Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impacts of technology on police agencies
Impacts of technology on police agencies
The importance of police officers wearing body cameras thesis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impacts of technology on police agencies
In the United States a person cannot go through their day without being under some form of surveillance. The US has been on edge lately with law enforcement, due to crimes that have occurred over the years especially with those of minority race. The American Civil Liberties Union, commonly known as the ACLU, strives to defend and preserve the rights and liberties that are granted under the constitution. The ACLU has been crafting their vision for how the criminal justice system should handle police integrity. The ACLU advocates cameras for all uniformed officers, while many other criminologist believe that they are not the long term solution to the issue. Advocates believe that body cameras can protect the people from law enforcement. Advocates …show more content…
According to Journalistresource.org, officers were more cautious with how situations were handled one statistic said that the cops worked 23.1% more productively by issued more citations for ordinance violations than officers who did not wear them. This follows up with what the ACLU is wanting, in regards to keeping an eye on officers at all times, which shows that they tend to act different when they are on camera. “In San Diego, for example, a 2015 report based on preliminary statistics showed that body cameras helped reduce “personal body” force by officers by 46.5%” (journal). However, CATO Institute’s Police Reporting Project argues that, “ it is difficult to determine how much of the decline in use-of-force incidents and complaints can be directly attributed to the police body cameras.” It is hard to place what the statistic for use-of-force is, because there is a lot that goes into the statistic that could show many inaccuracies.It is also based on how one person is acting at the given moment under a set of various factors that a statistic just cannot show. Location is important as well, because each city is different which results in different cultures and crimes that go one in those areas. An example is comparing Chicago and East Peoria police, Chicago see far more calls and violence than East Peoria, as a result Chicago would require more of an agressive backbone …show more content…
Huffington Post shared a study that was created by University of South Florida, which surveyed the Orlando Police Department’s pilot program. This survey was done at random, it picked 46 officers who were to wear the device and then the survey looked at 43 officers who did not wear the body cam.This is a common trend all across social media and news, that police “too often” abuse power. Though this isn’t a true statement because there are no statistics conclusive enough to prove this due to the government not collecting that data, which was said by the Free Thought Project (adweek). Police officers across the nation become sworn officers because they want to make a difference in their communities not break them apart and cause unrest. The disappointing part about all of these allegations against police are that the people see just a few crooked people who happen to be a police officer and the people are quick to judge the whole system and believe that all officers are bad even though the good officers far surpass the effects of the crooked ones. This describes how police are looked at and the statistic from Policeone.com offeres an insight into the protection offered by dashcams which would correlate to the body cams. “According to the responses of more than 3,000 officers completing the written survey,
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.
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:
Due to devastating events that have occurred between policemen and civilians; law enforcements find it liable for police officers to be suited 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.
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.
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,
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
Many numerous police officers have been given body cameras over the last few months. Due to this, there have been videos that were made public which caused an outcry throughout the country. With the increase in body cameras over the country, there has been many setbacks and potential benefits that
I am pro for body cameras for police officers. Car videos are not able to fully capture the incident, if they went too far to the right or left there would be no video evidence of the actual situation. Having body cameras, everything would be filmed. If everything were to be recorded, it would be immiscible in courts. The court process would take less time. If there were to be tangible evidence against either the police officer or the civilian there would be a faster trial. Police would be accountable for their actions. The courts would know exactly what they said and how they handled the situation. Body cameras would deescalate confrontations between the people and the police. There would be no more false accusations
Timothy Dimoff states, “If the police are recording everything, are they encroaching on personal privacy? What if a potential suspect does not want to be recorded? Is the recording infringing on his rights?” (“The Pros and Cons”). Everyone has the right to be able to decide if they want to be recorded. Public opinion polls show increasing levels of concern about privacy issues. For example, Smith states, “one survey indicates that 79 percent of Americans are concerned about threats to personal privacy” (Smith 167). Some individuals would not like to know that they are being videotaped when a police officer is around. Not only does it raise concerns with the public, but police officers themselves might not like the idea because if they are asked to have the body cam on all the time, they will not have any privacy when they are on personal
On August 09, 2014 an incident involving an 18 year old named Michael Brown and Police Officer Darren Wilson sparked an immediate demand for police across the nation to be mandated to wear police body cameras. This incident between these two was also immediately politicalized, racialized, and seemed to galvanize the public’s opinion that police in general were racist, corrupt and untrustworthy.
In the discussions of police body cameras, one controversial issue has been their effectiveness. On the one hand, there are arguments that people will act better knowing that they are being recorded. On the other hand, ineffective policies contend that there will be no change. Others even maintain their ineffectiveness on controversial police shootings. My own view is that with strict policies and time, body cameras will be very effective.
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.