More handpicked essays just for you.
Why should police body cameras be allowed
Why should police officers wear body cameras
Why should police officers wear body cameras
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Should police officers be mandated to wear body cameras? That is a question that has grown to be widely discussed in media, politics, and 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 support each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that support the usage of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds. Police officers should be required to wear body cameras; because it will build a trust between law enforcement and the community, it will decrease
In addition an officer is also more likely to behave in a more respective 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). Critiques claim that the usage of body camera is invasive of the officers and civilians privacy. However, according to Brandon Griggs a CNN Senior Producer, a petition to urge officers to wear body cameras have been signed by more than 150,000 people. This is a sign that reflects on the idea that civilians are supportive of such mandate. Furthermore, policies and procedures can be implemented along with the usage of cameras to ensure that civilians’ privacy is not being invaded. For example, police officers can wear a tag that displays a sign that there is live recording of events taking place or officers must be required to disclose to civilians that there statements and actions are being recorded at the present moment. Another concern of privacy is one that
An hierarchy system of who is to be allowed accessed to camera recordings would be implemented and a specific time frame would be created for the storage of recording data. A recording may be kept for a week and after it should be removed from the data servers. However, if a recording is flagged for any reason whether it is for an investigation, it must be kept for a substantial amount of time until its usage is no longer needed. In this case, it will free up space for storage and save money from purchasing data storage. As a result, if a police officer receive a complaint or a civilian may feel the need to file a complaint, there will be a recording available to show an objective encounter of an incident between the officer and civilian; therefore, there will not be any biased statements from either party. Wakefield Police Chief, Richard E. Smith stated that “Studies have shown that when body cameras are deployed, citizen complaints against officers drop measurably”. As a result, police officers can gain a sense of security on their
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.
“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.
This little camera doesn’t have but one job and that is to record the story. “Advantages of police body cameras..” article talks about the pro and cons of such camera on the officers while on shift. The camera is there to help give an unbiased account of what happen. When you know you are being recorded, then you naturally act a little better because you know someone is watching you not so impulsive. There is a statement “A study performed by the Rialto, CA police department found that the cameras led to an 87.5 percent decrease in officer complaints as well as a 59 percent reduction in use of force over the course of a year—and they’re not the only departments seeing positive results.” “This drop in complaints can also lead to a substantial decrease in the time and resources devoted to investigating complaints and resolving civil litigation.” .The two cons I keep seeing against using cameras is the initial cost to issue one out to all law enforcement and the upkeep cost required by them. Additional is a privacy issue with what is recorded on them. These successes number out weight the cons specifically dealing with the public
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.
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.
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
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:
One of the many drawbacks that come with using body cameras is due to the fact that there is a locus of control. This may pose a problem because there is an underlying question of who can control the cameras. There can be many videos of incidents that are not captured because an officer decided to turn off their camera. Officers have the ability to turn them off or on which causes the problem of each officer not releasing them. Many departments across the country does not even allow individuals to access the footage that is recorded and with the laws that are in place for many department to deny access to the footage that they have. Due to each officer having to release the footage that they capture, they are allowed to review the footage that they record before they make a statement (Harvard Law Review). This is one of the biggest drawbacks because controlling the video footage is important in not only courts but to ensure the minds of
Sargeant Willis from the 73rd Precinct explains how they can monitor overzealous and aggressive police officers. For instance, an officer was reprimanded and suspended after footage from his body camera revealed him kicking a handcuffed man during an arrest, despite the man being cooperative. In addition, interactions with minors without parents can become awkward, troublesome, and problematic. Yet body cameras can alleviate misunderstandings and help solve any controversy that may arise. In a crime scene, where emotions are high, body cameras play an intricate in how the attending officer process and retrieve all the evidence and can capture what the police overlook.
There is a growing need to improve technology to determine an equal protecting of rights for the community and law enforcement. In 2014, President Obama formed the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing and charged it with developing recommendations to enhance trust between police and minority communities, as well as to improve police accountability” (White & Coldren, 2017). A year later the Task Force identified the use of body worn cameras (BWCs) as a solution to those objectives. U.S. Depart of Justice has implanted the use of the body worn camera by police departments around North America.
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
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.