In recent years, a new controversy has risen involving the men and women in blue. Many people have accused the police of abusing their power and using excessive force on unarmed suspects, mostly those of minorities, and sometimes even killing them. The solution that many people have brought to the table in order to help solve this problem is to have body cameras mandatory on all police officers. This is a wonderful idea where the benefits it could bring are more than worth the cost that it would take to establish it. Having body cameras on cops could help significantly cut back on cases of police brutality, and give evidence to those who are victimized. It could also be crucial in providing solid alibis to cops who have been falsely accused
Most people who are against body cameras on officers say that it would violate the privacy of both the cop(s) and the suspect(s) involved in an incident. What these people fail to realize is that a tiny intrusion on privacy is much easier to deal with than riots on the street caused from the shooting of an unarmed individual. Another argument going around is that not all cops are bad and that it is unfair to good cops to be forced to wear body cameras. While there are good cops out there that could probably handle themselves in a situation without resorting to violence, there will always be those cops who do not follow these morals and these people need to be monitored for the safety of the general public. All of these listed reasons are why having body cameras on police is a good idea. Having body cameras as the norm would be incredibly beneficial to not only the reputation of the police in this country, but also our country as a whole. It would improve safety for both cops and suspects alike and would make proving and disproving claims so much easier for everyone involved in a police centered case. In all it’s something that is worth investing in and it would pay off in the long run if properly
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:
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
If body cameras were required many police officers would be serving time in prison for some of their actions. A vast majority of the victims also would not have been harmed. Following a study done by Rialto, Calif. Police that ran from February 2012 to July 2013. A group of officers wore tiny video cameras while interacting with citizens. According to the New York Times, the video cameras resulted in a 60 percent drop in the use of force and an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers (Amalcar Scott, 2015, p.13). On a different randomized controlled trial, “nearly 1,000 officer shifts were randomized over a 12-month period of treatment and control conditions. During ‘‘treatment shifts’’ officers were required to wear and use body-worn-cameras when interacting with members of the public, while during ‘‘control shifts’’ officers were instructed not to carry or use the devices in any way. We observed the number of complaints, incidents of use-of-force, and the number of contacts between police officers and the public, in the years and months preceding the trial (in order to establish a baseline) and during the 12 months of the experiment” (Tabarrok,
Not only will using body cameras decrease the number of civilian deaths, it will also allow better and faster punishment for both officers accused with violating the rights of an innocent civilians. These recorded videos will also help punish civilians accused of crimes caught on camera, due to the jury and judge 's ability to get visual first-hand evidence of the incident. According to Paul Marks, author of Police, Camera, Action, “Confronted with footage of their actions, defendants are pleading guilty earlier” (2). Also these cameras will be a deterrent as because these officers know they are being watched and will be more cautious about the amount of force used when subduing a suspect and in policing in general, because just like in normal situations people act differently if they know they are being recorded. Others may argue that because the cameras are recording people will be less likely to come forward with evidence. However, according to Kelly Freund, author of When Cameras Are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body Mounted Cameras on
Should police officers be mandated to wear body cameras? That is a question that has grown to be widely discussed in media, politics, and 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 support each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that support the usage of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds. Police officers should be required to wear body cameras; because it will build a trust between law enforcement and the community, it will decrease
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
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
There has been scrutiny from some but I think the requirement to wear body cams outweigh any other reasons to not wear them. The cams provide tons of things to include misconduct, are procedures being followed, their decision making, and tons of data for training cops on what to do and to not do while being assigned as a cop.
...f police officers are diligent in the process of storing information than it should lay to rest the concerns that some have over the protection of privacy. The advantage of body worn cameras by law enforcement is essential in protecting the officers from wrongful accusations and is beneficial to citizens as well. By having an unbiased recount of events it protects both sides from wrong doing. It also encourages police officers and citizens to behave better when their actions are being recorded. The use of body cameras also provides a detailed account of a crime scene. This can be useful in the prosecution of a crime and can also provide documentation of witness statements. Deputy Chief David Ramirez of the San Diego police department lauded the practice. "Body-worn camera technology is a win-win for both the officer and the community," he said in the report (Prall).
In conclusion, there are some potential benefits to officers wearing body cameras and having the cameras recording at all times the costs associate with the cameras, the privacy violations of the average citizen, and the recording of witnesses in key situations putting the person at risk outweigh the benefits. Maybe in a few years when there has been more time to think through policies and ways to address the privacy concerns the body camera could be implemented, but as of now the cameras should remain on the shelves and not on
What I have read so far, I do believe police officers should be required to use body cameras. The reason I feel this way is because in one of the source I read “shooting death of an unarmed black teenager” who was killed for no reason.
I believe that police should not be required to wear a body camera while on patrol. Some believe that police should be required to wear a camera while questioning a suspect. “Proponents argue that body cameras will provide accurate and contemporaneous records of events, thereby both enhancing the transparency and accountability of the police by protecting members of the public and improving the ability of the police to gather evidence and prosecute suspects.” (Tsin 2). I think that it is a bad idea to wear for police to wear body cameras. These cameras will not save the victim. Video evidence can be interpreted in different ways from the viewer. If police are required to wear body cameras it will look like we do not trust our own police system. The use of body cameras may also prevent witnesses to come forward and help assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of exposure. Others, like myself, argue that police should not be required to wear this equipment. “On the other hand, skeptics are concerned that camera footage cannot provide full and accurate details of incidents, that the increasing use of video technology raises privacy concerns, and that the adoption of body cameras fails to address the underlying causes of social problems.” (Tsin 2). Wearing a body camera will not stop the suspect from doing what they intended to do, if anything he or she would act out more in aggression. In most cases, body cameras show that it was the suspect that is the one who is unwilling to comply with the officers commands. Body cameras are seen an invasion of privacy. “The use of video technology has also raised concerns about privacy of both citizens and police officers.” (Tsin 4). The camera captures footage from everyday civilian and police behavior that should not necessarily be recorded. Bystanders and all defendants are recorded without their
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.
Having police officers wear body cameras improves how they interact with the citizens every day. It lowers the need for police force as well as it lowers the amount of complaints towards police. Per Katz, Choate, Ready, and Nun`o (2014) when the deployment of body cameras started in Phoenix, Arizona the amount of arrests increased by 17 percent, and complaints towards police dropped down 23 percent. Per that statistic