A young black man is killed by a police officer while the officer is on duty. The officer claims that the man attacked him and was simply defending himself. Those supporting the boy say the police officer was harsher with him because of racism. Some would trust the word of the officer as he is in authority and others the boy because of previous racism shown in the area. But what is there to show what really happened during the encounter? Body cameras. With them, the amount of violent encounters, such as the one example shown, can be reduced and the public will not argue against the police as there is evidence of what really happened.
Police cameras can and have reduced violence used by both police and citizens. For example, a March 2015 interim
…show more content…
report of the President’s Task Force shows officers that were required to wear body cameras had 87.5 percent fewer violent incidents than police officers who weren’t (Kickerbocker). With police cameras, as the data shows, the United States can reduce violence in police encounters greatly. This can be explained by an excerpt from the same report, "One of the important findings of the study was the impact BWCs [body-worn cameras] might have on the self-awareness of officers and citizens alike. When police officers are acutely aware that their behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras), and when officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better” (Kickerbocker). Another similar example, is that children will act better when they are being supervised, as citizens will act more appropriately with cameras rolling. Subsequently, adults act more reasonable when they are with other adults rather than alone with their children, as police officers will act with less violence with the cameras recording them. With video cameras, citizens and police officers will act with less brutality, therefore having the police do a better job with their duty of stopping crimes. Another benefit of police cameras is that they reduce complaints about police officers. According to the President’s Task Force’s interim report, police forces which wore body cameras had complaints lowered by 59% (Kickerbocker). When there is record of what the police are doing, the people’s complaints can often be fixed more efficiently. First, police officers may not believe that what the people say is a problem. Often, people do complain about things that don’t seem like problems, but with cameras those accusations can be proven true or false. Also, the police force can view where the root of the problems are, so that they can be solved faster in order to prevent future criticism efficiently. Police officers too see the benefits of the cameras for their profile to the public. Namely, the police chief of the Valdosta, Georgia police, Brain Childress said, "Complaints (against police) are down more than 50 percent, and the use of force is also down dramatically. I swear by them” (Boone). Overall, use of cameras will improve police forces resulting in fewer complaints from the public. People in opposition to body cameras may believe that they are an invasion to personal privacy.
For example, Georgia’s first laws about police cameras allows officers to enter private properties while wearing the cameras without required permission (Boone). They think that with many people pushing for footage to be public, personal information in the videos will be shown to everyone therefore taking away people’s rights of privacy. On the contrary, the same law contains several points strongly against showing videos taken in personal residences to the public. If the video is taken outside of private residences, the public display of police officers can be beneficial to both cops and the public. In the recent cases of violent police officers, the lack of evidence allows the cop and the news to shroud the rest of the citizens from what really happened. When the public has a video of what happened, such as Eric Garner’s case, it can cause protests that do affect others, as is shown since Obama spoke about the issues of distrust after the event. In tie to the distrust, those argue that it should not be shown public in case accused police officers will be able to view their footage. When police officers are not allowed to view that footage it sends a message of distrust. Psychologists have shown that if individuals believe that are not trusted it starts a string of dishonesty, specifically violating rules set in organizations (Simon). Police cameras being public may seem to be a
privacy violation and a basis for bias by alleged crime doing cops, but it helps sustain a trust between police and public while keeping videos recorded in private properties restricted from public view. Police officers should be required to wear cameras while on duty. With body cameras the police forces will be improved as there is less unnecessary violence used and fewer complaints about the police. Stores and schools have cameras in order to stop and catch footage of people breaking rules. If police officers are in the face of crime daily, doesn’t it seem logical to have video of their work?
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.
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
... 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.
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
Only recently has there been an increased amount of police involvement with citizens all over the media because of the past years fatal police encounters with unarmed black men in New York City, Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore and other parts of the U.S. Most of it has been either feeding the war on cops theory or shedding light to the real injustices dealt by police officers. The reality of the issue is that there 's 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 for 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 the long term effects of police worn body cameras.(7 Findings from First-ever Study on Body
The only way to fix the downside that we face is by requiring all police officers in the United States to wear body cameras. This solution would create less, she said, and more facts in situations where people are killed by police officers no matter what color they are. This is a result of many believing, and not simply just African Americans, that black lives are being targeted more than any other race. In certain situations, this is true, according to The Washington Post.
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.
...ith the public” (When cops kill). The bodycams would capture the time when Officers use force it will protect the Officer with lawsuits but it can also be used as evidence against him. There are many controversies that come from using the bodycam many are that the Officer can pause or stop the recording or that they can edit the recording so it can not look bad to the public.
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
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 are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative. Having a network of cameras on every street in the city increases the chances of preventing a crime, along with the ability to capture a criminal on video. Some people argue that the cameras generate an overwhelming amount...
An idea of a police officer wearing a video camera mounted on their uniform or vest has a multitude of positive and negative reasons as to why these video cameras are useful. A camera can be viewed as an invasion of privacy but in today’s world of social media what is an invasion of privacy? People may think that it is not an invasion when it is something for the public’s protection but there