More handpicked essays just for you.
The importance of the fourteenth amendment
The 14th amendment and how it affects people today
The importance of the fourteenth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Body cameras of authorities raise a debate in the seam, whether body cameras are ethical or unethical for privacy; when the performance of recording a civilian for protection. Furthermore, body cameras may or may not be able to provide a sense of protection to modify the behavior of officer and civilian and develop evidence for court cases. For example, the Arizona Messa police department administers an experiment which results demonstrate “...75 percent fewer incidents of use of force among officers wearing body cameras during the experiment…” (Lucy Schouten) within a year. However, the position which questions the ethics of body camera’s ability to record a civilian to an extent without consent or may indicate a violation of the 4th amendment …show more content…
of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution states the right “...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...” without a warrant; provides the right to privacy for a civilian. Therefore, body cameras of authorities debate the wiliness sacrifice citizens privacy for protection probable violation of morals for individuals. However, the Supreme Court obtains comprehension for the breach of privacy is problematic on account of the 4th amendment “privacy is not the exclusive” (Erik Nielsen).
Indeed, the 4th amendment concludes the sense of privacy, reliability not guaranteed likewise, body cameras of officials endure the question of the invasion of privacy. The main question of body worn camera; who is allowed to watch the footage? For example, “… most stigmatizing and painful moments of a person’s life be recorded on body camera…” (Fan, Mary D) potentially become available to the public for disclosure. The possibility of video record release to the public presents a civilian the most vulnerable. As an alternative footage of a civilian intoxicated possibility damage their public reputation. Furthermore, the public perception of the government lack of potential for liability of privacy by virtue of the Pentagon Papers of 1971, “…have already left Americans feeling exposed…” (Tsin Yen, Koh). American’s inability to establish all-inclusive confidence with the government management of perhaps in the future of personal privacy control due to the Pentagon Papers. However, the US department donated $23 million distributed towards local police agencies but only $2 million which is 11% proceed for experiments of efficiency of body worn cameras. Research adequacy towards certain Americans opinions likelihood of insufficient research the effects of body worn cameras for the
public. On the contrary, body worn cameras perhaps provides a sense of protection for citizens. US Department experimented efficiency of body worn cameras desire a lower crime rates by the possibility of modification of behavior from officer and civilian. Therefore, Rialto Police Department experience with the experiment “…complaints from citizens dropped from twenty-four the year before the experiment to three the year…” (Lucy Schouten) demonstrates an improvement. Additionally, 2 of the complaints oppose to an officer not equipped with body worn cameras also, the 3rd complaint regarded by a citizen complaint towards the officer equipped with a body worn camera. Furthermore, body worn cameras indicate a tangible evidence instead of reliance of an eye witnesses’ testimonies. Therefore, eyewitness testimonies are not a 100% dependable because “…wrongful rape convictions caused by eyewitness misidentification…” (STENZEL, CARLA). Body worn cameras potentially impede several mistrials for the community by eliminate error or wrongful accusations. Also, the body worn cameras prospect an enhancement of behavior for policemen become attentive of their actions “...body cameras increased... fears from officers that footage would be used against them…” (STENZEL, CARLA). Since, every single action of policemen shift will be recorded although, could prevent an abuse from law enforcement power towards a citizen.
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:
The NSA is a U.S. intelligence agency responsible for providing the government with information on inner and foreign affairs, particularly for the prevention of terrorism and crime. The NSA maintains several database networks in which they receive private information on American citizens. The agency has access to phone calls, emails, photos, recordings, and backgrounds of practically all people residing in the United States. Started in 1952 by President Harry Truman, the NSA is tasked with the global monitoring and surveillance of targeted individuals in American territory. As part of the growing practice of mass surveillance in the United States, the agency collects and stores all phone records of all American citizens. People argue that this collected information is very intrusive, and the NSA may find something personal that someone may not have wanted anyone to know. While this intrusion's main purpose is to avoid events of terrorism, recent information leaks by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, show that the agency may actually be infringing upon the rights of the American citizen. Whether people like it or not, it seems that the NSA will continue to spy on the people of the United States in an attempt to avert acts of terrorism. Although there are many pros and cons to this surveillance of American citizens, the agency is ultimately just doing its job to protect the lives of the people. Unless a person is actually planning on committing a major crime, there is no real reason for citizens to worry about the NSA and it's invasion of our privacy. The agency is not out to look for embarrassing information about its citizens, rather, only searches for and analyzes information which may lead to the identification of a targe...
We all have heard the quote “Life, Liberty, Land, and the Pursuit to Happiness” and that is the promise of a life here in America. As Americans we pride ourselves on these freedoms that allow us to live everyday. We are one of the only countries that have this promise and it is what draws people from all of over the world to come here. Our founding fathers of the United States of America wrote these words, having no idea the impact that they would have for the rest of this countries history. Those words were the foundation for government, and it wasn’t perfect at first but slowly it matured into what we have today, strong and powerful. To other nations America is seen as the World Power, and a somewhat perfect nation to live in. Unfortunately corruption, scandals and controversies have tainted our once golden glow, and other nations are weary of watching their steps. One of the most controversial elements to our government is the NSA. Hidden in the shadows from American and global knowledge is what the NSA is actually doing and watching out for. Only very recently has the NSA been ripped from the shadows and brought to light what exactly is going on inside those walls. They are “spying” on not only America’s personal data, but foreign leaders as well. The NSA says it’s for the safety for everyone against terrorism and attacks. However, it has gone way to far and violates a constitutional right, privacy. The NSA has overstepped their boundaries, and spying doesn’t seem to make a difference in safety.
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.
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.
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 study will consist of sampling of students in the criminal justice field along with any respective civilian that may come in contact with the study. The research on the subject of body-cameras and their effects on the civilians that they record seem to be mostly engaged with the idea of reducing civilian complaints and other factors involving police accountability. However, one report states that in regards to civilian opinions, “Of ...
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.
The reality of the issue is that there are too many opinions and not enough facts to back up either notion of whether the body cameras work or not due to the fact of how recent the issue is. Time is a large factor in any study dealing with long term effects of what is being researched. There has only been a handful of studies made to combat the real issues present in our society today, but there is not enough time to provide the people today with the long term effects of police-worn body cameras. Seven Findings from First-ever Study on Body Cameras.
(Blumer,1958) and others argued that the attitudes related to racial finds its beginnings in the feeling of a threat perceived by the whites. For faction will not phase to rise and contradict with what the majority is trying to do.
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.
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation , weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the united states were not very sophisticated many years ago so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people
Stanley, Jay. "Accountability vs. Privacy: The ACLU's Recommendations on Police Body Cameras." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 09 Oct. 2013. Web. 15 May 2014.
Within the battle against crime, police forces and governments are increasingly using security cameras in public places. Some people are against this, stating that it intrudes on their privacy as citizens. Though individuals have rights as citizens according to our First Amendment there is a serious need to cut down on the amount of crime commented. In this research paper I will discuss security cameras and how they play an enormous role in cracking down on law-breaking. Security cameras have become universal in many countries. Before you could only catch sight of security cameras in banks and at high-security areas, they are now entering public places such as: malls, streets, schools and airports. Most people are offended by these cameras