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 without the evidence of videos and pictures. Well, according to the Telegraph in the UK almost seven out of ten murders are solved using footage captured by CCTV in Scotland (Edwards). 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 technological improvements is a camera. Yes, the ones we use for social media such as snapchat, instagram and to take selfies. Cameras have the capability to record, take pictures and entertain, but more importantly we, …show more content…
I’m aware that in some places like Arizona, policemen have already begun to wear body cameras without certain policies or regulations protecting them and the public from their rights (Yee, Vivian, and Kirk Johnson). I am not for this and believe that the usage of body cameras by policemen should not be enforced, without proper policies to ensure Americans. Questions such as invasion of privacy arise. Well, It is 2016 and I think it’s safe to say that most of us use social network to upload pictures where it is just as likely that our privacy is being invaded. Of course, this is not the case for everyone. Some people dislike the idea of being recorded period. Well, if we take measures we can change that. For example, my suggestion is that we could have body cameras on officers that record while they are on duty but are kept confidential and the recordings are only opened when there is a case and a reason why to, that is only granted by a higher authority of a judge to do so. I also think that the bothersome of being recorded is far more worth it when cameras could be saving you or someone else from an unfair lawful consequence. Another issue that arises is which policemen get to wear body cameras? I believe all policemen should be required to wear body cameras regardless of their rank, because allowing only certain policemen to wear body cameras could allow for a slippery slope and eventually, those who don’t want to wear a body camera will want to get away with not wearing one at all. Another question is will the camera record the police officer in the bathroom? If we allow policemen to turn them off while using the bathroom, they should not feel like their privacy is being invaded. “But wouldn’t that allow them to do some shady stuff without being caught on camera?” Possibly, but it will definitely reduce the chances, because that will be at their responsibility and
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
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
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
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,
Policeone.com reports that there is a “spillover effect” in departments where only some officers wear cameras as “citizen complaints declined both when cameras were in use and when they weren’t” and that it “may reflect a conscious effort by officers without cameras during a given shift to competitively improve their behavior to favorably match that of fellow officers who had the ‘advantage’ of wearing a body cam.” Logically, if the spillover effect is true, it would not be necessary for every officer in the department to have a body camera for a clear benefit to be visible. Those who believe that even minor use of body worn cameras (BWCs) as such is an unconstitutional violation of rights have been proven wrong time and time again through many levels of case law like People v. Lucero, 190 Cal. App. 3d 1065 where the case effectively explains that “a person has no expectation of privacy when they are engaged in an interaction with police.” (Ramirez, pg. 5) While some may also make the argument that “user licenses, storage
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.
Law enforcement officers make an oath to serve and protect, and they are expected to uphold this oath to the best of their ability, but recently there has been an increase in the number of civilian deaths at the hands of law enforcement. Since the rise in this alarming trend, public distrust of law enforcement officials is at an all-time high. This has caused the public to demand the use of body worn cameras be made mandatory. Some people argue that imposing this new technology can cause unintended problems such as, violating privacy laws or interfering with how police interact with the public. However, these concerns can be easily solved once more policies are created to guideline usage. High profile
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.
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:
Many numerous police officers have been given body cameras over the last few months. Due to this, there have been videos that were made public which caused an outcry throughout the country. With the increase in body cameras over the country, there has been many setbacks and potential benefits that
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.
I mainly think that our privacy maybe invaded due to the cameras being placed in a mass of public areas privacy can easily be invaded I don’t like it because if your on the phone and the people that watch the tapes can read lips can see what you are saying/texting and with texting they can zoom in on the messages.