand retelling events that occurred while he was on duty but not to have video corroboration? In a future world where all police wear cameras while on duty, and the court expects to see all relevant footage, not just the footage picked out by the prosecution or by the defence? Wouldn't this be a good thing?

hugh3 16y ago
Mostly, yes, though I can also see downsides. Juries might become overly dependent on this form of evidence, to the detriment of their ability to weigh evidence. For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.
- jrockway 16y ago
  By your logic, we should blind people who can see, because they have an unfair advantage over the blind.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I don't really see how that follows from my logic. I was just pointing out how sticking a camera on every police officer might have downsides in some cases. On the other hand, the upsides might quite likely outweigh it. I suppose another objection is that police officers would then have a whole new responsibility: they'd have to constantly worry about aiming their camera in the right direction. That means that a policeman who should be trying to, say, break up a fight will instead be concentrating on making sure he has his camera pointed at the fight.

by rlpb 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

Mostly, yes, though I can also see downsides. Juries might become overly dependent on this form of evidence, to the detriment of their ability to weigh evidence. For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.

jrockway 16y ago
By your logic, we should blind people who can see, because they have an unfair advantage over the blind.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I don't really see how that follows from my logic. I was just pointing out how sticking a camera on every police officer might have downsides in some cases. On the other hand, the upsides might quite likely outweigh it. I suppose another objection is that police officers would then have a whole new responsibility: they'd have to constantly worry about aiming their camera in the right direction. That means that a policeman who should be trying to, say, break up a fight will instead be concentrating on making sure he has his camera pointed at the fight.