Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Body cameras on police officers essay
Body cameras on police officers essay
Body cameras on police officers essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Body cameras on police officers essay
Have you ever wondered about all the cases that would go unsolved if it weren’t thanks to the use of cameras? Or even worse all the innocent people who could be incarcerated? Well, according to the telegraph in the UK almost seven out of ten murders are solved using footage captured by CCTV in Scotland. Thanks to the improvement in technology we’ve been able to communicate effectively from different places of the world and through different forms. One of these many popular improvements is a camera. Yes, the ones we use for social media such as snapchat, instagram and for selfies. Cameras have the capability to record, take pictures and entertain, but most importantly we depend on them for communication. Through pictures and videos cameras serve to communicate not only by talking, but also as proof and evidence, which often speak for themselves. Ordinary people aren’t the only ones who use cameras, but authorities use them as well for safety purposes. Cameras are used for surveillance at shopping centers, on the street and possibly even at school. So, if we use them for safety purpose, why not use them to enforce justice. By requiring policemen to wear body cameras, both the public and policeman will be better protected against violence, and injustice.
Acknowledging that we are all humans who make mistakes, and that we aren’t always one hundred percent honest, it is important that we secure our people from injustice if we have the necessary measures. Through the use of cameras on police both the public and policeman will be better insured or accusations and violence. Unfortunately, not even policemen are always right. In the 2014 case of Michael Brown, an eighteen year old, African American, who was unarmed, was fatally shot by a ...
... middle of paper ...
...purposes yet, could serve even more effectively if we require policemen to wear them when encountering the public. Body cameras, will reduce the amount of violence, benefit not only the public but also policeman and most importantly enforce justice! Which is the main goal.
Works Cited
Edwards, Richard. "Seven of Ten Murders Solved by CCTV." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
"Welcome to the Police Foundation." Police Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
"What Happened in Ferguson?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Aug. 2014.
Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
Yee, Vivian, and Kirk Johnson. "Body Cameras Worn by Police Officers Are No ‘Safeguard of Truth,’ Experts Say." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Dec. 2014. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
"5 Pros and Cons of Police Wearing Body Cameras." Newsmax. N.p., 30 June 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.
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.
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.
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
“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
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 his report, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, A Win for All,” Stanley dives into some of the ethical questions surrounding police cameras. He states that cameras can be a “win-win”(1) for both the citizens and law enforcement. It would protect the citizens from unnecessary use-of-force and police misconduct, while simultaneously protecting law enforcement from frivolous lawsuits, complaints, and provide law enforcement with concrete evidence to be used in criminal proceedings. The problem, however; is that if all officers are required to wear cameras, recordings could then be made of peoples homes where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Incidences that may be completely innocent in nature could also be recorded, and incidences of a delicate nature,such as domestic violence calls, would also be recorded. With regard to the Freedom of Information Act, some of these recordings may be released to the public. With that said, Jay Stanley and the ACLU feel that strict privacy guidelines need to be put in place to protect citizens from having recordings of a personal nature released to the public. I have had a few personal encounters with police officers in my area, including having an officer in my home. Deputy Lieutenant Tyler Souther from the Macon County Sheriff’s Department was visiting me and my husband on a
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 ...
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
folds: CCTV cameras have become more reliable than the entire Police system in today’s times.
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: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, 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. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.