Police Body Cameras Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians; law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be suited with body cameras. In doing so it is thought to bring an increase in trust in the community, reduce brutality and crime, as well as elucidate good cops still around. 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. “… if not for bystander Feidin Santana’s video casting doubt on office Michael Slagers version of events, he may not have quickly been charged with murder…” Imagine if this man would have been set free only to think getting away with murder is easy. Seeming that a person is an employee of the law, jurors’ do not expect them to lie. All they need to say is that they felt in danger or claim they were put in a tough situation. “when the cop story first came out, he said he was in a tussle,” said Virgil Delestine…”but the video told what really happened.” With body cameras at the scene this will help increase honesty in policemen because they know they are being recorded. In addition, I feel it would be very effective in building community trust if the police force would broadcast the tapes. By keeping everyone up to date, this will encourage people that law enforcements are not being sneaky and are putting reinforcement in place cops who do wrong. 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,” cameras will help donate evidence of handicap wrong doers in any aspect. In reference to a twelve year old named Tamir Rice being shot in Cleveland. The city rioted after finding that the accused police officer was deemed innocent in the murder of the twelve year old. This situation was visualized as "a pattern or practice of unreasonable and unnecessary use of force" and "the employment of poor and dangerous tactics that place officers in situations where avoidable force become inevitable." Though Cleveland police felt releasing the video of what really happened would only puncture the trust with civilians, it would also help provide evidence to the actual events that took place. "It was a horrible situation that obviously had deadly consequences, but at least we don 't have to be at this point questioning whether the officer was making up a story," Using cameras is like having an insurance policy on the victim, whether it be the police officer or a civilian. “Cameras have potential to be a win-win, helping protect the public against police misconduct, and at the same time helping protect
“A body-worn camera in public policing is a miniature audio and video recording device which allows recording of officers’ duties and citizen interaction,” notes Thomas K. Bud. Police body-cameras are significantly growing in popularity across Canada. While legislation has not confirmed definite rules regarding the use of body-cameras, local police departments have begun their implementation. Canadian police services involved in these projects include Toronto, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, and Amherstburg Police Services. The results of these projects have revealed mixed thoughts regarding body-camera effectiveness. Is it a good idea for police to wear body-cameras? While the cost of police wearing body cameras seems prohibitive, police wearing
Body cameras can be major proof3 of evidence when things go wrong. The footage of the live cameras can have a major impact in the court because it would help with in the proof of evidence when it comes to an arrest. For example the Oscar Grant case, during the arrest the officer fired a bullet into the back of Grant, who was laying his face down and not using force during the arrest. Evidence came from a cell phone camera during the arrest. Body cameras cannot only help the person being arrested but as well help the officer themselves because it can show whos moraly right and
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,
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.
This little camera doesn’t have but one job and that is to record the story. “Advantages of police body cameras..” article talks about the pro and cons of such camera on the officers while on shift. The camera is there to help give an unbiased account of what happen. When you know you are being recorded, then you naturally act a little better because you know someone is watching you not so impulsive. There is a statement “A study performed by the Rialto, CA police department found that the cameras led to an 87.5 percent decrease in officer complaints as well as a 59 percent reduction in use of force over the course of a year—and they’re not the only departments seeing positive results.” “This drop in complaints can also lead to a substantial decrease in the time and resources devoted to investigating complaints and resolving civil litigation.” .The two cons I keep seeing against using cameras is the initial cost to issue one out to all law enforcement and the upkeep cost required by them. Additional is a privacy issue with what is recorded on them. These successes number out weight the cons specifically dealing with the public
While both dash cams and body mounted cams record interactions between police and citizens, “dash cam- eras are confined to places where cars can go, which are usually public places, such as roads and parking lots. A dash camera cannot easily record inside people’s homes and other places where there is a heightened expectation of privacy”(Freund 97). Thus, allowing body mounted cameras to record the more private aspects of a law enforcement related situations. Also “unlike body-mounted cameras, CCTV cameras do not record conversations”(Freund 98).This could deter people from going to the police when they witness a crime, because they are afraid of being exposed to the person who committed the crime, giving them the information needed if they choose to retaliate. Ebi, Kevin states that “sensitive information can 't get out if it 's never recorded in the first place,” so, if there is a distress call made to the police for help, there won’t be concern that the person in distresses voice, face or the inside of their home could end up on YouTube ("Body Of
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 this case, some of the pros of police officers wearing body cameras are that the cameras record all interactions that police officers have with citizens. These body cameras provide evidence of every interaction while the cop is on-duty. These body cameras can end most rumors that are created by public, and get rid of false witnesses or faulty information. The camera may also provide proof of witnesses so that they may be contacted for questioning. These cameras will also make court processes much faster, so that there is more time in court for more important and serious cases. Minor cases as well as large cases will not be dragged out as long with the information the body cameras could proved resulting in smaller court fines as well. These are some of the pros of body cameras. However there are always two sides to every story according to the article "Police Departments Implement Body-Worn Cameras". One of the cons to police officers wearing body cameras is that the police officer has full control of when the camera is on or off. They would manually have to turn on the camera every time they get in and out of the cop cars. Another con is for citizens who may not feel comfortable with the camera, for instance a sexual assault victim may not want their situation to be recorded. The citizen will be able to ask for the police officer to turn the camera off if the citizen prefers. Another problems of cameras are people privacy; they do not want people in the background to be shown. They would have to blur out the faces, before they blur out the faces they would talk to them about what they saw for a witness. Another problem that they could face is money. Money soon adds up. Depending on the camera you buy it can range anywhere from $300 and $1700. That does not include the storage where all this record videos are going. In South Carolina, they have already set 2 million dollars to the side to start having police wear body
Right now the Kansas City Police Department (KCPD) is spending $6 million dollars on cameras for their officers according to the KCPD. David Zimmerman Chief of the KCPD says, “”We’re moving toward body cameras for the same reasons we did in-car cameras: to ensure accountability, to identify any issues that could require training and to provide indisputable accounts of incidents.””(). Unlike Zimmerman, chief Tony Farrar of the California’s Rialto Police Department is more worried about making sure the cameras are a good ideas, he is doing this by conducting
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:
Over the years many cases had emerged on police brutality , like for example, in 2015 , Sandra Bland was pulled over for not using her signal light when switching lanes .During getting pulled over she was asked to put out her cigarette then refused . Later that day , she was killed in police custody .While seeing the video many people speculate that the video that was recorded on the car camera was tampered with . If the officer had on a body camera that day we would've see what happened of out the cameras view .If officers would wear body cameras it would lessen brutality from policemen, honest reports , and lessen the number of complaints .
Body Cameras haven’t been around that long, but are making a big impact on policing. In the United Kingdom in 2005, they began testing a body camera for police officers. In 2010, over 40 areas in the United Kingdom were using body cameras. In the United States, on August 9th, 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown was shot by a police officer. On July 17th, 2014 in New York, Eric Garner died while in police custody. Since these incidents, police body cameras have been a national topic. Technology is taking the world by storm, everyday there is a new, and unique gadget. Cameras are everywhere in this world. You are being recorded every day, by a camera you
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.
There are various situations where one or many people are accused of committing a certain crime. Ideally, the crime is then reported to the officer who proceeds to arrest the accused. However, sometimes different scenarios play out and one who may think they are in the right may be wrong. Because of these different instances, police officers should wear body cameras in order to capture what happens when he or she makes an arrest. This is due are recent events where criminals and police officers have been accused of something by the other party that they may have not actually done. A variety of law enforcement now use body cameras to avoid these accusations. Body cameras can provide equal protection, assurance that procedures are followed and
In conclusion, I talked about why the use of body cameras is necessary. Body cameras are an unbiased piece of equipment that can be used to hold everyone accountable for their actions. Studies have shown that the use of body cameras reduces the amount of police misconduct and overall unnecessary harm to people. Although some cops have been proven guilty of misconduct, not all police officers are bad. Body cameras can also highlight the good things done by our law enforcement. These things will help build trust back into our law enforcement and make our country a better place.