Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Police reform
Police reform
What are the pros and cons of using body cameras
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Police reform
In light of recent incidents due to extensive police brutality, a controversial issue has been whether it would be useful for police officers to wear body cameras. When it comes to the topic of police brutality, most of us will readily agree that some form of action has to be put in place, in order to regain trust and respect for officers and security for citizens. Unfortunately, this agreement usually ends, however, when the question of how beneficial body cameras would be for everyone arises. On one hand many argue that cameras provide security for officers whenever a suspect acts out of character. From this perspective, much evidence does support the idea of officers wearing body cameras. In this instance, officers are then held accountable for their actions at all times. On the other hand, many argue that the public’s sense of freedom would essentially be jeopardized on account of constantly being filmed while in an officer’s presence. From my point of view, both circumstances share a portion of truth. However, I believe placing cameras on police officers is an irrational decision especially when taking into consideration the possible downfalls and concerns associated with enforcing this as a requirement for all law enforcement officers. Though I agree body worn …show more content…
Because of this conflict, the concept of confidentiality has to be taken into consideration. Allyson Roy, a graduate student at Arizona State University, points out that “research has shown that humans become more self-aware when they are being watched, and as a result they are more likely to alter their conduct” (qtd. In Farrar and Ariel, 2013). Furthermore, one main purpose of implementing cameras is to reduce citizen complaints, therefore the facade of better behavior as Allyson implied may just be that, an outward appearance not an actual
Obama has already funded 50,000 cameras to be used for law enforcement. Skeptics argue that cameras would be useless and used to monitor the general population. The article is narrated by three individuals with different stands on cameras, two for the use of cameras and one against. They debate back and forth about effectiveness, trial outcomes, general public involvement and learning process related to cameras. This will help me see an argument against cameras, but also providing good information for the use of cameras.
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:
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.
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 allows people to be recorded without their consent or even knowledge of the event when they are in a situation with an expectancy of privacy. In some cases this can be helpful when trying to catch a perpetrator however, it is still a violation of privacy. Freund also claims, “a person who is approached by a police officer wearing a body-worn camera cannot readily avoid having his identity recorded”(99). So, by the time a person was to realize they were being recorded, it would be to late for them to protect their identity, even if they had nothing to do with a crime or what was intended to be
Policeone.com reports that there is a “spillover effect” in departments where only some officers wear cameras as “citizen complaints declined both when cameras were in use and when they weren’t” and that it “may reflect a conscious effort by officers without cameras during a given shift to competitively improve their behavior to favorably match that of fellow officers who had the ‘advantage’ of wearing a body cam.” Logically, if the spillover effect is true, it would not be necessary for every officer in the department to have a body camera for a clear benefit to be visible. Those who believe that even minor use of body worn cameras (BWCs) as such is an unconstitutional violation of rights have been proven wrong time and time again through many levels of case law like People v. Lucero, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1065 where the case effectively explains that “a person has no expectation of privacy when they are engaged in an interaction with police.” (Ramirez, pg. 5) While some may also make the argument that “user licenses, storage
... problems in the community. Mateescu, Rosenblat, and Boyd state this concern perfectly by bringing up, “embarrassing dashcam video footage of the arrests or traffic stops of naked women, athletes, and celebrities are sometimes disseminated online, and the same privacy concerns exist about the potential for body-camera footage to be consumed as public entertainment”. The relevant data collected from the study will be used to determine if the null hypothesis of “body-cameras have no effect on a subjects willingness to communicate with the police” is true or if the hypothesis of “the use of body-worn cameras reduce the likelihood that an individual would be willing to communicate with police”. This will be done by giving the individual questions numerical data points and calculating them in order to determine the relevant information in association with the hypothesis.
In addition an officer is also more likely to behave in a more respective 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). Critiques claim that the usage of body camera is invasive of the officers and civilians privacy. However, according to Brandon Griggs a CNN Senior Producer, a petition to urge officers to wear body cameras have been signed by more than 150,000 people. This is a sign that reflects on the idea that civilians are supportive of such mandate. Furthermore, policies and procedures can be implemented along with the usage of cameras to ensure that civilians’ privacy is not being invaded. For example, police officers can wear a tag that displays a sign that there is live recording of events taking place or officers must be required to disclose to civilians that there statements and actions are being recorded at the present moment. Another concern of privacy is one that
The struggle for more transparency in policing is an issue that has been waging on for years unchecked, but with necessary body cameras this problem will be able to be solved. With the use of body cameras, police procedure can become public knowledge. This will help prevent things like the Ferguson riots that took place after the decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson. Some people argue that the use of these body cameras could violate privacy laws because “Unlike previous forms of surveillance, body-cameras can enter private spaces more easily, and can focus on individuals more effectively” (Freund 95). However, this issue can be easily solved as unlike dash cameras, which are automatic, the body cameras need to be switched on. This allows the officer to use their discretion on when to actively record. This information can repair the already damaged trust between the police and the public. Use of cameras would also decrease the rate at which police receive complaints. According to Brucato “For the police, accountability offers the opportunity to exonerate themselves and their agencies from false complaints” (457). All the frivolous complaints and lawsuits that using a body camera prevents also serves a purpose to save money of the police department. In today 's society people only see the police incidents being recorded through the use of cellphone filmed
Warrant: This is true because concerns that excessive recording with body-worn cameras may damage the relationships officers have developed with the community and hinder the openness of their community policing interactions. Some police executives fear, that people will be less likely to come forward to share information if they know their conversation is going to be recorded, particularly in high-crime neighborhoods where residents might be subject to retaliation if they are seen as cooperating with police, according to PERF.
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.
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.
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.
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: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, 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. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.