“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 …show more content…
body cameras will better protect civilians and police and therefore all police departments should move towards their full employment. Nonetheless, there must be strict rules regarding body cameras to ensure privacy rights are protected. It is important to recognize body cameras will be expensive, and the implementation needs to be proposed carefully, considering all costs. There are multiple economic factors regarding the implementation of body cameras, besides the cost of the actual cameras themselves. Camera quality, nighttime options, and camera flexibility are significant to review when discussing the equipping of body cameras. A body camera also needs to be durable, waterproof, shockproof, and dustproof, therefore making the costs higher. With these factors included, Michael D. White notes it is estimated each camera costs between $800-1000 as well as replacement costs. The requirements of the camera determine the cost, as there needs to be certain features in order to determine if body cameras will be successful in policing without delays or complications. By considering these factors, the price point of each camera is costly, but necessary. There are also expenses when it comes to storing the data for the recordings. Relocation of video will be needed in order to present recordings in court. This will be another cost, as the relocation will be a job in itself. According to Supt. Paul Morrison, training is needed for police officers for the usage of body cameras, as well as following proper legislation. This will take time, and money as well, which makes it another factor in the expenditures of body cameras. Insufficient research has been conducted with the costs of body cameras. Consequently, it is important to create a payment plan, with thorough research of all costs. Video storage fees are often overlooked when weighing the costs of police wearing body cameras. Supt. Paul Morrison said in 2015, “The most significant and incremental cost relates to data storage and management,” with regards to body camera use. Making a definite plan recognizing all of the costs, will help determine if body cameras are cost-effective. It is clear there are multiple benefits to body cameras, and despite the expenses they will be an effective resource to society. Body cameras will protect citizens rights as police officers will adhere to rules and stray from possible violations. It will also protect police from wrongful, or exaggerated complaints, which can damage their reputation. Police will ensure they are doing their job properly, and have evidence if citizens make false claims about their words or actions. Correspondingly, citizens will have an authoritative figure in which inevitably avoids offensive behavior due to the body camera. Body cameras will therefore better protect citizens and police officers, while affecting the behavior of both in a positive way. Dan Gemmiti, a 26 year veteran in policing notes, “Body cameras would significantly help resolve complaints from citizens and we can simply just press play, to protect ourselves and honor our duty to protect and serve.” Body cameras will be used as a resource to resolve conflicts and ensures police are accountable to all their actions. Police officers will have their reputation protected, and have a resource if someone is attempting to damage it. Complaints towards police officers commonly lead to lawsuits. Civil lawsuits can be extremely costly. According to recent surveys of Canadian lawyers, a regular litigation and trial lawsuits process can cost between $10,000—$25,000. By having a shortage of these law suits, based on the resource of body cameras it will have a great impact. Body cameras will be especially effective in complaints of exaggerated or false claims. These resources can resolve a complaint, therefore civil lawsuits will not need to go to trial. In other respects, police body cameras have evidentiary value, which can be used in trials. Ultimately this will lower court costs as there is more evidence for arrest and prosecution. These factors prove that body cameras can be cost-effective, and in many ways save money. There has been an indisputable increase of the claim of police brutality in the past decade. Body cameras can ensure citizens are protected and if violations occur, there is evidence. This would reveal the truth of police brutality, and if it's as common as suggested by the media. Body cameras will also act as a deterrent to brutality, as police officers will be more aware of their actions. As suggested by Michael D. White, by having body cameras incorporated in society, citizens will look upon police officers as a higher and legitimate authority figure. By having a legitimate figure, there will be respect towards police officers, and more cooperation as the citizen is aware of the body camera. It will also be a deterrent from false accusations from citizens to be made, as they will know the body camera can reveal the truth. Body cameras will better protect citizens from violations, and police from false or exaggerated claims, as there will be video evidence. Body cameras record police officer and citizen interactions, and this video evidence can protect both citizens and police officers. Privacy rights are a very important factor regarding the implementation of police body-cameras.
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
cameras are unable to be implemented without these rights being discussed. As privacy rights are an important factor, it is evident legislation needs to determine rules of modern technology our society is faced with.
Have you ever heard of the idea of body-mounted cameras on police officers? If not, David Brooks will introduce you to the idea that was discussed in an article from New York Times called “The Lost Language of Privacy”. In this article, the author addressed both the positive and negative aspects of this topic but mostly concerned with privacy invasion for Americans. Although that is a valid concern but on a larger scale, he neglected to focus greatly on the significant benefits that we all desire.
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:
Police Body Cameras Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians, law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be fitted 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 actions when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in courtrooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situation in question.
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.
In 2014, the New York Police Department announced that it would begin a pilot program to have its officers wear body cameras while on duty (Bruinius). However, the issue of privacy invasion and confidentiality of officers and the public has arisen. Though Body cameras on police officers could help in some scenarios such as random crimes, or police to citizen behavior, they also threaten privacy. Body mounted cameras are an invasion of privacy not only for the officers but also for the citizens involved. According to Freund Kelly, “Police officers often go inside businesses, private property and private homes as part of their duties. When police officers have a warrant, or believe there is an emergency,
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.
The researcher hypothesizes that the use of body-cameras on police officers would reduce the instances of gainful communication between civilians and law enforcement. The null-hypothesis is that the use of body-cameras on police officers will have no effect on gainful communication between civilian and law enforcement. In determining the implications of how body-cameras effects civilian behavior, the research will include a sampling survey of criminal justice students and information gathered from journal documents related to research on police body-cameras.
Should police officers be mandated to wear body cameras? That is a question that has grown to be widely discussed in media, politics, and the public. The death of Michael Brown due to a fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer inflamed the idea that police officers should wear body cameras (Griggs, Brandon). The opposing sides of such controversial questions both provide a strong reasonable argument that supports each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that supports the use of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds.
Law enforcement officers make an oath to serve and protect, and they are expected to uphold this oath to the best of their ability, but recently there has been an increase in the number of civilian deaths at the hands of law enforcement. Since the rise in this alarming trend, public distrust of law enforcement officials is at an all-time high. This has caused the public to demand the use of body worn cameras be made mandatory. Some people argue that imposing this new technology can cause unintended problems such as, violating privacy laws or interfering with how police interact with the public. However, these concerns can be easily solved once more policies are created to guideline usage. High profile
In his article, “Police Cameras Need to Protect Privacy, Too,” Michael Chertoff responds to the concerns of privacy. He acknowledges that criminal justice information needs good security because it is information about citizens, often at their most distressed and vulnerable. “Imagine if someone hacked and even edited video of alleged criminals before they were even charged or of child victims descri...
This research paper will give a general overview of body-worn cameras with policing and how police officers respond to body-worn camera. There will be several sections that will explain more about body worn cameras. The reasons why the police use body worn cameras. The issues police officers face with the use of body worn cameras. Issues of citizen privacy will be explained. A research study of positive outcomes of body worn camera will be discussed. As well as officer’s perceptions of the use of body worn cameras.
There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras in the United States, proving to be a normal feature in American lives (Vlahos). This is no surprise because in the past several years, events such as the 9/11 attack and the availability of cheaper cameras have accelerated this trend. But conflicts have come with this and have ignited, concerning the safety of the people versus the violation of privacy that surveillance has. Although camera surveillance systems are intended to provide safety to the public, the violation of privacy outweighs this, especially in a democratic country like America.
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
The past decade has seen a proliferation of law enforcement security cameras in public areas, with central London having more cameras than any other city. In cities like New York, Los Angeles, and central London, cameras can be found at almost every intersection. Terrorist attacks have been a major basis for this significant increase in law enforcement security cameras; however, privacy advocates, along with many of the public, feel that it’s an invasion of privacy. People are concerned that all this video surveillance, which is continuously expanding, has created a “Big Brother” society, where people are constantly watched. This creates paranoia and unease for people that just want to go about living there private lives, without feeling that their every move is being watched. The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: does the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative sides to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras; nevertheless, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned.