Ayden Rivas Mrs. Axtell English 8 28 February 2024 Police Wearing Body Cameras (Helpful or Unfair) Do you ever think it is fair that police officers wear body cameras while on duty? These body cameras evaluate evidence from crimes for things they didn’t spot. Without these body cameras, the police would have no way to catch the corrupt cops that are on duty and abusing their power as cops. The city is safer when the cops have these body cameras, even though some people say it is unfair that these cops wear body cameras. Police stations should require all police officers to wear body cameras because the cameras help solve crimes and find better evidence, it can also keep corrupt cops off the streets, and keep the city safer. First, body cameras …show more content…
Also according to the article “California Supreme Court Unanimously Ruled Body Camera Footage Can't Take the Place of Witness Testimony officers body camera footage of alleged criminal incidents can be used as evidence in court”, this can be useful to the police officers because when a criminal is in court and on trial the judge will ask for evidence and they can present the body camera footage of the criminal committing the act of the crime. Another thing that proves that police officers should have to wear body cameras while on duty is the amount of corrupt cops that are in the cities. Corrupt cops are all over the city and the station has no way to find out which officers they are. In the article “Baltimore Police Caught By Their Own Body Cameras Planting Evidence, video evidence recorded on the police body cameras caught two separate police officers that appear to show them planting drugs on people”, in this kind of situation the cameras can be extremely useful because the station was able to catch them doing this in the act and not arresting innocent men. Another example of why these police body …show more content…
This proves that police wearing body cameras are useful for catching corrupt cops and proves again that cops should be required to wear body cameras. Some people say that it is not fair that they are being recorded without consent, but these body cameras help keep the cities safer. In the article How Police Body Cameras Are Helping To Solve Crimes And Prevent Accidental Injuries, police found that citizens behave better when they know that they are being recorded. The citizens know whatever they do will be on film and all police can see so they know to be on their best behavior when stopped by the cop. Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement, police have had lots of help from these body cameras because it has helped them with arrests, traffic stops, tickets, public interviews, and evidence quality while on duty. All the things that police officers would need to rely on memory can be solved and improved with the body camera footage. These are all the reasons why it is important for police officers to wear body cameras while on duty. Clearly, the stations and cities should require police officers to wear body cameras
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
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.
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.
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,
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,
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
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 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 support each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that support the usage of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds. Police officers should be required to wear body cameras; because it will build a trust between law enforcement and the community, it will decrease
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
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
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 Effects of Body Worn Cameras by Law Enforcement There has been a great deal of controversy over the recent police involved shootings, and whether or not law enforcement has used excessive force in some situations. With only the word of the police officer or those involved to go on, it can be very difficult to know exactly what took place. In some cases, there may be cell phone video available but a lot of times it is up to the person doing the recording’s discretion what parts they want to record and what parts they don’t. In this case, they would only show what would be beneficial to them and so the recording is then considered bias.
Police officers are held accountable to have their camera on. Also the use of these cameras will be minimizing the accusation against police officers that use unethical behaviors. The video tape will protect any false accusation or misconduct. In some cases the defendant or the prosecutor who is on trial the footage of the body camera will expedite the process. This motion can have is up and down in the fields it can protect the public also invade their
Matigari by Ngugi Thiong’O is a tale of a man trying to bring peace to his land and people after being exploited and ravaged for so long. Ngugi inserts many allusions to the Christian bible and depicts the main character, Matigari, as a Christ-like figure. Matigari embarks on his quest for truth, ignoring the threats of violence and death that surrounds him as he leaves his Eden in the woods. In the beginning of the novel, we find Matigari living a peaceful life in a place where there is no cruelty or sin, much like the Eden where Adam and Eve were given by God. Like Adam and Eve, he also left his Eden and delved into the real world, which is uprooted with sin and corruption. Matigari had been away for so long that like Adam and Eve, it was as if he was an innocent child again, not knowing the true nature of the outside world since all he knows is his blissful paradise of solitude. This new atmosphere of disparagement builds the foundation of the struggle of the people to live up to his vision of redemption and purity. His full name, Matigari ma Njiruungi, translates to “the patriots who survived the bullets”, which is a nod to his past and how he fought against imperialism and drove Settler William, the previous antagonist, out of his village (Gumah 170). The translation of his name can also point to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who technically survived his penance of being nailed to the cross, since he rose three days after his supposed death. Both actions, those of Matigari and of Christ, were meant to absolve the people of sin and corruption. This sacrifice of oneself for the benefit of their people is not unlike what happens to Jose Arcadio Buendia in One Hundred Years of Solitude.