The lack of transparency in police departments around the country is staggering. Police officers have caused the deaths of unarmed people, and been able to escape without criminal charges being filed or sticking. This lack of accountability and general wariness of police officers’ judgment and discretion has led to feelings of hopelessness in the fight for justice in the affected communities, occasionally inspiring riots. If the public doesn’t trust and feel safe around police officers, officers will be significantly hindered in performing their job. The loss of trust will likely lead to fewer crimes reported to police, resistance to police actions, and possibly further violent outbursts by the public. Public cries for police accountability …show more content…
al: police body cameras increase transparency, deter the misuse of force, improve policing, and restore the trust of communities (Coudert, 750). Arizona officers have found body cameras to be helpful in day-to-day activities and officers in London use body cameras to handle complaints against officers more effectively (Jennings, 1). According to Jennings, et. al. officers see the cameras as a tool to provide an accurate depiction of events, separate from either the victim or the officer’s potential influences (Jennings, 2). Drover’s experiment found multiple instances of a guilty plea being entered due to the captured camera footage, and instances where a citizen’s stopped being aggressive toward the officer once they were informed they were being recorded by a body camera (Drover, 89). Jennings et. al. also found body cameras to “increase [the] quality of police-citizen interactions” (Jennings, 2). They also reported a “53.4% reduction in response-to-resistance” incidents when body cameras were being worn by officers (Jennings, 2). The most telling benefit is the officers using body cameras during Drover and Ariel’s experiment, wanted to continue using the body cameras (Drover,
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.
“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
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.
Although accountability has always been an issue, the injustices that are currently occurring make it priority. Police officers are getting “special treatment” and are not facing charges for crimes they have committed. Police officers are not held accountable for their a...
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.
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.
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 agencies nationwide have repeatedly been shaken by controversy and forced to make undesirable concessions. Has law enforcement failed to maintain the high standards required by the profession? The cost of public trust is high. It increases each time faith must be regain. Historically, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation have experienced periods of low confidence in communities preceding episodes deemed to be a breach of trust.
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:
Police misconduct is as rampant as ever in America, and it has become a fixture of the news cycle. Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose. The media is inevitably drawn toward tales of conflict, hence why there are so many crime and police stories on the news. Despite the increasing frequency of misbehaving cops, many Americans still maintain a high respect for the man in uniform. Still, police misconduct is a systemic problem, not just an anecdotal one. Here are some reasons why it is a problem. First, many departments do not provide adequate training in nonviolent solutions. With this, police are unfamiliar with what to
Everyone is entitled to privacy when it comes to law enforcement. To make the public, and the officers protecting them, feel protected, the implementation of new technology in the police force has occurred. Sometimes, this equipment backfires and ends up doing more harm than the good that it promised. When this occurs, a revaluation of what is going on should happen to make sure improvements are made. As shown by the recent privacy violations to the Round Lake Police Department regarding body-worn-cameras, officers need to become more familiar with the technology they are using and stricter policies about their use are necessary to ensure the equipment is working properly.
The author focuses on the U.S. Task Force on 21st Century Policing and Police Data Initiative or PDI to determine if it helps to restore trust and the broken relationship between and communities and police officers. The Task Force made by Barack Obama recommended the analysis of department policies, incidents of misconduct, recent stops and arrests, and demographics of the officers. The PDI has tasked 21 cities to comprehend the police behavior and find out what to do to change it. Also PDI was said to have data and information on vehicle stops and shootings by police officers. The use of statistics has a purpose to help rebuild trust and the relationship between and communities and police officers.
Bibliography Why Good Cops Go Bad. Newsweek, p.18. Carter, David L. (1986). Deviance & Police. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co. Castaneda, Ruben (1993, Jan. 18). Bearing the Badge of Mistrust. The Washington Post, p.11. Dantzer, Mark L. (1995). Understanding Today's Police. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. James, George (1993, Mar. 29). Confessions of Corruption. The New York Times, P.8, James, George (1993, Nov. 17). Officials Say Police Corruption is Hard To Stop. The New York times, p.3. Sherman, Lawrence W(1978). Commission Findings. New York Post, P. 28 Walker, J.T. (1992). The police in America, p.243-263, chp. 10, Walker, Samuel (1999).
Within our police system in America, there are gaps and loopholes that give leeway to police officials who either abuse the authority given to them or do not represent the ethical standards that they are expected to live up to by society. Because of the nature of police work, there is a potential for deterioration of these ethical and moral standards through deviance, misconduct, corruption, and favoritism. Although these standards are set in place, many police officers are not held accountable for their actions and can easily get by with the mistreatment of others because of their career title. While not every police abuses his or her power, the increasingly large percentage that do present a problem that must be recognized by the public as well as those in charge of police departments throughout our country. Police officials are abusing their power and authority through three types of misconduct known as malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance and these types are being overlooked by management personnel who rarely intervene even though they know what is happening. Misconduct is wrong because it violates rights and causes people to be wrongly accused of crimes or be found not guilty and set free when they are still an endangerment to other people. The public needs to be educated on what is happening in the police system in hopes that someone will speak out to protect citizens from being violated by police officers.
Police corruption is a nationwide problem that has been going on for many years. Not only is corruption a problem on our own U.S. soil, but police practices of corruption go as far east as Europe and Asia. Many studies, polls and examinations were taken to find out how exactly what the general publics’ opinions of the police are. Officers receive a lot of scrutiny over this issue, but for good reason.