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
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
According to the department of Justice of found that “both offices and civilians acted in a more positive manner when they were aware that a camera was present”. Cameras could prevent instance of police abuse in the future and awareness to the public. Any video captured can be valuable evidence in court by providing live footage of a crime gone terrible wrong. By body cameras being recording live, police can create a better trust with in law enforcement and their communities. Using body cameras can be a create source of educating law enforcement creating better policing skills. All officers on duty should be requaired to use body cams while on duty.
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 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,
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.
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.
The struggle for more transparency in policing is an issue that has been waging on for years unchecked, but with necessary body cameras this problem will be able to be solved. With the use of body cameras, police procedure can become public knowledge. This will help prevent things like the Ferguson riots that took place after the decision to not indict officer Darren Wilson. Some people argue that the use of these body cameras could violate privacy laws because “Unlike previous forms of surveillance, body-cameras can enter private spaces more easily, and can focus on individuals more effectively” (Freund 95). However, this issue can be easily solved as unlike dash cameras, which are automatic, the body cameras need to be switched on. This allows the officer to use their discretion on when to actively record. This information can repair the already damaged trust between the police and the public. Use of cameras would also decrease the rate at which police receive complaints. According to Brucato “For the police, accountability offers the opportunity to exonerate themselves and their agencies from false complaints” (457). All the frivolous complaints and lawsuits that using a body camera prevents also serves a purpose to save money of the police department. In today 's society people only see the police incidents being recorded through the use of cellphone filmed
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
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:
Thesis: By implementing Body cameras there will be more effective ways to monitor police activity the ability to protect civilians and law officials will greatly increase. Today I would like to share more with everyone the huge issue police brutality plays in our society and hopefully by the end of my speech you will want police officers to wear mandatory body cameras as well.
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
...ith the public” (When cops kill). The bodycams would capture the time when Officers use force it will protect the Officer with lawsuits but it can also be used as evidence against him. There are many controversies that come from using the bodycam many are that the Officer can pause or stop the recording or that they can edit the recording so it can not look bad to the public.