Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The duties and responsibilities of police officers
Role of the police force
Role of the police force
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The duties and responsibilities of police officers
In any given setting, police officers are responsible for maintaining order within a, sometimes overly chaotic, society. They are given the responsibility of acting as protectors of the defenseless and upholding justice, at the risk of injury to themselves or even the loss of their own life. In addition, it is inevitable that an officer will eventually come into physical contact with an individual, who may be volatile or avoiding arrest, which nonetheless increases the odds of a physical confrontation. The distressing truth is that, although being assaulted is not a requirement of their profession, it is essentially unavoidable. With that said, police officers realize this fact and readily accept the reality that at any given moment, be …show more content…
Members of the public whose views are “anti‐police” make earnest attempts to bring frivolous lawsuits against officers and their departments that they may have been involved with. These lawsuits range from accusations of police profiling to excessive use of force. With that said, Body cameras protect officers from false allegations by providing an unbiased visual record (Lou Ponsi, 2015). The actual footage of the occurrence could then show the actual events that transpired, and if the officer did not violate the rights of the individual in question, then the case would, in most instances, be dismissed, saving the police department a lot of time and …show more content…
Body cameras, in essence, have the ability to keep both police and citizens honest. This provides an indubitable opportunity for a judge to actually see and hear what actually happened at an incident, which could be different from what a police officer had transcribed in their report (Lou Ponsi, 2015). Interestingly, playback the video recording could essentially assist officers in more accurately filling out their reports. In fact, “the city of Fullerton, California allows their officers to view their videos to assist them in writing their police reports—except in situations involving in‐custody deaths, officer‐involved shootings, or incidents that involve a significant injury to a member of the public” (Lou Ponsi, 2015). With their reports being more accurate, it would become easier for departments to refute any false claims against
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
“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.
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.
In the mid 1970’s Australia’s police organisations in all states and territories adopted a paramilitary policing model, creating hierarchical structure to police members response to crime; however in the past 30 years, Victoria’s policing has since adopted a community-based model, aimed to focus on ‘service’ rather than ‘force’ (Bull & Stratta, 1995). Although police and public perception is to catch criminals, the job role has evolved, resulting in specialized units; for instance, the Victorian Police Force has a liaison officer service, unit services and referral services with a shift from focusing just on targeting ‘real crime’ (Clifford, 2010). However, studies show increasing numbers of police members encountering individuals experiencing
Everyday law enforcement personal have the possibility to face dangerous events in their daily duties. In performing such duties a police officer could come by a seemingly ordinary task, and in a blink of an eye the event can turn threatening and possible deadly. When or if this happens to an officer they won’t have
Police body cameras were intended to decrease police complaints and decrease the amount of unnecessary force but, the cameras have some defects. Defects that can make the cameras be considered useless and not worth the money and time. These cameras were tested in various departments to understand the positive and negative effects of the cameras. Do body cameras change how the police interact with the public?
When police wear body cameras, they no longer have to trust the words of citizens or eyewitnesses. “In the wake of high-profile incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, North Charleston, Baltimore, and elsewhere, law enforcement agencies across the country have rapidly adopted body-worn cameras for their officers. One of the main selling points for these cameras is their potential to provide transparency into some police interactions, and to help protect civil rights, especially in heavily policed communities of color.”(The Leadership Conference). This could speed up the court process by having accurate information about the situation. “If body cameras become standard across the nation, some of these cases will be dismissed or go uncharged when video fails to support the officer’s account or the citizen’s accounts. Others will end with a quick guilty plea because the footage will constitute overwhelming evidence. Either way, taxpayers will be spared the substantial cost of going to trial.”(Roberts). Storing the evidence is the problem. Unlike traditional evidence like bullet fragments, knives, and guns that is stored in a locked room, digital film would be be stored in a database or a hard drive that could risk being hacked at any minute. The demands for video storage are unprecedented for many police departments, which don't have enough space on servers or hard drives to store the additional data. Storage
Body cameras of authorities raise a debate in the seam, whether body cameras are ethical or unethical for privacy; when the performance of recording a civilian for protection. Furthermore, body cameras may or may not be able to provide a sense of protection to modify the behavior of officer and civilian and develop evidence for court cases. For example, the Arizona Messa police department administers an experiment which results demonstrate “...75 percent fewer incidents of use of force among officers wearing body cameras during the experiment…” (Lucy Schouten) within a year. However, the position which questions the ethics of body camera’s ability to record a civilian to an extent without consent or may indicate a violation of the 4th amendment
If a Use of force is looked at by the public as unnecessary or gets out of hand a lawsuit is usually soon to follow. In Rialto California, during a 12-month study, Use of Force declined by 60% with the use of body cameras. Citizen complaints against the police also declined 88% in the same city during that trial (Mims, C 2014). Part of the reason that complaints declined is due to an additional source to back up complaints taking a “he said she said” situation to an “it is what it is” situation because the camera does not lie. And while the camera is busy capturing indisputable evidence many of the Use of Forces have now either been justified as actions deemed appropriate for the situation, or taken disciplinary action against misconduct.
A young black man is killed by a police officer while the officer is on duty. The officer claims that the man attacked him and was simply defending himself. Those supporting the boy say the police officer was harsher with him because of racism. Some would trust the word of the officer as he is in authority and others the boy because of previous racism shown in the area. But what is there to show what really happened during the encounter? Body cameras. With them, the amount of violent encounters, such as the one example shown, can be reduced and the public will not argue against the police as there is evidence of what really happened.
Today, many questions are raised about police brutality. Numerous incidents have occurred that follow the same pattern: a police officer shoots a man and it is unclear whether the shot was justified. Body cameras are the answer. Body cameras can record police and civilian interaction, thereby providing clear evidence. Body cameras will take away the uncertainty in cases. Body cameras should be implemented because they benefit both the officers and the public.
The proponents of the body-worn camera will argue their perceived advantages (Macari, 2015). They cite body-worn camera promote better behavior from both the public and the officer due to the fact that they know they are being recorded. The proponents also cite the cameras
It will also prove who first started the action in the crime scene. With police body cameras it will make things much easier if something were to go wrong. Last year on October in Chicago, a student named Laquan McDonald was shot 16 times; he did not go to attack the police, he did the complete opposite. He went the other way from the police, and that’s when Officer Jason Van Dyke pulled out his gun. He was not wearing a body camera, but thankfully the dash cam from another police car at the scene had recorded the whole scene. It was audible, all the yelling and gunshots were heard. There was no doubt that it was just Officer Van Dyke who did the damage; he took a man’s life. Yes, what Laquan McDonald had been doing was a crime, but what the officer did was overkill. No one has a reason to shoot someone 16 times; that number was outrageous. Imagine if there were no dash cams that night, what would’ve happened? In different cases besides Laquan McDonald, videos that are recorded can protect any false accusations or