Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of technology on policing
Impact of technology on policing
Importance of body cameras in policing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of technology on policing
Keenan Woods-Scott
With the many events that have happened over the past decade in terms of criminal activity, technology has vastly evolved in order to comfort those who are endanger/unsafe in addition to the prevention of crime. The criminal justice system purpose is to not only protect us citizens but to also prevent any sort of threatening/dangerous activity. In order to follow these guidelines, the system implemented many solutions/procedures that have the ability to prevent any situation. The use of cameras has developed over time in order to prevent certain types of crime especially within different environments. Cameras are used practically everywhere for security purposes especially within banks, buildings, governments offices, open
…show more content…
The goal of the body cameras is to prevent police misconduct and also protect police against false accusations of abuse especially when there is not a sufficient amount of witnesses or evidence (Stanley, 2013). In addition, the use of these cameras is another form of active monitoring for each stop police officers make. According to Stanley (2013), policies and technology are designed to ensure that police do not have the power to pick and choose which encounters to record. If this happens, there would be no use/purpose of the cameras and in result, the violation of stop and frisk tactics would continue to be an issue. Notifying the public that there is a body camera in use is highly considered as well. If a burglary is in progress, police officers may enter right in the middle of the crime and mention that a camera is in use or “lapel camera in operation” (Stanley, 2013). Simply mentioning the existence of the camera could potentially stop the offender from continuing further or even scare the offender away. Once verbal statement is announced, offenders will have the pressure of being watched and if they do get away, it is possible that the camera has a good picture of …show more content…
However, there are many limitations CCTV cameras could have as the device continues to evolve. One of the main limitations is that with cameras being in public places, people may feel a vibe that the area is “unsafe” due to cameras installed or fear of crime (Ratcliffe, 2011). This could potentially push citizens away from going to certain areas and definitely hurt the business industry. Further limitations mentioned is that “displacement” would occur meaning potential criminals would move out of the camera sight in order to commit the crime which is called spatial displacement (Ratcliffe, 2011). In this case, victims are still unsafe if they are not in the camera view for police to monitor. However, with the limitations, technology evolving, and police departments conducting many studies, it seems possible to overcome these limitations and find a better
Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians; law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be suited 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.
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.
Body cameras can be major proof3 of evidence when things go wrong. The footage of the live cameras can have a major impact in the court because it would help with in the proof of evidence when it comes to an arrest. For example the Oscar Grant case, during the arrest the officer fired a bullet into the back of Grant, who was laying his face down and not using force during the arrest. Evidence came from a cell phone camera during the arrest. Body cameras cannot only help the person being arrested but as well help the officer themselves because it can show whos moraly right and
While both dash cams and body mounted cams record interactions between police and citizens, “dash cam- eras are confined to places where cars can go, which are usually public places, such as roads and parking lots. A dash camera cannot easily record inside people’s homes and other places where there is a heightened expectation of privacy”(Freund 97). Thus, allowing body mounted cameras to record the more private aspects of a law enforcement related situations. Also “unlike body-mounted cameras, CCTV cameras do not record conversations”(Freund 98).This could deter people from going to the police when they witness a crime, because they are afraid of being exposed to the person who committed the crime, giving them the information needed if they choose to retaliate. Ebi, Kevin states that “sensitive information can 't get out if it 's never recorded in the first place,” so, if there is a distress call made to the police for help, there won’t be concern that the person in distresses voice, face or the inside of their home could end up on YouTube ("Body Of
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.
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
In his article, “Police Cameras Need to Protect Privacy, Too,” Michael Chertoff responds to the concerns of privacy. He acknowledges that criminal justice information needs good security because it is information about citizens, often at their most distressed and vulnerable. “Imagine if someone hacked and even edited video of alleged criminals before they were even charged or of child victims descri...
Surveillance cameras have evolved and have become more sophisticated over the years. With advanced technology cameras are now equipped with high definition imaging, audio, and even night vision. It is important for law enforcement to be equipped with this advanced technology when it comes to deterring and solving crimes. To explain, high definition cameras provide better image quality which makes it easier to provide officers, citizens, and the media with a distinctive description of the suspect or persons of interest. With this high quality imaging police are able to read words off a newspaper or a book from a light pole twenty feet away; this is a vital aspect that can help law enforcement officials with solving various types of crimes. Next, audio will help catch any verbal exchanges between the suspect and the victim. For example, if a gang affiliated subject was allegedly involved in an altercation with a rival gang member and are standing within a certain radius of the surveillance...
There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras in the United States, proving to be a normal feature in American lives (Vlahos). This is no surprise because in the past several years, events such as the 9/11 attack and the availability of cheaper cameras have accelerated this trend. But conflicts have come with this and have ignited, concerning the safety of the people versus the violation of privacy that surveillance has. Although camera surveillance systems are intended to provide safety to the public, the violation of privacy outweighs this, especially in a democratic country like America.
There are some major upsides in having cameras in public places. In early 2013 two people set off bombs at the Boston marathon, which killed several people and injured hundreds. The city of Boston had cameras monitoring the streets, and was able to identify the bombers within two days. (La Vigne, Nancy) The FBI was able to catch them before they were able to carry out another planned attack in Times Square, which could have been much, more devastating. In addition to being able to solve crimes that have already happened by using cameras, we are also able to use them and the other technologies that go with it to prevent crime. The National Security Agency has reported that it has prevented several terrorist attacks since 2001 using new technology put in place to prevent the attacks. However, much of the NSA’s tactics have been criticized lately, though the majority of people still agree that it is worth it. Using cameras is also a cheap way to monitor an area. Having to employ several police officers to patrol an area can be expensive and those officers could be out doing more important jobs. When you have cam...
Having a network of cameras on every street in the city increases the chances of preventing a crime, along with the ability to capture a criminal on video. Some people argue that the cameras generate an overwhelming amount of evidence to sift through.... ... middle of paper ... ... However, because all this technology is relatively new, there are not really any policies that have been enacted yet.
The surveillance camera plays a significant role to prevent crimes by warning the criminal that their unlawful activity will be filmed on cameras. Therefore, the police can easily arrest them and bring them back to justice. It helps providing useful evidence for trials and makes the prosecution easier. The major advantage of using surveillance cameras is to protect property from theft and vandalism, and ensures public safety. Using surveillance cameras in public places is very important, the cameras are capable to snap picture form far away, and it will help to investigate unlawful activity such as robbery, kidnapping, car accident, murder and drug dealing. Currently in New York City the FBI found lots of evidence that terrorist might plant to attack especially in subway and crowded place. New York City spends millions of dollars on security cameras, to keep track on terrorist activities everywhere in the city. Only In lower Manhattan there are 3,000 cameras monitoring the entire area. People will feel safer from terrorist attacks such as bombing, gun shooting, and other violence crimes. The offenders might not see the camera, but the camera will record his action. The other criminal or terrorist will learn lesson that even though there is no police, the security can see whatever they doing through the camera. Therefore, they might able to take action before the crime happen. I strongly agreed that surveillance must be setup in the public and business places, it can’t eliminate crimes but it will able to reduce crimes.
Since surveillance cameras have been invented for security reasons at shopping malls and stores they have also been place in public areas such as stoplights, parking lots, hallways, bus stops, and more.
There are many tracking technologies that law enforcement are using in this day and age. Using newly developed technology may help law enforcement capture criminals much faster. Also, this enables officers to respond more quickly to a crime scene. Using some of these equipment can save a person’s life with a quick response.