More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of police body cameras
Why police body cameras should be allowed
What are the negatives of police wearing body cameras
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
With all the arguments supporting body cameras, there are many arguments against mandatory body cameras for the police. One argument against body cameras is major privacy concerns. Many civil rights advocates are trying to show police forces and lawmakers the dangers and the risk of having too much surveillance and profiling of the people can pose. There are guidelines that prohibit police officers to view the camera footage before filing the reports and public safety officials limit the use of facial recognition. One worry people have is about the control the police will have over the footage. When they allow the police to view the body camera footage before filing their reports, this brings up concerns that officers will change their reports …show more content…
If the footage taken from the body cameras is considered public record, hours of footage of innocent civilian’s interactions with the police is available. If the police enter a person's home and they are wearing a body camera, this can show private information and possibly reveal embarrassing things to the public. Many people have been worried about the kind of surveillance measures that the government use with the types of technology. One major issue people have is when should the police officers have their body cameras turned on because there are many instances involving personal cases such as domestic violence and rape cases. Footage from the dash-cam on the police cars have been exploited for many years for entertainment purposes. There have been many times that dash-cam videos have been posted on entertainment websites such as Youtube and TMZ have exposed many people during these interactions with the police. If officers wear body cameras, this could put the public eye into someone's living room or bedroom. With all these challenges, there has been no policy regarding the body cameras. In a survey for 63 law enforcement agencies regarding body cameras said “nearly a third of the agencies had no written policy on the devices.” Most of these agencies are just putting body …show more content…
With this comes large bills for the local governments managing the massive amounts of footage. For storage alone, some cities would be paying millions of dollars. These cost can cause a significant effect on the budget of the city and these cities might have to make cuts. In Baltimore, the city mayor denied a proposal for all police officer to wear body cameras because the cost for them are unbelievable. The city officials estimated that $2,6 million would be the cost per year to manage all the storage and the hire new staff needed control all the storage. "Knowing how we didn't have a lot of wiggle room with the budget constraints we face, we couldn't afford to get it wrong," said Rawlings-Blake, who intends to present another plan this spring. "Any time you do something on this scale, if you don't take the time up front, you are setting yourself up for failure and disappointment from the community." The demand for body cameras has skyrocketed after the incidents in Ferguson and President Obama requested $75 million to help communities pay for these body cameras. With the introduction to body cameras, with the plans the have in place, on average it would be between $20 to $100 per officer in each city. Most cities are not even sure if they can afford the body cameras and when to turn them on or off. With officers being out in the community every day and they
Police Body Cameras Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians, law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be fitted with body cameras. In doing so it is thought to bring an increase in trust in the community, reduce brutality and crime, as well as elucidate good cops still around. I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s actions when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in courtrooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situation in question.
Have you ever heard of the idea of body-mounted cameras on police officers? If not, David Brooks will introduce you to the idea that was discussed in an article from New York Times called “The Lost Language of Privacy”. In this article, the author addressed both the positive and negative aspects of this topic but mostly concerned with privacy invasion for Americans. Although that is a valid concern but on a larger scale, he neglected to focus greatly on the significant benefits that we all desire.
One of the sources used to disprove that body camera isn’t the answer includes Jamelle Bouie article, Keeping the Police honest. Mr. Bouie is the chief political correspondent at Slate who graduated from the University of Virginia with a political and social thought degree (Tumblr.com). His work consists of issues relating to national politics, public policies and racial inequality. His work has also been published in Slate online magazine, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and TIME Magazine (Tumblr.com). Slate is an online magazine that post about the news, politics, business, technology and culture (slate.com). In Jamelle article, Keeping the Police honest he talks about incidents where police officers were being recorded and took excessive
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
There have been lots of modern technologies introduced in the United States of America to assist law enforcement agencies with crime prevention. But the use of body-worn cameras by police personnel brings about many unanswered questions and debate. Rising questions about the use of body cam are from concern citizens and law enforcement personnel. In this present day America, the use body cameras by all law enforcement personnel and agencies are one of the controversial topics being discussed on a daily base. Body worn cameras were adopted due to the alleged police brutality cases: for instance, the case of Michael Brown, an African-American who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 2014, Eric Garner died as a result of being put in a chokehold by a New York police officer, and John Crawford, shot and killed by a police officer at a Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio.
In 2014, the New York Police Department announced that it would begin a pilot program to have its officers wear body cameras while on duty (Bruinius). However, the issue of privacy invasion and confidentiality of officers and the public has arisen. Though Body cameras on police officers could help in some scenarios such as random crimes, or police to citizen behavior, they also threaten privacy. Body mounted cameras are an invasion of privacy not only for the officers but also for the citizens involved. According to Freund Kelly, “Police officers often go inside businesses, private property and private homes as part of their duties. When police officers have a warrant, or believe there is an emergency,
The researcher hypothesizes that the use of body-cameras on police officers would reduce the instances of gainful communication between civilians and law enforcement. The null-hypothesis is that the use of body-cameras on police officers will have no effect on gainful communication between civilian and law enforcement. In determining the implications of how body-cameras effects civilian behavior, the research will include a sampling survey of criminal justice students and information gathered from journal documents related to research on police body-cameras.
Maciag says that “a new report reveals there 's little consensus about how to use [body cameras].” This is very concerning for those that advocate for the adoption of body cameras, as lack of understanding, legislation, policy, guidelines, and training may kill off the dreams of having a technology enhanced criminal justice system. Problems prevalent as such can be resolved with proper education of police and police departments in technological data management. Concurrently, legislators must enact laws to restrict the acceptable use of body cameras in order to keep the public eye in favor of their law enforcement use. The prevalence of aforementioned problems is even more obvious when you consider that almost 38% of police departments with body cameras are unable to determine how much footage is being recorded daily by their officers. (Maciag) Many feel that this can be solved through proper funding and research into effective footage management, and they are certainly right. Proper funding for initial training and implementation of the cameras is provided for most departments, however, many departments never receive funding to properly store the footage, or even learn how to. Being such a major barrier to the effectiveness of BWCs, it is something that needs to be fixed lest the adoption of said cameras may diminish. Some police departments, such as the Seattle PD, have looked into uploading
Should police officers be mandated to wear body cameras? That is a question that has grown to be widely discussed in media, politics, and the public. The death of Michael Brown due to a fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer inflamed the idea that police officers should wear body cameras (Griggs, Brandon). The opposing sides of such controversial questions both provide a strong reasonable argument that supports each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that supports the use of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds.
The struggle for more transparency in policing is an issue that has been waging on for years unchecked, but with necessary body cameras this problem will be able to be solved. With the use of body cameras, police procedure can become public knowledge. This will help prevent things like the Ferguson riots that took place after the decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson. Some people argue that the use of these body cameras could violate privacy laws because “Unlike previous forms of surveillance, body-cameras can enter private spaces more easily, and can focus on individuals more effectively” (Freund 95). However, this issue can be easily solved as unlike dash cameras, which are automatic, the body cameras need to be switched on. This allows the officer to use their discretion on when to actively record. This information can repair the already damaged trust between the police and the public. Use of cameras would also decrease the rate at which police receive complaints. According to Brucato “For the police, accountability offers the opportunity to exonerate themselves and their agencies from false complaints” (457). All the frivolous complaints and lawsuits that using a body camera prevents also serves a purpose to save money of the police department. In today 's society people only see the police incidents being recorded through the use of cellphone filmed
Do police officers really need body cameras is a question that has been repeated all throughout the nation. Body cameras are video recording systems that are used by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public and gather video evidence. Most police departments do not wear body cameras currently and the ones that do are in trial phases to see how it works out. There are many advantages to police officers wearing body cameras but in asking the question should they wear body cameras the stakeholders should look at the complete picture. One reason that police and body cameras have constantly been brought up lately are the instances of police brutality happening within the United States. Police brutality within the United States
The American public has been dealing with a lot of police brutality over the last two years. We have asked for body cameras to be mandatory for all police officers and even though a lot of cities and town don’t have them yet it has been some changes. Some people want them to show evidence of misconduct by police officers while others want it to protect those officers and then you have those that think it is violating privacy laws. My argument will be are body cameras working so far and are they the solution for the future. Does police officers wearing camera put at risk the privacy of the American public or does it expose
Police officers with their body cameras: a history and back ground paper to answer the question if should all police officers wear body cameras, it is important to first look at the history and back ground of the topic. According to article of Journal of quantitative criminology, writers Ariel, Farrar, Sutherland, Body cameras have been given a new eye opener to people about the excessive use of force against their community members. Arial, Farrar, and Sutherland in the article state “The effect of police body warn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomize controlled trial” describe their observation as:
Body cameras have been the new initiative over the past few years. Barack Obama announced that in 2014 allocated millions of dollars for federal funding to allow police officers to wear body cameras and to increase their training (Harvard Law Review). There are many organizations that have voiced their opinion of the use of body cameras. Many have stated that body cameras are a good idea and they should be implemented. The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that they are believe body cameras should be used across the country, but the public should still have their privacy (Harvard Law Review).
The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.