Argumentative Essay On Body Cameras

Today, many questions are raised about police brutality. Numerous incidents have occurred that follow the same pattern: a police officer shoots a man and it is unclear whether the shot was justified. Body cameras are the answer. Body cameras can record police and civilian interaction, thereby providing clear evidence. Body cameras will take away the uncertainty in cases. Body cameras should be implemented because they benefit both the officers and the public.

Body cameras are small video cameras that can be attached to a police officer’s glasses or breast pocket. The Taser Axon camera records only when activated. It features a 30 second video buffer that saves video (not audio) in the 30 seconds before the officer pressed record. As blank points out, this feature is useful because it accounts for the fact that officers notice a suspicious action and then press record, so the initial action could have been missed without the 30 second buffer. Now with the 30-second buffer the camera can pick up the moment where the officer noticed something was amiss. The videos are

then stored into a website and can be viewed.
It is imperative the officers are forced to record all civilian encounters. As blank reveals, it is important an officer records all in encounters because when they begin to pick and choose it can lead to suspicious action on the officers part. The New York Times reporter, Farhad Manjoo; interviewed Scott Greenwood, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, who encouraged police to adopt body cameras because it protects them against legal troubles (Manjoo). Manjoo also interviewed Michael Chitwood, the chief of police in Daytona Beach, Florida; who recalls one instance in which an officer turned on the camera, turned it off and turned it back on and the shot revealed a civilians teeth were knocked out. Clearly the officer used brutal force against the civilian and he left the force (Manjoo). If officers fail to record it is important they they be punished for it. (CITEEE)
It is unclear among officials if the videos will be viewed randomly or routinely. It is necessary the videos are viewed routinely so they officers feel they are being watched (cite). It is also unclear how long the video should be stored for. It is necessary the videos are stored indefinitely. As Nancy La Vigne, the director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, points out police officers know their videos are being watched in order for the body cameras to be effective (La Vigne). Videos should not be accessible to all officers after a certain amount of time. Only the officers can view his own videos, no one else’s. Higher ups can view all videos. It is important the videos are stored indefinitely, but by a passcode and inaccessible to anyone on the force. Then the federal government can only access the videos, so if a serious murder case occurs they can be accessed.
A benefit of body cameras is that they cut down on expenses and time. Most opponents view body cameras as extremely expensive and time consuming. It is true that body cameras are expensive. It cost Miami Beach $3,000,000 to outfit their police force and other law enforcement workers (Johnson). Contrary to popular belief, body cameras can be outfitted on police officers fairly quickly. While numbers like the above pop up, it is sure to scare anyone, but over the long-term police body cameras are cheaper compared to litigation costs (cite). Legal proceedings, court cases, lawyers all cost lots of money and time. Reported by Blank of Blank, The New York Police department spent $735 million to settle lawsuits against police misconduct and brutality (cite). Of course, this is not every police department and the New York police department is large, but other police departments around the country are paying tens of millions of dollars to settle police misconduct lawsuits. That is too much money going to waste. If body cameras were issues police misconduct would diminish greatly, therefore the expensive lawsuits would as well. The initial cost of body cameras will be expensive and take time to outfit all officers, but once that is completed the benefits will be innumerous. Cases will proceed quickly and efficiently, money will be saved on resources and time can be spent on more complex cases and the saved money can be used for something else.
Another benefit of body cameras is that evidence is now much easier to obtain and is much clearer. In most cases, it is difficult to get clear evidence, but if an encounter is captured on camera, the evidence is clear and it is impossible to argue.
Opponents of body cameras believe the cameras will stress out the officers and cause them to act out. However, in studies done by Lieutenant Adam Fouche, police actually like the cameras and they feel the cameras supplement their hard work (Fouche).
Opponents argue that police will perform worse under the pressure of omniscient body cameras, but studies show police actually preform better with the body cameras.

Studies conducted over one year by the Rialto Police Department in Rialto, California, proved that cameras help police do their job better and more efficiently. In the study done by the Rialto Police Department, officers wearing cameras used force 50% less than officers not wearing cameras (8). The fact that officers used less force proves that they performed better with the cameras. Another indicative sign that body cameras are affective is that civilian complaints are reduced drastically. The Rialto police department study also showed, that complaints were decreased by about 90% (9). Body cameras give the police officers the feeling that they are being watched and this causes them to preform better, thereby reducing civilian

complaints.
Police should be able view their own videos to learn from their mistakes and what they did well. Body camera videos will serve as a progress report to police officers. They themselves who watch the video can discover what they did well and what they did wrong. This will empower officers to view their own material and critique themselves. When officers hear feedback from higher ups it is a great way to motivate and encourage police officers to do better.
Police feel more secure with the videos because they know that what they did and evidence of their hard work and service is on camera. Countless times civilians waltz into police offices pointing fingers at police with accusations. Police officers must go through trials, get into unnecessary trouble and precious time is wasted on baseless claims. Ian Lovett, a writer for the New York Times, discovered that, when civilians walk into the station to accuse an officer and then they find out the account has been recorded they leave or when they see the video they retreat in shame (Lovett). Police support the use of body cameras because it avoids baseless accusations.
Opponents of body cameras believe that the cameras infringe on police and civilians’ privacy rights. Randall Stross, New York Times Journalist, brings to light the that some opponents are concerned that the cameras will record the police officer’s every action and conversation (Stross). But as outlined above, the current technology has cameras that only activate when the police officer chooses or when they interact with a civilian, so a police officer’s intimate actions and conversations will not be recorded.
Opponents of body cameras are concerned of the privacy rights of suspects. Farhad Manjoo, writer for the New York Times, raises the issue of the privacy rights of suspects’ homes (Manjoo). It is agreed among the proponents of body cameras that footage of someone’s home would never be released to the public (cite?). LEAKED VIDEO
Another concern is the privacy rights of bystanders. Nancy La Vigne, the director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, raises the issue of whether or not body cameras infringe on “constitutional rights” (La Vigne). La Vigne assumes that the recorded video will capture bystanders. It is unlikely that the video will capture bystanders clearly enough so that they can be identified. In the chance that they are recorded, this recording is no different than a police car dash camera, phone camera or surveillance camera.
Another concern, is how long will the videos be kept for? Most proponents agree that a system will be put in place to combat this issue. EVIDENCE. Although privacy rights have been raised, proponents of body cameras agree that these issues are valid and combat with effective and respectful solutions.
Who will have access to the videos?
Police Trolling?