Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why should the police wear body cams
Advantages of police body cameras
Conclusion on why cops should wear body cameras
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why should the police wear body cams
Henry G Camino
Prof. Oda
ENG101- section
Fall 2015
Should Police Officer Wear Body Cameras
According to the department of Justice of found that “both offices and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present”. Cameras could prevent instance of police abuse in the future and awareness to the public. Any video captured can be valuable evidence in court by providing live footage of a crime gone terrible wrong. By body cameras being recording live, police can create a better trust with in law enforcement and their communities. Using body cameras can be a create source of educating law enforcement creating better policing skills. All officers on duty should be requaired to use body cams while on duty.
By law enforcement wearing body cameras can be the first step into taking disciplinary action tour wards police brutality. Body cameras will encourage police officers to be more responsible on handling stressful situation and have more control on themselves, because their actions, he or she are in the public eye. For example study shows, when body cameras where issued police, officers decreased 60 percent of excessive force in the first year initiating of cameras.”(Donovan). The body cameras can control a serious situation
…show more content…
because it would raise awareness towards the officers who use excessive force. The body cameras are a important matter and is leading towards the right direction on stopping police brutality. Before body cameras where introduced to the community, society used cell phones to provide rich evidence in court.
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
wrong. President Obaman proposed an investment of $75 million for all officers to wear body cameras. It could cost millions of dollars to the nation for all law enforcement to wear body cameras, however it will bring many positive results to the community. Law enforcements are hired to enfoce the law and provide public safety to the community. People in the community will feel more comfortable during an investagstion, motor vehicle and an arrest and many more cases because police officer are not perfect, we are all humans and are ment to make mistakes. The live footage from police officer doing there jobs can be extremely important towards police tranning and police academy. Video data can be very usefull to Police deparments to improve the skills officer feel weak in. Police officer will understand how to control a stressfull situation for example during an arrest or anytime theres is verbal conflict or when physical force is being use during an arrest . By studying and analysis the live footage of a scene police officer can build confidence and be more knowlagible during the scnene of the crime, which can help many police officer in the future.
There are topics brought up about the incident in Ferguson and other police shootings that did or did not have body cams. There have been talks in communities about trying to reduce the police misconducts in the communities and the workplace. It is proven that officers who didn’t wear body cams had 2 times the illegal use of force incidents. This article will help me prove further that body cameras being worn will help reduce so many incidents, not saying all incidents
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:
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.
Another, this device can serve as video evidence to prove who is right and who is at fault and also to show if the police used excessive force. On the contrary, many citizens believe the use of this device will invade their fourth amendment right, and it reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " Some questions that arise from the use of body cameras are, Is it reliable, Can the videos recordings be tampered with, the battery life, do officers have to operate it or it 's
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
Any cop can tell you they have never had an incident where a person in their charge was hurt, but how can one know for sure whether or not the officer is telling the truth? Body cameras help to regulate the behavior of police officers. By having evidence of their day to day proclivities, offers have an incentive to behave a certain way when viewed. The camera acts as a psychological guide to help ensure the best performance and behavior from an officer. A case study was made to see how cameras affect the police officers psychologically which shows that, “People adhere to social norms and alter their behavior because of the awareness that someone else is watching.
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
Thesis: By implementing Body cameras there will be more effective ways to monitor police activity the ability to protect civilians and law officials will greatly increase. Today I would like to share more with everyone the huge issue police brutality plays in our society and hopefully by the end of my speech you will want police officers to wear mandatory body cameras as well.