Final Research Paper: Controversial Legal Topics and Opinions

This research paper delves into three controversial topics: the use of body cameras by police officers, life sentencing for juveniles, and the operation of private prisons. The paper examines the arguments for and against each issue, presenting the pros and cons of body cameras in terms of evidence documentation, transparency, privacy, and cost; the debate surrounding life sentences for juvenile offenders, considering the balance between punishment, rehabilitation, and the development of minors; and the advantages and disadvantages of private prisons, focusing on cost-effectiveness, safety, and the treatment of inmates. The author provides personal opinions on each topic, supporting the use of body cameras, questioning life sentences for juveniles, and critically evaluating private prisons. The paper references legal precedents and legislation, offering a comprehensive overview of these complex legal and ethical considerations.

Final Research Paper
Controversial topic

1
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................2
Police officers wearing body cameras.........................................................................................................3
Pros and cons of wearing a body camera by police officials........................................................................3
Pros..........................................................................................................................................................4
Cons........................................................................................................................................................4
My opinion (for or against).........................................................................................................................5
Life sentencing for juveniles.......................................................................................................................6
Pros and cons...............................................................................................................................................7
Pros..........................................................................................................................................................7
Cons........................................................................................................................................................8
My opinion (for or against).........................................................................................................................8
Private Prisons.............................................................................................................................................9
Pros and cons.............................................................................................................................................10
Pros........................................................................................................................................................10
Cons......................................................................................................................................................10
My opinion (for or against).......................................................................................................................11
References.................................................................................................................................................12

2
Abstract
In this paper, I am going to discuss three controversial topics where one controversial topic in
law enforcement is should all police officers wear body cameras? The controversial topic in
courts is Life sentencing for juveniles. And the controversial topic in corrections is the private
prison. I am going to analyze all the three topics in terms of its pros and cons and will be giving
my opinion based on that.
The Congress in June 2015, took a resolution to support the wearing of police body cameras by
the police officials so as to encourage the police to wear body cameras while they are on duty.
The U.S courts had provided for the life imprisonment of the juvenile offenders without the
possibility of parole.
There has been a debate over the running of private prisons by the correctional organizations.
I have discussed all these three topics here in this paper.

3
Police officers wearing body cameras
If we talk about the state of Alaska, then it has been stated that it strictly prohibits only audio
recording by the police officials of any conversation. Through Stat. § 42.20.310(a) (2014), it has
allowed for only silent recording but without violating the right to privacy as given under the
constitution of Alaska. Thus, it can be said that it restricts the recording in the areas where
privacy is to be maintained. It has also been provided that Alaska through its Stat. §
42.20.390(11) (2014), prohibits the recording of anything intentionally which someone might
have said considering that communication to be private. But, it has also been given by Alaska
Stat. § 40.25.120(6) (2014) and by the Alaska's Public Records Act, that the records which are
compiled for the purpose of law enforcement shall be exempt. Thus, this way Alaska has
exempted the police from public record requests. Also, it has been provided by the Washington
Privacy Act that the police officials who are wearing body cameras to record the conversations
and actions of people must comply with the provisions of this Act ("Police Body-Worn Camera
Legislation Tracker", n.d.). This Act talks in favor of individual privacy and says that it must not
be invaded for the purposes of law enforcement in gathering evidence without obtaining a
warrant. But this Act talks about maintaining privacy in cases of "private communications “only.
Pros and cons of wearing a body camera by police officials
There are various benefits that may arise with the use of body-worn cameras by the police
officials. It can serve as better evidence documentation and can result in increased transparency
and accountability.
But at the same time, there are certain drawbacks attached with the use of body-worn cameras,
like privacy issues, data retention, and public disclosure policies, officer and community

4
concerns, and financial considerations. Also the implementing of these body-worn cameras
incudes the cost ancillary equipment like tablets, etc. used along with these cameras for data
storage and management.
On the basis of this we can assume following pros and cons of wearing a body camera by the
police officials:
Pros
Prevent Violence — it has been observed that by wearing of body cameras by the police
officials, there are fewer chances of using violence by both police and respondents. It has been
observed through various studies that the use of force has gone down by almost 50% by the
increase in the use of body cameras. Thus, it can be said that the streets can be made safer for the
general public by using the body cameras by the police officials.
Accountability — by making the police officials wear the body cameras continuously, one can
see their overall conduct and on the basis of that can make them accountable for their appropriate
and inappropriate actions. Also in the cases like Ferguson and Baltimore, where the public has
no way to know what exactly happened, these cameras can be of great help.
Cons
Privacy — people generally view these body cameras as something which is there to interfere
with their privacy as this footage of these recordings done by the body cameras are owned by the
state. Also when police officials wear body cameras, then they will be able to record all everyday
activities of civilians as well as police behavior which is not required to be recorded. Also, the
defendants don not want their arrest to be recorded. Also during such arrest, all the people who

5
were standing nearby will not want themselves to be shown in the videos which are shown in the
court rooms.
Limitations — it has been observed that keeping the cameras on consistently is not a right thing
to done and in this sense, there is a need for proper rules as to when the police officials should
turn their body cameras on and off. It has been provided by various currently prevailing policies
that the police officials must turn on their body cameras only when they are among the public. It
has also been suggested that the public must be told that the police officials had their body
cameras on especially when there is a complaint against the officer ("Research on Body-Worn
Cameras and Law Enforcement", n.d.). This is because if the camera remains turned off due to
some technological malfunction or due to forgetfulness of the police officer, then it can result in
incriminating the officers, especially where misconduct has not occurred.
My opinion (for or against)
If asked for my opinion, then I would like to be in favor of wearing the body cameras by the
police officials. This is mainly because I believe that on comparing the pros and cons of wearing
these body cameras, the pros stands out to more crucial. There have been various incidents where
police officials have been accused of police brutality and they are then forced to resign due to
lack of evidence to show their innocence. Also if we think from the other angle then also these
cameras would be of great help as these will not only record the conduct of people but also the
police officials. Thus, the police officials can also be made accountable for any inappropriate
actions done by them.

6
Life sentencing for juveniles
A case was filed in Michigan claiming it to be unconstitutional to sentence a life imprisonment to
a juvenile who was convicted of felony murder but had not actually committed the homicide. A
felony murder is the first-degree murder where there is an attempt to murder. The case was filed
by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Michigan, along with the
Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School on behalf of several Michigan Petitioner and
they had claimed that the life imprisonment sentencing of juveniles without giving them an
opportunity for parole violates the rights as contained in the American Declaration, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), and various other international
legal instruments, and customary international law ("Hill v. Snyder", n.d.).
It was found by the U.S courts that the United States' sentencing standards which provide for life
imprisonment for juvenile offenders without parole are not contrary to the rights recognized in
Article VII of the American Declaration, and that will not be bound by any customary
international rule which prohibits life sentences of juvenile offenders without parole for
juveniles.
It was also held by the courts that The United States' sentencing of juveniles offenders for life
without parole cannot be considered as cruel, unusual or infamous punishment or inhumane
treatment as provided by the Articles XXVI and XXV of the American Declaration.
But later The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that juveniles are not maturity and have an
underdeveloped sense of responsibility which makes them act recklessly, impulsively, and
heedlessly taking the risk.

7
It also recognized that the opportunity to parole should be a release which is based on the
maturity and rehabilitation demonstrated by the individual.
In Graham v. Florida, in 2010, it was held by the Supreme Court that juveniles cannot be
sentenced to life for crimes other than homicide.
In Miller v. Alabama, in 2012, it was held by the Court that it is unconstitutional to sentence a
mandatory life imprisonment without parole for juveniles who are convicted of homicide
offenses.
Pros and cons
It has been observed that there are various advantages and at the same time various
disadvantages of sentencing a life imprisonment to the juvenile offenders without a possible
parole. Some of them are given below:
Pros
Minimizing of crimes by minors- only when these juvenile offenders are given the strictest
punishments for their crime, then it would be a message for others, and they would be thinking
twice before committing a crime that violates the law ("Hill v. United States of America - U.S.
Government Response to IACHR", n.d.).
Brings justice to the victims-Taking a life is a loss which can never be made good as you
cannot return a life. Thus, for crimes like murders, it is really important to punish the offender
irrespective of his age.

8
Cons
Minors are put at risk- these juvenile offenders are at a risk of becoming a more serious
criminal when kept in prison for life as there they are mixed with other prisoners who have
terrifying criminal records.
Minors lose all hopes- it has been observed that not every juvenile offender will end up as a
criminal. But by sentencing them to prison for life, their hope for rehabilitation is taken away
("Juveniles with Life Sentences", n.d.).
My opinion (for or against)
In my opinion, the juvenile offenders must be punished for the crimes they have committed in
order to make them realize the importance of law and the consequences of violating it. But at the
same time, I believe that sentencing them to life imprisonment without giving them any
opportunity for parole is not the right step. This is because sentencing them to life will never give
them a chance to correct themselves. These juveniles are not professional criminals having bad
criminal records, and thus they must be given a chance to rehabilitate.

9
Private Prisons
It has been observed that the private prisons provide for a very less number of correctional
services and for which it exerts a great security and safety risk towards the inmates and the
prison staff.
It has been viewed that in order to gain savings, the private prisons attempt on cutting their staff
costs and the cost of training. It has been found that private facilities pays very less to the
officers and also gives less training hours and they generally have a very high inmate-to-staff
ratios, which can lead to a very high turnover rate among the correctional officers, and also a rise
in the inmate assaults (Volokh, & Volokh, n.d.).
It has been found that the prisoners in the private prisons are made to live in conditions which are
dangerous as they pose a high risk of death and also of the loss of limbs which can be caused by
lack of adequate food, sanitation facilities, and the basic medical care ("East Mississippi Prison
Nightmare | Prison Legal News", n.d.).
It has been given by the law that the inmates in the state prisons can sue and can claim damages
from the employees of the prison who violated any of their constitutional rights by virtue of §
1983. In terms of § 1983 liability, Private prisons run almost on the same lines as a public prison.
But the only difference being that private prison employees generally don’t get the qualified
immunity. Thus due to this factor, the federal courts generally give favorable treatment to these
private prison inmates.

10
Pros and cons
Pros
Save time, money and efforts of the Government- managing prisons take a lot of time and are
also very expensive as it demands a large number of Labour/workers to manage it which requires
the huge amount of resources. But by having these private prisons, the government does not have
to use its resources and also it devote its time to other works for public and social services.
Creation of jobs- prisons be it public or private, cannot run on their own. The private prison also
requires staff like someone to cook food for the inmates, someone to provide medical attention
and someone to guard and make sure that they don't escape. Thus, to fill these positions, private
prisons help in generating employment opportunities for a large number of people.
Cons
They are not so cost-effective as they thought- it is true that in comparison to state-run prisons,
private prisons have fewer expenses and this way the government is able to save money. But it is
not true for all cases as there are some companies which accept only low-risk inmates for their
private prisons and keep return high-risk ones for the state-managed prisons ("This Is the Real
Reason Private Prisons Should Be Outlawed", n.d.). They do this in order to reduce their cost
and also to avoid their responsibility of managing the dangerous convicts. Thus, the government
is still made to bear the costs as well as the responsibility of keeping high-risk prisoners.

11
Not that safe as they should be- many private prisons in order to prove that they are cost-
effective than the state-run prisons go on cutting their costs but which sometimes goes beyond
lengths. In order to do so, they sometimes adopt such cost cutting techniques which might lead to
dangerous consequences. For example, a few private prisons don’t spend on training their staff as
frequently as they should be trained and thus these private prisons have the personnel who don’t
even have the required experience for properly guarding the inmates and for maintaining peace
and order in prison. Also, these private prisons try to cut costs by hiring a few number of
employees to manage their prisons which lead to their inmate-to-staff ratio being too low.
My opinion (for or against)
In my opinion, private prisons is not as good as state-run prisons as the companies who own
private prisons in order to cut their cost do compromise with the basic facilities which are needed
by the inmates in the prison and due to lack of those like lack of medical attention and lack of
adequate food, they are exposed to high risk of death and other problems. Also, government
thinks it is a good option in terms of saving its cost, but if we calculate the total effective cost,
then it hardly makes any difference as the government will still have to maintain prisons to keep
high-end criminals.