The Use Of Body Cameras On Police

People lie. Whether intentionally or accidentally, the truth will almost always develop into obscurity. Videos, on the other hand, cannot tell lies. Unless manually altered, they portray the truth. And so, considering the elements of protecting officers, protecting the public, and boosting the legal system’s efficiency, when it comes to the police force’s use of body cameras, the benefits clearly expel any controversy.

Ferguson, a town whose name echoed throughout the U.S. over the last two years, triggered a clash between the public and those directed to watch over them. After a police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, the credibility of police officers came into question. Does protection serve as their only motive

(Vick 34) So, in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, the U.S. began utilizing body cameras. Although generally accepted, even by the president, critics continue to question the application of body cameras on police officers. (Anastasia and Majerol 1)

The direct need for body cameras is to ensure the public remains safe from police misconduct, something the devices are shown to excel at. Too often, police elude punishment for their crimes, but with body cameras, accountability proceeds with all of their actions. In the CCRB’s report on police and body cameras, the board stayed on pace to exceed the number of false statements made by police officers in the year prior, twenty-six, with nineteen allegations already made within the first half of the year. According to the same report, the amount of affirmed force complaints grew about eleven percent from the previous year. Overall, the number of officers prosecuted surged, with seventy-seven out of 192 officers impeached compared to forty out of 237 officers the year before. This dictates that body cameras ensure the preservation of justice after police officers do not follow conduct. (Morales 1-2) Luckily,