Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Body cameras on police officers essay's
Body cameras for law enforcement essay
Impact of police officers wearing body cameras essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Body cameras on police officers essay's
Lately the news has been full of incidents of police shootings. As early as two years ago there has been a push for the police to wear body cameras to provide evidence of such events. In fact President Obama proposed a program which allocates funding for body-worn cameras, which is now being adopted in many police departments across the country. But are the use body cameras really a positive step for law enforcement? The idea of police wearing body cameras is seen as having the potential to reduce public complaints against police and police use of force (P Drover, 2015). Because the use of body-worn cameras is relatively new, long term impacts are not known. But, it is felt that the cameras will improve the transparency of the police encounters. …show more content…
First, is it worth it? Does the knowledge of being observed actually have an impact on a person’s behavior? Is it an effective deterrent of bad behavior? A big issue is the concern that Police resist wearing body-worn video cameras based on the fear of disciplinary actions, so they may not wear the cameras or keep them running during certain public encounters. And does a video provides effective evidence since there are definite camera limitations. Things such as lighting, perspective caught by the camera, and items blocking the view.
But despite concerns and flaws with body-warn video cameras, “A visual record of what occurs during a police encounter makes it more difficult for officers to deny excessive use of force or other abuse when it happens and more difficult for accusers of police to fabricate abuse or misconduct where it is absent.” (Blitz,
…show more content…
“Cameras do not provide a neutral window into reality, but they do provide visual evidence that is often far better than what fact-finders would have otherwise. Even when camera evidence is flawed, it is often far better than eyewitness accounts, especially when such eyewitness accounts are given long after the events” (Blitz, 2015). Eye witness accounts can vary widely, especially in high stress situations that happen very quickly. People frequently cannot remember the details, where camera evidence can be much more effective in catching the things a person may not recall.
Police are resistance to wear them based on fear of disciplinary actions. So there is a question on whether the police will actually use the cameras or keep them recording during encounters. The way that police departments have countered this concern is by actually using the cameras to provide evidence of good conduct, especially when claims have been made against officers. When used in this way, many police officers have welcomed the cameras as a tool for identifying the performance of officers whether good or bad.( Mateescu, Alexandra Claudia, and Alex Rosenblat. "Police body-worn cameras." (2015).)
And videos are said to increase convictions and eliminate false claims made by defendants, providing documentary support to police officers and their associated actions in an incident
I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s action when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in court rooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situations in question. A case of which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened.
One of the sources used to disprove that body camera isn’t the answer includes Jamelle Bouie article, Keeping the Police honest. Mr. Bouie is the chief political correspondent at Slate who graduated from the University of Virginia with a political and social thought degree (Tumblr.com). His work consists of issues relating to national politics, public policies and racial inequality. His work has also been published in Slate online magazine, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and TIME Magazine (Tumblr.com). Slate is an online magazine that post about the news, politics, business, technology and culture (slate.com). In Jamelle article, Keeping the Police honest he talks about incidents where police officers were being recorded and took excessive
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.
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.
Not only will using body cameras decrease the number of civilian deaths, it will also allow better and faster punishment for both officers accused with violating the rights of an innocent civilians. These recorded videos will also help punish civilians accused of crimes caught on camera, due to the jury and judge 's ability to get visual first-hand evidence of the incident. According to Paul Marks, author of Police, Camera, Action, “Confronted with footage of their actions, defendants are pleading guilty earlier” (2). Also these cameras will be a deterrent as because these officers know they are being watched and will be more cautious about the amount of force used when subduing a suspect and in policing in general, because just like in normal situations people act differently if they know they are being recorded. Others may argue that because the cameras are recording people will be less likely to come forward with evidence. However, according to Kelly Freund, author of When Cameras Are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body Mounted Cameras on
In “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality.” the author Adam Schiff announces, “With half of the police department wearing cameras recording each interaction with the public, the department experienced an 88 percent reduction in complaints against officers.” This statement shows protecting the officers because this shows the cameras did something to deter the people who made false accusations against the police officers because their was evidence. Schiff also acknowledges that, “…shifts without cameras experienced twice as many use-of-force incidents as shifts using the cameras.” The fact that the use of excessive force was cut in half due to cameras shows that the citizens are benefiting due to this because the officers knew that it wouldn’t be their word against a civilian and the body cameras hold them accountable and makes them believe that they have to answer to the law as
There has been scrutiny from some but I think the requirement to wear body cams outweigh any other reasons to not wear them. The cams provide tons of things to include misconduct, are procedures being followed, their decision making, and tons of data for training cops on what to do and to not do while being assigned as a cop.
...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).
There are several purposes as to why police agencies use body worn cameras. In the book “The police in America”, talks about two main purposes as to why police use body worn cameras. The first reason
It seems that knowing with sufficient certainty that our behavior is being observed or judged 3 affects various social cognitive processes: We experience public self-awareness, “become more prone to socially-acceptable behavior and sense a heightened need to cooperate with rules”(Noam, paragraph 3). By enforcing body cameras on police officers, improper use of force and behavior can be altered to suit the needs of any given situation to the best of their abilities. Expert Findings on Surveillance Cameras: What Criminologists and Others Studying Cameras Have Found.
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:
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.
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
One study done on community perceptions of BWCs found that “Consistent with their positive views of BWCs and likely related to the increasingly normative nature of video surveillance throughout society, the community members expressed relatively little concern regarding potential invasions of privacy for either police officers or citizens related to BWCs” (Crow et al. 604). Little research has been done on the topic of how the public views body cameras, though this finding is very misleading. It only surveyed two counties in Florida (possibly the worst place in the country for police misconduct) and it was done right after the media caught the attention of police violence in 2015, so of course the citizens there wanted BWC for their officers. In a country where the government has faced much scrutiny for illegal surveillance in the past, it is not a good idea to further violate the privacy of those who have not committed a crime. The body-worn cameras should only be used by the police when it is