Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Body worn cameras essay
Body worn cameras essay
Body worn cameras essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Body worn cameras essay
Chertoff, M. (2014, October 23). Police cameras need to protect privacy, too. USA Today, p. 7a. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Chertoff says in his newspaper article that video evidence would help the public and police in sorting out allegations that have come up in today’s world. He feels that video is a great record of facts that are unbiased. There is better evidence of crimes with video. Also, he states police would have greater accountability. He gives the example of one police officer’s recordings from a body camera would be a terabyte of data within a year. Times that by state and local police officers would mean a huge amount of data to be stored. Chertoff also discussed the
…show more content…
He feels cameras are protection from police abuse to the public and protection from being accused of brutality to the police. Johnson sees it as a win-win for the ACLU, NAACP, and other Civil and Human Rights groups if they can input into camera policy. He says the cameras are not widely used in Massachusetts. According to Johnson even if all the legal issues and policies were in place it would take time and wouldn’t happen overnight. He lists problems and concerns from existing state law, legal procedures, and privacy issues are just the start. Storing and maintaining videos for criminal cases is a main concern to Johnson. He suggests that evidence video needs to have protection against tampering, altering, or being deleted. He brings up recording of someone without their permission or a court order could be considered wiretapping. Additional legal and privacy issues with recording inside a private residence or on a medical call and what should or shouldn’t be released to the public is more of Johnson’s …show more content…
He is in favor of police cameras. Stating in his article studies and their statistical numbers to support that everyone does behave better on camera. Knickerbocker gives the findings of a twelve month study done by the Task Force on 21st Century Policing on police body cameras. This study showed with body cameras there was a reduced need of force and reduced complaints against the police. He believes the increase of self-awareness of being recorded is a factor in the reduced need of force and complaints. Knickerbocker has a concern of police wearing body cameras and writing their reports on the interaction. These officers might alter reports based on what the video contents show. Police officers watch video before or after writing report, or watch it at all is his question. His conclusion was that no they wouldn’t due to others in the public and police having ability to video the same
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.
He also takes about how officers aren’t ready for a world where their every move can be documented (Bouie). Since the advancement of video camera being in almost all cell phone, tablets and other devices anything anyone does has the possibility of being filmed. Police officers aren’t caught up with the fact that anything they say or do themselves can be used against them in a court of law. Jamelle Bouie agrees that body camera would allow us to check up on officers and could be used as evidence during an incident but body cameras aren’t the way to solve the problem. He believe that the police department needs an outside force that will actually do their jobs in making sure officers aren’t abusing their power and being held accountable for their actions (Bouie). Body camera would only get us so far on the path to improving the criminal justice system. They can show us which officers are actually doing their jobs, and which are just abusing their power, but once we know that what is to be done with that information. An outside force that should be elected by the people should determine if an officer is over stepping and abusing his power against
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.
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
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.
Richards, Neil M. "The Dangers Of Surveillance." Harvard Law Review 126.7 (2013): 1934-1965. Academic Search Elite. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
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,
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.
Should police officers be mandated to wear body cameras? That is a question that has grown to be widely discussed in media, politics, and the 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 supports each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that supports the use of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds.
In “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality.” the author Adam Schiff announces, “With half of the police department wearing cameras recording each interaction with the public, the department experienced an 88 percent reduction in complaints against officers.” This statement shows protecting the officers because this shows the cameras did something to deter the people who made false accusations against the police officers because their was evidence. Schiff also acknowledges that, “…shifts without cameras experienced twice as many use-of-force incidents as shifts using the cameras.” The fact that the use of excessive force was cut in half due to cameras shows that the citizens are benefiting due to this because the officers knew that it wouldn’t be their word against a civilian and the body cameras hold them accountable and makes them believe that they have to answer to the law as
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
This will all change in the future, now that the media and privacy advocates are starting to ask questions. Law enforcement security cameras clearly have many benefits to our society, and with the right policies in place the negative aspects will pale in comparison. Works Cited Kelly, Heather. " After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras. " CNN.com - "The 'Casino'" Cable News Network, 26 Apr. 2013.