Police Body Camera Case Study

Although the conduct of police officers and the validity of the video evidence will be scrutinized, body cameras are necessary because police brutality and falsified reports would be diminished. Malcom X stated “If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again.” In my opinion, I feel the police officers would be held in check due to the knowledge of their constant monitoring. The controversy surrounding police body cameras have been great because the desire of people wanting to protect themselves and their community. The conceptual intent of these cameras would not only be to protect the suspect being recorded, as well as, the officer that is involved in the situation in question.

First I will start

If body cameras were required many police officers would be serving time in prison for some of their actions. A vast majority of the victims also would not have been harmed. Following a study done by Rialto, Calif. Police that ran from February 2012 to July 2013. A group of officers wore tiny video cameras while interacting with citizens. According to the New York Times, the video cameras resulted in a 60 percent drop in the use of force and an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers (Amalcar Scott, 2015, p.13). On a different randomized controlled trial, “nearly 1,000 officer shifts were randomized over a 12-month period of treatment and control conditions. During ‘‘treatment shifts’’ officers were required to wear and use body-worn-cameras when interacting with members of the public, while during ‘‘control shifts’’ officers were instructed not to carry or use the devices in any way. We observed the number of complaints, incidents of use-of-force, and the number of contacts between police officers and the public, in the years and months preceding the trial (in order to establish a baseline) and during the 12 months of the experiment” (Tabarrok,