In any given setting, police officers are responsible for maintaining order within a, sometimes overly chaotic, society. They are given the responsibility of acting as protectors of the defenseless and upholding justice, at the risk of injury to themselves or even the loss of their own life. In addition, it is inevitable that an officer will eventually come into physical contact with an individual, who may be volatile or avoiding arrest, which nonetheless increases the odds of a physical confrontation. The distressing truth is that, although being assaulted is not a requirement of their profession, it is essentially unavoidable. With that said, police officers realize this fact and readily accept the reality that at any given moment, be …show more content…
Members of the public whose views are “anti‐police” make earnest attempts to bring frivolous lawsuits against officers and their departments that they may have been involved with. These lawsuits range from accusations of police profiling to excessive use of force. With that said, Body cameras protect officers from false allegations by providing an unbiased visual record (Lou Ponsi, 2015). The actual footage of the occurrence could then show the actual events that transpired, and if the officer did not violate the rights of the individual in question, then the case would, in most instances, be dismissed, saving the police department a lot of time and …show more content…
Body cameras, in essence, have the ability to keep both police and citizens honest. This provides an indubitable opportunity for a judge to actually see and hear what actually happened at an incident, which could be different from what a police officer had transcribed in their report (Lou Ponsi, 2015). Interestingly, playback the video recording could essentially assist officers in more accurately filling out their reports. In fact, “the city of Fullerton, California allows their officers to view their videos to assist them in writing their police reports—except in situations involving in‐custody deaths, officer‐involved shootings, or incidents that involve a significant injury to a member of the public” (Lou Ponsi, 2015). With their reports being more accurate, it would become easier for departments to refute any false claims against
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Ever since the start of using courts, the main goal of it was to deliver a fair environment where the accused could defend themselves and show the jurors that he/ she did not commit the crime that they were accused of. Sometimes this system fails us and they sentence an innocent man to jail for something they didn’t commit. The activity that I observed in the field of criminal justice was I went to the boulder court house and watched one of the cases that’s was happening that day. As I sat there watching I saw the defendant’s lawyer trying to convince the jurors that his client was innocent, I thought to myself: how can we improve the court room. Sometimes we see some cases where the criminal can be let go because of not a lot of evidence like Casey Anthony. We also might see that the case might be unfair to person being convicted of a crime that they didn’t do. An example of this is the jurors have some past experience with a person of that race and they don’t like them or they already come with a decision before they even hear the evidence found. We might also see a case where the jurors decide that the accuser is innocent even though there’s evidence that proves otherwise. The main point is how we can make
Evidence: The Mesa (Arizona) Police Department has also found that body-worn cameras can undermine information-gathering efforts. “We have definitely seen people being more reluctant to give information when they know that they are being videotaped,” said Lieutenant Harold Rankin. Chief of Police Sean Whent of Oakland, California, explained, “Our policy is to film all detentions and to keep recording until the encounter is over. But let’s say an officer detains someone, and now that person wants to give up information. We are finding that people are not inclined to do so with the camera running. We are considering changing our policy to allow officers to turn off the camera in those
A major issue in today’s society is police brutality. Everyday we come across videos on the internet showing policemen using excessive force on citizens and sometimes even police shooting and killing people who might seem innocent. The problem with the videos that are posted online is that they don’t show the whole story behind what is occurring and they give off a bad reputation to all cops. Body cameras for officers were first recommended in 2013 after many reports accusing officers of racial profiling and in 2014, police departments received a big federal fund in order begin equipping police officers with body cameras after many protests over a shooting of a young black teenager. Body cameras
Police body cameras were intended to decrease police complaints and decrease the amount of unnecessary force but, the cameras have some defects. Defects that can make the cameras be considered useless and not worth the money and time. These cameras were tested in various departments to understand the positive and negative effects of the cameras. Do body cameras change how the police interact with the public?
When police wear body cameras, they no longer have to trust the words of citizens or eyewitnesses. “In the wake of high-profile incidents in Ferguson, Staten Island, North Charleston, Baltimore, and elsewhere, law enforcement agencies across the country have rapidly adopted body-worn cameras for their officers. One of the main selling points for these cameras is their potential to provide transparency into some police interactions, and to help protect civil rights, especially in heavily policed communities of color.”(The Leadership Conference). This could speed up the court process by having accurate information about the situation. “If body cameras become standard across the nation, some of these cases will be dismissed or go uncharged when video fails to support the officer’s account or the citizen’s accounts. Others will end with a quick guilty plea because the footage will constitute overwhelming evidence. Either way, taxpayers will be spared the substantial cost of going to trial.”(Roberts). Storing the evidence is the problem. Unlike traditional evidence like bullet fragments, knives, and guns that is stored in a locked room, digital film would be be stored in a database or a hard drive that could risk being hacked at any minute. The demands for video storage are unprecedented for many police departments, which don't have enough space on servers or hard drives to store the additional data. Storage
In the article, “Candid Cameras,” award-winning journalist Kevin Davis argues that police body cameras are huge assets to officers when retrieving information about their physical interactions with criminals. Davis aids his main statement when he asserts, “For police, the plus side is that cameras can improve how officers capture evidence. The camera can also provide a record of interrogations and arrests, how officers conduct themselves and what they witness at crime scenes” (15). Soon after, Davis then provides a deeper understanding as to why police body cameras benefit officers when he asserts, “It eliminates the ‘he said, she said’, and it will be easier for police to defend their conduct in the routine case” (15). These quotes do an exceptional job of showing the reader the way in which the use of police body cameras are in fact positive additions to law enforcement. In the end, police body cameras have shown to be nothing but positive additions to society as a
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
Body cameras of authorities raise a debate in the seam, whether body cameras are ethical or unethical for privacy; when the performance of recording a civilian for protection. Furthermore, body cameras may or may not be able to provide a sense of protection to modify the behavior of officer and civilian and develop evidence for court cases. For example, the Arizona Messa police department administers an experiment which results demonstrate “...75 percent fewer incidents of use of force among officers wearing body cameras during the experiment…” (Lucy Schouten) within a year. However, the position which questions the ethics of body camera’s ability to record a civilian to an extent without consent or may indicate a violation of the 4th amendment
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.
The proponents of the body-worn camera will argue their perceived advantages (Macari, 2015). They cite body-worn camera promote better behavior from both the public and the officer due to the fact that they know they are being recorded. The proponents also cite the cameras
Who does a camera protect when the police utilize a body camera for their interactions between themselves and the public? The camera may not protect an officer in the sense that a gun would, but when all is said and done the camera holds the evidence. As long as the evidence is transferred and stored properly that evidence can be retrieved at any time when the need arises. There are many benefits to the camera, but like everything, there is also a down side. While cameras could be considered a privacy violation, body cameras protect the police and the public with better behavior, less use of force, saving monetary resources and documented details that provide all involved an additional witness.
Today, many questions are raised about police brutality. Numerous incidents have occurred that follow the same pattern: a police officer shoots a man and it is unclear whether the shot was justified. Body cameras are the answer. Body cameras can record police and civilian interaction, thereby providing clear evidence. Body cameras will take away the uncertainty in cases. Body cameras should be implemented because they benefit both the officers and the public.
You will have improved behavior from the officer and from whoever is involved in a situation and should see a drop in accusations made regarding officer misconduct. The University of South Florida did research on body cameras for a year with the Orlando Police Department. They had some officers wear body cameras and some to not wear them. The close to yearlong program was from March 2014 through February 2015, use-of-force incidents were down fifty-three percent with the officers who were wearing body cameras and civilian complaints against those officers had a sixty-five percent
It will also prove who first started the action in the crime scene. With police body cameras it will make things much easier if something were to go wrong. Last year on October in Chicago, a student named Laquan McDonald was shot 16 times; he did not go to attack the police, he did the complete opposite. He went the other way from the police, and that’s when Officer Jason Van Dyke pulled out his gun. He was not wearing a body camera, but thankfully the dash cam from another police car at the scene had recorded the whole scene. It was audible, all the yelling and gunshots were heard. There was no doubt that it was just Officer Van Dyke who did the damage; he took a man’s life. Yes, what Laquan McDonald had been doing was a crime, but what the officer did was overkill. No one has a reason to shoot someone 16 times; that number was outrageous. Imagine if there were no dash cams that night, what would’ve happened? In different cases besides Laquan McDonald, videos that are recorded can protect any false accusations or
In the mid 1970’s Australia’s police organisations in all states and territories adopted a paramilitary policing model, creating hierarchical structure to police members response to crime; however in the past 30 years, Victoria’s policing has since adopted a community-based model, aimed to focus on ‘service’ rather than ‘force’ (Bull & Stratta, 1995). Although police and public perception is to catch criminals, the job role has evolved, resulting in specialized units; for instance, the Victorian Police Force has a liaison officer service, unit services and referral services with a shift from focusing just on targeting ‘real crime’ (Clifford, 2010). However, studies show increasing numbers of police members encountering individuals experiencing