More handpicked essays just for you.
Body cameras on police officers essay's
Body cameras on police officers essay's
Body cameras on police officers essay's
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During a time of widespread speculation and controversy surrounding the subject of police body cameras, many have developed arguments concerning whether or not they should be used. Due to the immense amount of police misconduct that has struck the United States over the past couple years this topic has become heavily debated. Although some may believe otherwise, the use of police body cameras is extremely beneficial in a number of ways; they provide effective evidence for trials, cause a decrease in police misconduct and an increase in clarity, and enhance both officer training and civil complaint outcomes. Throughout this essay, three outside source arguments will be presented, in order to prove the opposing arguments wrong through the use …show more content…
In the article, “Candid Cameras,” award-winning journalist Kevin Davis argues that police body cameras are huge assets to officers when retrieving information about their physical interactions with criminals. Davis aids his main statement when he asserts, “For police, the plus side is that cameras can improve how officers capture evidence. The camera can also provide a record of interrogations and arrests, how officers conduct themselves and what they witness at crime scenes” (15). Soon after, Davis then provides a deeper understanding as to why police body cameras benefit officers when he asserts, “It eliminates the ‘he said, she said’, and it will be easier for police to defend their conduct in the routine case” (15). These quotes do an exceptional job of showing the reader the way in which the use of police body cameras are in fact positive additions to law enforcement. In the end, police body cameras have shown to be nothing but positive additions to society as a …show more content…
In the article published in the Harvard Law Review, “Considering Police Body Cameras,” well renowned author Michael McAuliff argues that police body cameras possess various qualities directly associated to the enrichment of law enforcement, that which most relevantly shows the improvement of officer training. McAuliff provides the reader with an in depth explanation of this when he asserts, “Footage can be incorporated into training programs to demonstrate what actual, on-the-ground civilian encounters should (and should not) look like, and review of body-camera footage may be particularly useful in monitoring new officers” (1802). The use of these cameras while in training properly teaches officers how to conduct themselves accordingly so they can react correctly while in the field, which results in the decrease of police misconduct complaints. Shortly after, McAuliff then asserts that, “recordings [can] be used for remedial training or correcting the behavior of individual officers against whom misconduct allegations have been filed” (1802). This shows that although some officers may misconduct themselves, they can learn and correct their actions for the future by viewing the footage of their misconducts. Ultimately, throughout the entire spectrum of law enforcement, police body cameras have continuously shown to be
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.
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
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.
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
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
“A body-worn camera in public policing is a miniature audio and video recording device which allows recording of officers’ duties and citizen interaction,” notes Thomas K. Bud. Police body-cameras are significantly growing in popularity across Canada. While legislation has not confirmed definite rules regarding the use of body-cameras, local police departments have begun their implementation. Canadian police services involved in these projects include Toronto, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, and Amherstburg Police Services. The results of these projects have revealed mixed thoughts regarding body-camera effectiveness. Is it a good idea for police to wear body-cameras? While the cost of police wearing body cameras seems prohibitive, police wearing
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.
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.
Since their inception, police body cameras have been a controversial topic as many do not agree on their effectiveness and legality. To the trained eye, body cameras clearly have no negatives other than the sheer cost of their implementation. Some people, nonetheless, do believe that it is an encroachment of privacy for police to record private and/or public interactions even though it is purely legal. While that may be seen as a negative, it is wholly subjective and must be completely ignored when considering the factual analysis of police body camera use that is necessary to verify their validity. When only taking fact into account, there is no way to deny the nearly infinite benefits of body cameras.
Police officers should be required to wear body cameras because it will build a trust between law enforcement and the community, it will decrease the amount of complaints against police officers, and lastly it will decrease the amount of police abuse of authority. In addition, an officer is also more likely to behave in a more appropriate manner that follows standard operating procedures when encountering a civilian. “A 2013 report by the Department of Justice found that officers and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present” (Griggs, Brandon). Critics claim that the use of body cameras is invasive of the officers and civilians privacy.
Any cop can tell you they have never had an incident where a person in their charge was hurt, but how can one know for sure whether or not the officer is telling the truth? Body cameras help to regulate the behavior of police officers. By having evidence of their day to day proclivities, offers have an incentive to behave a certain way when viewed. The camera acts as a psychological guide to help ensure the best performance and behavior from an officer. A case study was made to see how cameras affect the police officers psychologically which shows that, “People adhere to social norms and alter their behavior because of the awareness that someone else is watching.
Body cameras, also known as Body Worn Video, these systems can record video and audio are used by officers. Over the years the police department has had an increase in surveillance. The Pros, Prevent Violence, Accountability, Human Side of Policing. The Cons, Privacy, Limitations. One of the topics that have been raising concern is whether officers wearing a body camera can be an invasion of privacy, body cameras are designed to be worn on offices lapel, chest and glasses. The footage can be used for evidence in court against citizens or police officers after the murder of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the law enforcement was forced to come up with a solution that can help stop police brutality and gain the public trust. These cameras have
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:
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation , weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the united states were not very sophisticated many years ago so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people
Acknowledging that we are all humans who make mistakes, and that we aren’t always one hundred percent honest, it is important that we secure our people from injustice if we have the necessary measures. Through the use of cameras on police both the public and policeman will be better insured or accusations and violence. Unfortunately, not even policemen are always right. In the 2014 case of Michael Brown, an eighteen year old, African American, who was unarmed, was fatally shot by a ...