A lot has changed in recent years in our country; however, the relationship between the police departments and residents in many communities hasve not so much. Incidents such as the Eric Garner and Michael Brown cases have awakened the era of digital recordings. Cases like these alarmed communities and police departments, which raised questions on how to deal with police brutality and how to prevent these cases from reoccurring. It is unfortunate that these cases caused a distrustdistrust between the police departments and the public. Experts are trying to figure out ways to solve this issue and prevent these problems from happening again in the future. One solution is to start utilizing body worn cameras. What are body worn cameras? “Body …show more content…
There are two problems that come with these body cameras which are money and data storage. With each camera estimating around $1,000 according to a police department in Bakersfield County, CA and an addition to the storage cost for the data, body worn cameras can be an expensive device which can be an issue due to budget cuts in today’s economy. According to Sgt. Gary Carruesco of Bakersfield County, CA. “It really comes down to the money aspect,” Carruesco said. The cameras the department has looked into cost anywhere from $400 to $1,000. Carruesco said about 200 officers who interact with the public, including patrol, gang officers and police service technicians, would need the cameras. Using the $1,000 number, that’s a total of $200,000 to purchase a camera for each officer interacting with the public. The storage of data for those cameras costs even more. Carruesco said it would cost about $100 a month in storage costs for each camera. With 200 cameras, that adds up to $20,000 a month — or $240,000 a year — in storage costs. Between the purchasing and storage costs, the Bakersfield Police Depart (BPD) would be spending about $440,000 in its first year of using body-cameras, plus an additional $240,000 every year afterward. And that figure doesn’t include maintenance or replacement costs. “The cost outweighs the benefit in a monetary sense, but in the sense of transparency it’s a no-brainer” (Kotowski, 2016). Although body worn cameras seem expensive; there are ways this device can cut expenses such as, being able to solve cases faster and easier which leads to less money being spent in court fees, and will also prevent the police departments from getting
There are topics brought up about the incident in Ferguson and other police shootings that did or did not have body cams. There have been talks in communities about trying to reduce the police misconducts in the communities and the workplace. It is proven that officers who didn’t wear body cams had 2 times the illegal use of force incidents. This article will help me prove further that body cameras being worn will help reduce so many incidents, not saying all incidents
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.
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:
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.
“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.
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
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
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.
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
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
...f police officers are diligent in the process of storing information than it should lay to rest the concerns that some have over the protection of privacy. The advantage of body worn cameras by law enforcement is essential in protecting the officers from wrongful accusations and is beneficial to citizens as well. By having an unbiased recount of events it protects both sides from wrong doing. It also encourages police officers and citizens to behave better when their actions are being recorded. The use of body cameras also provides a detailed account of a crime scene. This can be useful in the prosecution of a crime and can also provide documentation of witness statements. Deputy Chief David Ramirez of the San Diego police department lauded the practice. "Body-worn camera technology is a win-win for both the officer and the community," he said in the report (Prall).
This research paper will give a general overview of body-worn cameras with policing and how police officers respond to body-worn camera. There will be several sections that will explain more about body worn cameras. The reasons why the police use body worn cameras. The issues police officers face with the use of body worn cameras. Issues of citizen privacy will be explained. A research study of positive outcomes of body worn camera will be discussed. As well as officer’s perceptions of the use of body worn cameras.
Thesis: By implementing Body cameras there will be more effective ways to monitor police activity the ability to protect civilians and law officials will greatly increase. Today I would like to share more with everyone the huge issue police brutality plays in our society and hopefully by the end of my speech you will want police officers to wear mandatory body cameras as well.
Tania Mulherkar Volpe- Debate September 27, 2014 As Jodi Rell once stated, “At the end of the day, the goals are simple: safety and security.” Keeping this quote in mind for all citizens of all countries, our collective, main goals in life follow somewhere along the lines of staying well and leading healthy lifestyles. Although goals like this seem effortless to achieve, in a current society like todays, they are quite the challenge to accomplish. Today, there are dangerous threats and possible actions from terroristic groups to be concerned about, the usual crimes committed for either amusement or necessity to be aware of and prevent, bullying situations to put an end to, and a multitude of lives lost to suicide to later on marvel about.