Body Cameras In Society

Body Cameras in Society

With advanced body camera machinery such as GoPro growing more influential in today's civilization, controversy has emerged over whether law enforcement officers should be required to utilize body cameras or not, so that each and every movement is recorded and displayed while on duty. Police should be able to have these cameras on their attire at all times, no matter where they go as long as they are in duty. This allows officers to documentate everything and, unlike human beings, the cameras do not have the ability to lie so it will protect and safeguard any incorrect allegations. This type of technology should be dispersed to police stations in every single state because as society advances progressively more into

the digital age, it will most definitely give assistance to the police and make their job easier. Body cameras do not repeal any rights of officers or civilians and have an abundance of utilization.This mechanization can be employed for confirmation and proof, whether for or in opposition to an officer. Police will be less probable to do an action they are not supposed to do, and a feasible felon will be less inclined to do something to harm the officer and more attentive. Although body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy, police should be entirely required to wear body cameras because they can have the ability to monitor or observe more closely at what the officer and citizens say or do when at the scene of the issue, keeping them accountable.

Body worn cameras are a powerful and an essential, productive advancement that commenced in today’s society. This technology would help implant confidence and assurance in the public by knowing that there is a reliable source of documentation if needed. Additionally, this recording system will decrease the amount of complaints about cops that use unneeded force or impolite conduct from the cop or the citizen. Furthermore, the footage that is stored on these cameras would help alleviate court proceedings by producing precise evidence and verification of the condition. According to the Anzalone Liszt Grove Research and The Leadership Conference Education Fund, “9 out of 10 or 99 percent of the public believes cameras would help hold police accountable and over two-thirds, 67 percent, said they feel cameras would reduce police brutality”(Simpson). As soon as people know their activity and movements are being documented, their behavior alters immediately. It also stimulates officers to be more persistently responsive and industrious toward their duty, as their every action will be on film. Universal use of body cameras will decrease the amount of immoderate force or pressure by the cops and ameliorate relationships with the civilians they encounter and keep them safe.

Body cameras will enable communications to be recorded and afterward it would be obtainable for evaluation if inequitable conduct or use of force is alleged. It will also reduce the number of objections and complaints filed in because law enforcement officers and citizens have tendency to behave with a better attitude when they realize the camera is recording. Discern advantages that body cameras provide is catching a tape filming of censorious incidents/confrontations with the community, reinforcing police responsibility, and producing a beneficial modern type of corroboration, predominantly outweigh the likely disadvantages. According to a 2012 study evaluating the use of body-worn cameras by the Rialto police department in California, “over a period of 12 months suggests more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force”(Jennings). The rationale that cops that wear body cameras may have made a less number of arrests and regulated fewer stop-and-frisks was because they contemplated more cautiously about the criminal system and procedures.
With videotape documentation, there is the potential for substantial examination by contributors of the public and persuade citizens as well as officers to be more vigilant towards their actions.

As individuals continue to react to the killing of Mike Brown in Ferguson, democrats like President Barack Obama take a stance on spreading body worn cameras for every police administration.

Michael Brown, a defenseless black teenager, shot and killed by Darren Wilson, a white law enforcement officer and his death caused President Barack Obama to supply body cameras to cops. Obama wants to step forward and assist police departments to provide their cops with cameras to documentate communications with the citizens. Advocates say the implements are essential to produce accountability, construct public trust and bring forth a strong corroboration against fallacious complaints.According to USA Today, “President Obama proposed an investment of $263million into community policing that would include more training, and resources—with $75million of the total funds allocated for body-worn cameras”(Specia). As a shooting like Brown’s frequently involves different reports of what really happened, body cameras have the capacity to produce a more precise portrayal of the exact point in time of police cruelty. By wearing the device on duty, police can record altercations as they happen, and if a shooting occurs, juries will have proof of these incidents on tape. On the other hand, Republican Donald Trump thinks that it is not necessary for policies to wear body cameras and it should be a police department’s or an officer’s preference to possess one. Around the country, states are altering public access laws in methods that will eventually make it tougher for body cameras to advance the objectives and purpose of police liability.According to Huffington Post, “many people are still skeptical, believing the devices could fail to prompt meaningful change and even make certain issues worse.There is concern that body cameras can be misused, are going to provide more ammunition in court for prosecution, rather than accountability for law enforcement themselves”(Wing). While cops

request for a variation of measures that may result body cameras to be less beneficial to the public, the device is entirely ineffective if not utilized correctly.

Although body cameras are capable of keeping track of documentation, the public may view these gadgets as an invasion of privacy. The indiscriminate launch of body camera footage could begin to have a disastrous outcome on the victims of offense. Police department cameras were expected to give a sense of safety and protection, but it is just a violation to our daily existence. People start to panic when they hear that incorporating body cameras with facial identification could possibly generate an unprecedented level of invasion into personal lives, potentially removing anonymity in society. According to Los Angeles Times, “equipping police with such devices also raises new and unsettled issues over privacy at a time when many Americans have been critical of the kind of powerful government surveillance measures that technology has made possible”(Pearce). People have anticipations to have their movements on film publicly by cameras but they do not have an expectation to have their privacy of their residence to be documented. If a cop has a body camera on themselves and does house inspection, the people's’ privacy is being violated significantly.

In the large picture, there is no rationale not to utilize body cameras. It will only benefit the people and ultimately generate a better relationship with the cop and the citizens of society. Areas outside of the United States, and numerous number of cities inside America have discovered that the use of body cameras has substantially helped out their society. In the absence of cameras, countless human beings can be accused for actions they did not do because there is no significant evidence to reveal what they had done. An individual could be tormented by a cop and would have no evidence at all but with cameras being present, evident verification can be displayed. Similarly, a cop who can be criticized of crimes they did not commit can be backed up with strong evidence if equipped to a body camera. If one does not desire the government observing an individual's actions, then it should be logical and safe to say that you should not doing it at all under any circumstances.