More handpicked essays just for you.
Body cameras essay introduction
Challenges to police legitimacy and accountability
Body cameras research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
On the night of August 9th, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed an unarmed, 18 year old, Michael Brown. Officer Wilson was tried for the murder of Michael Brown by the state of Missouri’s Grand Jury and was found not guilty. Officer Wilson was not wearing a body camera. The town of Ferguson was outraged as violent riots and protests broke out because of the ruling (Buchanan). Mentioned in Larry Buchanan’s New York Times article titled “What Happened in Ferguson?” Many citizens of Ferguson and others who heard about the story across the United States argue that Officer Wilson used excessive force in the altercation and should be guilty of murder; however, the court and jury members believed differently.
If
…show more content…
From the Harvard Law Review pertaining to body cameras, “This technology[body cameras] has also been praised as likely to reveal instances of police misconduct, reform police (and civilian) behavior, and build trust between the police and the community, all of which provide strong justifications for adoption” (Considering sec. B).
By adopting body cameras, officers can do their job without having to worry about getting punished or fired for doing the right thing, even if the events take a turn for the worst, as long as the officer is taking the correct actions they will be protected. Police officers are required to go through months of training and multiple probationary periods before being put out on the streets. The officers know right from wrong, the camera is just there to remind them, someone is always watching.
Not only providing protection for officers, the body cameras equally provide protection for citizens. Like previously stated, there are constantly eyes on every move the officer makes. If the citizen feels the officer wronged them, the citizen can make a complaint and an investigating officer will follow through with the video evidence. At that point disciplinary action may be applied to the
…show more content…
White explains in his book, “Following implementation of the body-worn camera program [2012], citizen complaints against police declined by 88 percent—from 24 in 2011, a year before the study, to just three complaints during the camera project study period. Moreover, use of force by police officers dropped by 60 percent, from 61 to 25 instances, following the start of the body worn camera study” (White 20). With complaints and use of force each dramatically dropping a year after implementing the body camera, it is fair to say the body camera changes the way police officers interact with
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
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:
“Keeping the videos hidden will only heighten mistrust and spur conspiracy theories about what they really show”. Law enforcement also have confidence in body cameras, diminishing police brutality and crime, by exposing all types of misconduct. They would minimize environments where victims feel powerless and belittled when up against an officer. “Body cams can not only record the entire context of a police encounter, but are invaluable in assessing the demeanor of victims, witnesses, and suspects,” said Smith. The cameras will help collect evidence of wrongdoers in any aspect.
The family of Michael Brown wanted justice for their son in which they felt was an unjust shooting. His mother was quoted expressing mistrust towards the police, "You 're not God. You don 't decide when you 're going to take somebody from here.” (McLaughlin, E. C. (2014, August 15) The family was obviously hurt by the shooting and wanted justice and support. The community began protesting the shooting and Officer Darren Wilson. Chaos broke out in Ferguson and a State of Emergency was issued. The community felt that the shooting was unjust and did not trust police officers. The community response to the shooting often attracted attention and made many political statements. Darren Wilson’s family were interested in maintaining his innocence. They hoped that the investigation would prove to the world that Wilson acted out of self-defense and did not violate Brown’s rights. The Criminal Justice system’s interests all hoped to create reforms and eliminate racism in police departments. On the local level many had to maintain safety in the community and assure proper police procedures. The state had to step into issue curfews and State of Emergencies to keep the state safe despite protests and riots as well as make sure Darren Wilson did not violate any laws of the state of Missouri. The state also hoped to create reforms to better race relations. On the federal level was the investigation which hoped to find out if the
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.
Do police officers really need body cameras is a question that has been repeated all throughout the nation. Body cameras are video recording systems that are used by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public and gather video evidence. Most police departments do not wear body cameras currently and the ones that do are in trial phases to see how it works out. There are many advantages to police officers wearing body cameras but in asking the question should they wear body cameras the stakeholders should look at the complete picture. One reason that police and body cameras have constantly been brought up lately are the instances of police brutality happening within the United States. Police brutality within the United States
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
Police officers are held accountable to have their camera on. Also the use of these cameras will be minimizing the accusation against police officers that use unethical behaviors. The video tape will protect any false accusation or misconduct. In some cases the defendant or the prosecutor who is on trial the footage of the body camera will expedite the process. This motion can have is up and down in the fields it can protect the public also invade their
Having police officers wear body cameras improves how they interact with the citizens every day. It lowers the need for police force as well as it lowers the amount of complaints towards police. Per Katz, Choate, Ready, and Nun`o (2014) when the deployment of body cameras started in Phoenix, Arizona the amount of arrests increased by 17 percent, and complaints towards police dropped down 23 percent. Per that statistic
Ultimately showing that body cams are effectively reducing false accusations of police brutality and unreasonable arrests. "When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better’’ (2) police are more in check but civilian privacy is at risk.
According to interviewed police officers, once members of the public were notified that they were being filmed, “even drunk or agitated people tended to become more polite.” As a result of these behavioral changes, “police departments saw a nearly 90 percent decrease in complaints against officers since body cameras have been introduced into the communities.” The use of body cameras should be able to reduce the complaints and potentially help to nourish a culture of more respectful interactions between police and the public. “Body cameras should, in turn, be expected to lead to greater public engagement with police officers and ultimately to improved public safety.” Complaints of police misconduct usually begin with a written or oral statement by a person claiming that one or more officers engaged in conduct that breaches the law or policies of the department. “Officers and other witnesses then give their own statements of the incidence, video footage, unlike the memory of a human being, does not become less accurate over time.” In addition, many complaints are currently resolved only by making a credibility determination between the complainant and one or more of the officers involved. “By objectively recording events as they transpire, body cameras could help investigators make even more accurate findings.” These finding can help maintain the integrity of the officer being accused and the police
I believe that police should not be required to wear a body camera while on patrol. Some believe that police should be required to wear a camera while questioning a suspect. “Proponents argue that body cameras will provide accurate and contemporaneous records of events, thereby both enhancing the transparency and accountability of the police by protecting members of the public and improving the ability of the police to gather evidence and prosecute suspects.” (Tsin 2). I think that it is a bad idea to wear for police to wear body cameras. These cameras will not save the victim. Video evidence can be interpreted in different ways from the viewer. If police are required to wear body cameras it will look like we do not trust our own police system. The use of body cameras may also prevent witnesses to come forward and help assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of exposure. Others, like myself, argue that police should not be required to wear this equipment. “On the other hand, skeptics are concerned that camera footage cannot provide full and accurate details of incidents, that the increasing use of video technology raises privacy concerns, and that the adoption of body cameras fails to address the underlying causes of social problems.” (Tsin 2). Wearing a body camera will not stop the suspect from doing what they intended to do, if anything he or she would act out more in aggression. In most cases, body cameras show that it was the suspect that is the one who is unwilling to comply with the officers commands. Body cameras are seen an invasion of privacy. “The use of video technology has also raised concerns about privacy of both citizens and police officers.” (Tsin 4). The camera captures footage from everyday civilian and police behavior that should not necessarily be recorded. Bystanders and all defendants are recorded without their
Cameras ensure that law enforcement officers act in a manner befitting their situation. This prevents officers from acting incorrectly in a given situation, which protects the public from any misconduct by the police. A study conducted by the University of South Florida showed a significant reduction in the number of civilian injuries by officers wearing the cameras, and the injuries to officers themselves. (Huffington Post) This shows how the body cameras were able to protect both citizens and officers from injury. Body cameras make finding truly bad officers easier due to solid evidence, reducing tenions and making the jobs of good officers easier. As a result, the job of policing becomes less dangerous, both from the perspective of anti-police violence and legal liabiility. This causes officers to be more judicious about use of force.Transparency is essential for trust between law enforcement and the public. Body cameras help increase transparency and accountablity of officers. The cameras help reduce police use of force and complaints against officers. This enhamces police legitamacy and transparency. The cameras give insight to what officers do everyday, thus creating a window between departments and its citizens. Body cameras provide an additional eye witness to situations they encounter. This omproves officer accountability, as the cameras make sure officers are policing fairly and
This also protects the officer from murder charges when he shoots someone who tried to attack them. These cameras have complete transparency, allowing you to see the complete situation on what happens between the officer and the citizen ("Should Police Officers"). The camera's allow you to listen to the police radios and also picks up the audio of the citizen and the police officer in the situation. Making the evidence that the video has very hard evidence that is extremely hard to disprove in court ("Should Police Officers"). Which means they disclaims all accusations that are made against a police officer ("Should Police Officers"). This camera also isn’t big or bulky. The camera is about the size of a deck of cards and is extremely portable plus is worn the entire time is on duty, by clipping the body camera to just about any of the police officers clothing ("Should Police