Should Police Wear Body Cameras? “If officers and citizens are being watched, we are both more liable to do the right thing.” Travis Easter, Media Relations Coordinator, San Diego Police Department. SIRS data base reports that police brutality has been an issue since the 1990’s. in the past several years, police officers have been issued wearable video cameras as standard equipment issued by police departments around the U.S. Protests began to erupt across the country after the killing of a young unarmed black teenager (Michael Brown) in august 2014, the grand jury’s decisions to not indict the police officer in the shooting. Should police officers be required to wear body cameras (SIRS)? This paper will examine viewpoint one, two and my …show more content…
For starters, police departments are ensuring the use of body cameras. Firstly, body cameras drastically reduce complaints. For example, Gretel Kauffman, author for Christian Science Moniter, shares since the adoption of body cameras by police departments, they have been proven to reduce use of force, complaints, and confusion over officer-said-civilian said situation (Kauffman). Thus, body cameras help lower complaints made on police officers. Secondly, body cameras are useful when police brutality happens. For instance, Kauffman, reports November, 2016, two deputies were caught on camera beating a car thief with batons. The two deputies were charged for the incident. Therefore, body cameras can help prove police brutality. Thirdly, body cameras are supposed to build trust in our police officers. To illustrate, Kauffman, tells “the main motive of body cameras is to provide openness and transparency, and build trust in the police.” Hence, police officers build trust within the citizens when wearing body cameras. For all these reasons, body cameras help calm down …show more content…
To begin, the generally public will not be allowed to see any footage, especially anything controversial. Firstly, the Long Beach Police Department has already denied any request for video of police officers using force. For example, Jeremiah Dobruck, writer for Press-Telegram, shares that videos will not be made public because they are ongoing investigations (Dobruck). Thus, it probably is an innovative idea to not release videos because it may invade someone’s privacy. Secondly, the Long Beach Police Department does not want to hurt their criminal prosecution by sharing videos. For instance, Dobruck, reports that the district attorney’s office also has problems with not releasing videos to the generally public because of the people who make up the jury. Therefore, the Long Beach Police Department does not want to hurt their criminal prosecution. Thirdly, there are California laws that protect the citizen’s privacy. To illustrate, Dobruck, tells the state of California public records act when deciding whether footage can be released. Hence, the fact that California supports these privacy laws helps protect our privacy. For all these reasons, our privacy should be
This debate will help me appeal to those who do not agree with body worn cameras and also those who agree with me. This gives me good insight into both arguments which will strengthen my paper. Topic Sentence: Even though body worn cameras are disputed by some, they will ultimately be the solution for law
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.
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.
“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
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.
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,
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.
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.
Do police officers really need body cameras is a question that has been repeated all throughout the nation. Body cameras are video recording systems that are used by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public and gather video evidence. Most police departments do not wear body cameras currently and the ones that do are in trial phases to see how it works out. There are many advantages to police officers wearing body cameras but in asking the question should they wear body cameras the stakeholders should look at the complete picture. One reason that police and body cameras have constantly been brought up lately are the instances of police brutality happening within the United States. Police brutality within the United States
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
The American public has been dealing with a lot of police brutality over the last two years. We have asked for body cameras to be mandatory for all police officers and even though a lot of cities and town don’t have them yet it has been some changes. Some people want them to show evidence of misconduct by police officers while others want it to protect those officers and then you have those that think it is violating privacy laws. My argument will be are body cameras working so far and are they the solution for the future. Does police officers wearing camera put at risk the privacy of the American public or does it expose
There have been several court rulings and legislative actions concerning the release of the different forms of officer information. Judge James C. Chalfant of Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that there is public interest in knowing the officers information in cases where officers fire a weapon. The judge stated that since the officers’ names are not shield as personnel documentation, “The Times” had the right to know the names. The Long Beach Police union President was worried about the release of officers’ names. Law enforcement officer from all over California argue that releasing the information of misbehave officers’ to the public, would put the officers’ life and family at risk. Due to their arguments, lawmakers took legislative action and destroyed a bill that made available the admission to disciplinary records. Judge Patrick T. Madden of Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that the police should not keep secret the information of the officers and if they will do so, they will have to justify the reason why. The Judge also declared that evidence be provided on occasions where there has been a risk or danger when the of...
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.