Police and Body Cameras
I am pro for body cameras for police officers. Car videos are not able to fully capture the incident, if they went too far to the right or left there would be no video evidence of the actual situation. Having body cameras, everything would be filmed. If everything were to be recorded, it would be immiscible in courts. The court process would take less time. If there were to be tangible evidence against either the police officer or the civilian there would be a faster trial. Police would be accountable for their actions. The courts would know exactly what they said and how they handled the situation. Body cameras would deescalate confrontations between the people and the police. There would be no more false accusations
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.
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
Based on my research I went from all for officers being forced to wear body cameras to being indecisive on which side is right. On the up side of officers wearing body camera, it could be a way the people can regain trust in the system, something that has decline over the years. The down side to that is that people right to privacy and figuring out the perfect way for the pubic to see what’s going on without seeing who is really involved. Another pro is that police officers will probably think before they react and being sure they are following all rules and regulation to ensure they are doing the job the way it’s supposed to be done. Then there is the issue with how to fund this project with the right man power and the money to be sure it’s done right. So, doing this assignment has open my eye to the pros and cons of forcing officer to wear body cameras and made me think about both sides with an unbiased
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.
This little camera doesn’t have but one job and that is to record the story. “Advantages of police body cameras..” article talks about the pro and cons of such camera on the officers while on shift. The camera is there to help give an unbiased account of what happen. When you know you are being recorded, then you naturally act a little better because you know someone is watching you not so impulsive. There is a statement “A study performed by the Rialto, CA police department found that the cameras led to an 87.5 percent decrease in officer complaints as well as a 59 percent reduction in use of force over the course of a year—and they’re not the only departments seeing positive results.” “This drop in complaints can also lead to a substantial decrease in the time and resources devoted to investigating complaints and resolving civil litigation.” .The two cons I keep seeing against using cameras is the initial cost to issue one out to all law enforcement and the upkeep cost required by them. Additional is a privacy issue with what is recorded on them. These successes number out weight the cons specifically dealing with the public
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.
Warrant: Body-worn cameras raise many privacy issues that have not been considered before. While stationary surveillance cameras generally cover only public spaces, body-worn cameras give officers the ability to record inside private homes and to film sensitive situations that might emerge during calls for service.
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.
Some of these individuals think everything will remain the same while others feel there are too many drawbacks associated with them. In “Body Cameras Will Not Stop Police Brutality”, Shahid buttar states that, “Police can do anything-even murder someone in broad daylight on videotape… and get away with it.” This statement is in acknowledgment of the Eric Garner case in which an African- American male get murdered in NYC using an illegal maneuver and the officers involved were not held accountable. Although this may be true as far as the legal aspect due to them having a video recording it brought the issue of police brutality to a national and even international spotlight. So yes the officer wasn’t convicted but this being caught on camera was beneficial in sparking the #blacklivesmatter movement which is seeking to prevent future incidents. Another claim that the opposition makes about why law enforcement shouldn’t wear body cameras is due to privacy concerns. Buttar declares, “…police body cameras also pose a massive risk to privacy and support mass incarceration.” This statements stems from the fact that the body cameras are on the public and not the officers. Most people don’t care about a so -called lack of privacy if it’s for their safety so that claim is not credible. Also, the body cameras should only be used for
There has been a great deal of controversy over the recent police involved shootings, and whether or not law enforcement has used excessive force in some situations. With only the word of the police officer or those involved to go on, it can be very difficult to know exactly what took place. In some cases, there may be cell phone video available but a lot of times it is up to the person doing the recording’s discretion what parts they want to record and what parts they don’t. In this case, they would only show what would be beneficial to them and so the recording is then considered bias. In other cases, there would be dash cam video available from the police officer’s stand point. This too does not solve the problem because if the altercation takes place away from the police cruiser than it will be out of site of the dash board camera. So what is the solution to this problem? The answer is equipping the officer with a body camera that will record every second of a situation from beginning to end. This is the only way to get an exact recount of what took place. Police officers should be equipped with body cameras, but should be sensitive to the issues of privacy. The use of these cameras will protect police from wrongful accusations and will improve the process of gathering evidence.
Police shootings occur all over the world but are a huge problem within the United States. We continue to hear more and more about them. These shootings are making headlines. Front page news it seems almost weekly. All the shootings go one of two ways. Either a Police Officer has been shot or a Police Officer has shot a citizen, but either way the final result is death. Whether an Officer has been shot or an Officer has shot someone these cases seem to be related to one thing, fear. People in today’s society feel as though they can’t trust Police Officers as they are there to hurt and kill them. And Police Officers feel as though they are in danger of doing their everyday duties because people see them as the “bad guys” and want to hurt or kill them. Yes, police brutality and racism still exist, but not all cops are bad. Yes there are still bad citizens in this world that want to kill and harm others, but not all citizens are bad. People seem to react to these shootings by rioting quickly after a police officer has shot and killed someone without
Police discretion. Police discretion is defined as the decision-making power afforded to Police Officers that allows them to decide if they want to pursue police procedure or simply let someone off with a warning. Police discretion can be also defined as the individual’s ability to make a decision based on the principle of courses in the actions. Police officers are usually in the position of having to make decisions on how to handle a specific situation alone, or without immediate supervision. In other words, police discretion is the choice the officer has on how he or she enforces the law. Discretion in law enforcement includes whom to arrest, whom to investigate, whom to talk to, and whom to interview (Pollock, 2014). Use of discretion
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