The mission of implementing a body-worn camera system is to increase police legitimacy and procedural justice through impacting police officer decision-making that will subsequently reduce police misconduct, resulting in a reduction in officer complaints and levels of excessive use of force. The program will reduce liability and distrust of the police department by enhancing police legitimacy and procedural justice. Additionally, reductions in officer complaints and levels of excessive use of force will strengthen relationships with the community. The goal of the program is to improve officer decision-making through a body-worn camera system that increases supervision capabilities.
Pros and Cons of the Program
Pros
The initial startup cost
…show more content…
Yokum et al. (2017) conducted one of the largest research experiments on the use of body-worn cameras on officer complaints and use of force with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, DC. Remarkably, despite the unusually large scale of their experiment, no statistically significant effect was detected on the use of body-worn cameras and officer complaints or use of force (Yokum et al., 2017). Similarly, in single year pre and post analysis of officer complaints with the Medford Police Department, year-to-year differences showed as little as 1% change (Medford Police Department, 2018). However, White (2014) identified that body-worn cameras may have potential impacts that are positive and exceed the effects on individual officers. Yokum et al. (2017) reinforces the idea that despite the lack of statistically significant effects, the use of body-worn cameras may support the training officers have and decisions they make in dealing with rapidly developing and unpredictable …show more content…
The use of body-worn cameras increases officer accountability through increased supervision capabilities and transparency of individual officer actions. Farrar (2013) also identified findings of a positive relationship between rational choice theory and police officer decision-making through the self-awareness effect of being watched. Body-worn cameras act as a silent witness and a digital presence of supervision acting as a rule enforcer driving officers' decision-making to follow rules, procedure, and law (Gaub et al.,
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.
By law enforcement wearing body cameras can be the first step into taking disciplinary action tour wards police brutality. Body cameras will encourage police officers to be more responsible on handling stressful situation and have more control on themselves, because their actions, he or she are in the public eye. For example study shows, when body cameras where issued police, officers decreased 60 percent of excessive force in the first year initiating of cameras.”(Donovan). The body cameras can control a serious situation
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.
For space-saving purposes I will refer to this paper as the “Rialto Experiment.” The Rialto Experiment began on February 13th, 2012 and ran for a year. In this experiment Farrar wanted to find out if “rational beings, including police officers, [were] unlikely to embrace socially undesirable behavior when videotaped”(3). Almost a thousand shifts were randomly divided nearly equally into two treatment groups. Officers wearing cameras were the treatment group, and officers without cameras were the control group. Over 43,000 police-to-public contacts were documented over the span of one year during the experiment, and Farrar reported that the “findings suggest[ed] more than a 50% reduction in the total number of incidents of use of force compared to control conditions, and nearly ten times more citizens ' complaints in the twelve months prior to the experiment” (8). While his evidence strongly suggests that police cameras would greatly reduce the use of force and citizen complaints, even Farrar acquiesces that the Rialto Experiment did not collect any evidence from the citizens being recorded as to whether they modified their behavior after receiving the information that they were being videotaped. Several studies sourced by Farrar suggest that human beings positively modify their behavior when they are being observed (1-2). Farrar also notes that there may be “ethical considerations”(9) posed,
right. In all but the rarest of cases, rogue cops convicted of betraying the "public trust" can discard any expectation of sympathy when standing before a sentencing judge.
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.
Should police officers be mandated to wear body cameras? That is a question that has grown to be widely discussed in media, politics, and the 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 supports each side. However, despite the critiques against body cameras, I believe the evidence that supports the use of body cameras to be overwhelmingly positive and the intention is of pure deeds.
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
The Effects of Body Worn Cameras by Law Enforcement 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.
The research strategy divided the Rialto Police Department into two different shifts where one shift required to wear a body camera and the other was not required (Farrar, 2013). These two shifts were called experiment and control shifts. There was data collected from officers that used force during public contact and the number of complaints filed from the public for police misconduct (Farrar, 2013). The outcome of this experiment revealed how the use of body cameras can be beneficial in reducing the use of force. Toward the end of this experiment there was a decrease of police use of force about 60 percent and there was twice as many encounters that police officers had to use force without cameras than officers with cameras (Farrar, 2013). There was a significant decrease of complaints from the public about police misconduct about 80 percent (Farrar,
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
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