Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Body cameras for law enforcement
Negative of body worn cameras in the law enforcement agencies
Body cameras for law enforcement
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Body cameras for law enforcement
"What's the purpose of collecting the data?" he asked. "To move to accountability and get to the truth” (Williams 2015). This statement was made by the Seattle Police Chief who would also like to post all police body camera videos directly online. Although they tried to pass the bill, it did not go through for everything to be posted online and made public. Despite beliefs, body cameras do not have effect on police behavior due to the ability to shut off the cameras, making unlawful decisions, and brutalities for citizens and police. Police body cameras are uprising in use in the united states today. Yet, this may be true, not all cameras seem to have perks. The first negotiable feature of the cameras is the accessibility of an off button. Like most cameras, police body cameras carry this feature with a negative side …show more content…
Although officers are at fault for not having that camera on, but can be the ones being brutality beat. Ann Wiltgen from Chicago Tribune, tells her story of what happened to her husband during his time as a federal officer at the prison. “I am sick and tired of hearing about police brutality; nothing is ever mentioned about "citizen brutality. As the widow of a policeman and the mother of a policeman, I hear over and over the problems of trying to arrest troublesome people. My husband was cut with a razor, kicked in the groin and once lost two teeth when a prisoner hit him. It's a police officer's duty to keep law and order. If these troublesome people give them a hard time, then they do have to use force”. Often times, this does happen to police officers and they have to do something about it. If a body camera would have been placed on this officer, her pain could have been put to rest and justice would have been served. Even though police brutality rates are higher than citizen brutality rates, it does happen and needs to be brought to
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:
When law enforcement officers use excessive force when making an arrest or dealing with the public, this is known as police brutality. As one of the biggest police departments in America, the New York Police Department often finds itself in the midst of police brutality cases. Officers are allowed to use some force to restrain a suspect, make an arrest, prevent an escape, or defend themselves. However, there is a fine line that cannot be crossed when it comes to using force. Landing on the other side of that police brutality line can potentially put an officer in trouble, and may even cost him his job.
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.
“A body-worn camera in public policing is a miniature audio and video recording device which allows recording of officers’ duties and citizen interaction,” notes Thomas K. Bud. Police body-cameras are significantly growing in popularity across Canada. While legislation has not confirmed definite rules regarding the use of body-cameras, local police departments have begun their implementation. Canadian police services involved in these projects include Toronto, Victoria, Edmonton, Calgary, and Amherstburg Police Services. The results of these projects have revealed mixed thoughts regarding body-camera effectiveness. Is it a good idea for police to wear body-cameras? While the cost of police wearing body cameras seems prohibitive, police wearing
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.
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.
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
Police brutality is hypocrisy; as the police are meant to protect society from harm, not cause further damage and stress. Police should be trained properly so they do not resort to violence and abuse of power. Many cases of police brutality and not sanctioned and are undertaken by a group of police as a form of "mob mentality". Police are placed on a pedestal of authority and respect by the rest of society. To maintain this image, rules and codes of ethics within the police force should be maintained at all possible times. If police are using brutality to resolve issues, it doesn't set much of an example of dispute resolution between individuals. Over the past decade police abuse remains one of the most serious human rights violation in the United States. Police officers are trusted and expected to respect society as a whole and enforce the law. There is a time a place for aggressive force if needed, apprehending a suspect, however the environment and situation might influence the moment thus resulting in the brutal and barbaric behavior from the cop. The important thing to do is to understand the circumstances when excessive force can be used and times where the use of force has to be abstained. Police officers follow a strict guideline in how to handle encounters from escalating into something much more serious. The use of excessive force, in this case police brutality brings liabilities that cannot be taken lightly with the department and the community. Usually the high crime rates tend to revolve around low-income minority areas and officers tend to assume that minorities living in the areas are guilty. Police brutality that does exist is most likely result of emotional exhaustion.
For many years in the past, police action particularly police abuse, has come to be unclear. Citizens are worried about protecting them from criminals. In fact they need to me aware of the corrupt police officers that are in the streets today as well as the criminals. There are many examples that make police brutality the worst as it is today. This one is one of them. Police Officer Daniel is in the choke hold death of Eric Garner, come in the wake if November 15th by the channel 24 news in Ferguson Missouri, police officer would walk free after killing 10 year old Michael Brown. (www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32740523) In the present police brutality does exist in the mist of us in the time and age we live in everyday. We just haven’t seen it yet. There are people that think if a police
When hearing the phrase “police brutality,” many people imagine batons cracking skulls, tasers electrocuting bodies and bullets penetrating innocent teens. While police officers have been known to use violence, police brutality does not occur as often as many believe. In many situations, officers have to act on impulse and curiosity, despite the backlash the media may create.
The responsibility of a police officer is to maintain public order, prevent crime, and to detect crime as well. It is a very stressful job that comes with many pressures and expectations from society. Police officers are often engaged in situations that require them to think critically and fast. They undergo many dangerous obstacles and difficult situations that many of us would fear to handle. In some of these harsh situations police officers tend to use brutal force which can ironically lead to the criminal to becoming the victim. Police brutality is the wanton use of excessive force, usually physical, but also common in forms of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation. There are two main common factors that cause police officers to engage in brutality towards an innocent person or a suspected criminal. An officer can either be taking advantage of their authority or be discriminant against a certain ethnicity/racial profiling. Police brutality is a very controversial topic. Police officers should not
Police officers primary responsibility is to protect and serve citizens and communities, not to abuse the laws by hurting innocent people. In most states Stand-Your-Ground laws allows innocent citizens the right to use deadly force to defend and protect themselves. But what if they were protecting themselves from police brutality. Police brutality has been going on for many years; they can cause riots, injuries, and even mistrust for the police.
According to the National Police Academy, in the past year, there have been over 7,000 reports of police misconduct; fatalities have been linked to more than 400 of these cases (Gul). Police brutality is often triggered by disrespect towards the police officer. The most noticeable form of brutality is physical, where Chemical gas, batons, tasers, and guns, can be used for physical intimidation or to actually hurt people. Police brutality can also take the form of verbal abuse or psychological intimidation. It seems reasonable to understand that sometimes the police are put into situations where excessive force may be needed. But, because some officers use these extreme actions in situations when it is not, police brutality should be addressed and looked into by both the police and the public. For instance, a police officer who beats a nonviolent protester with a baton would probably be accused of excessive use of force, under the argument that the police officer probably could have dealt with the situation less violently.