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…
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
“Keeping the videos hidden will only heighten mistrust and spur conspiracy theories about what they really show”. Law enforcement also have confidence in body cameras, diminishing police brutality and crime, by exposing all types of misconduct. They would minimize environments where victims feel powerless and belittled when up against an officer. “Body cams can not only record the entire context of a police encounter, but are invaluable in assessing the demeanor of victims, witnesses, and suspects,” said Smith. The cameras will help collect evidence of wrongdoers in any aspect.
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.
In addition an officer is also more likely to behave in a more respective 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). Critiques claim that the usage of body camera is invasive of the officers and civilians privacy. However, according to Brandon Griggs a CNN Senior Producer, a petition to urge officers to wear body cameras have been signed by more than 150,000 people. This is a sign that reflects on the idea that civilians are supportive of such mandate. Furthermore, policies and procedures can be implemented along with the usage of cameras to ensure that civilians’ privacy is not being invaded. For example, police officers can wear a tag that displays a sign that there is live recording of events taking place or officers must be required to disclose to civilians that there statements and actions are being recorded at the present moment. Another concern of privacy is one that
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.
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.
...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.
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
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.
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