Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on police body cams
Essays on police body cams
Essays on police body cams
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on police body cams
If someone were to be asked thirty years ago if it is necessary or even possible for a police officer to wear a video camera on his or her uniforms, the answer would be no. Why has this changed? The answer is quite simple; time has changed. People do not trust one another anymore. The only way people believe each other now is through rock-hard evidence. An idea of a police officer wearing a video camera mounted on their uniform or vest has a multitude of positive and negative reasons as to why these video cameras are useful. A camera can be viewed as an invasion of privacy but in today’s world of social media what is an invasion of privacy? People may think that it is not an invasion when it is something for the public’s protection but there …show more content…
It is like a never-ending circle of problems because no matter what the opinion is someone will always have an issue with it. Many issues come with these mounted video cameras, and there is much good that comes with these mounted video cameras. It is essential to keep an open mind as to why they were placed there in the first place. It comes from fatal shootings and police brutality like in the case of Micheal Brown from Ferguson, Missouri. Issues like these make it essential for a video camera to show the exact events of what happened. Questions can still come up from the point of view the camera is facing since it is the police officer’s point of view that something happened outside of the camera lens. Then why not have a civilian record everything that happens? It is a ridiculous idea, and everyone can agree as well. The theory there though says that any solution is not perfect, but there is a solution to be used so why not use …show more content…
To make a full opinion about something, both sides of the picture has to be looked at. For example, Griggs brings out that “As Austin noted, a 2013 report by the Department of Justice found that "both officers and civilians acted more positively when they were aware that a camera was present." On the other hand, though Griggs also brought out that “Some officers also view the cameras as unwanted scrutiny and a sign that their supervisors do not trust them.”, When two different pieces of evidence are looked at as such, then it can be seen why the use of video cameras should be used and should not be used as well. Yes, it is good to have evidence in that case that it is needed but what did officers do twenty years ago when such technology was not around. It is interesting how in the last century that events have changed people so much that there is no trust between anyone. It is important to be talked about as Griggs brings out the views of officers “Some officers also view the cameras as unwanted scrutiny and a sign that their supervisors do not trust them.” The view of the officers can affect their work because it would make them feel unneeded to the community which then can lead them even to quit their jobs. It is understandable how uncomfortable it could be to record every second of the workday, and it can even be uncomfortable for the public as well but when it is
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.
If misused, body-cameras can be a violation of privacy. In order to prevent this, proper legislation needs to be enacted in order to ensure privacy rights are protected. The only policy related document regarding police body cameras is the “Guidance for the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement authorities” which is issued by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. This document discusses that rules should not be enforced only by local police departments, but for Canada as a whole. As this is the only document related to police body cameras, it is undoubtable that there needs to be serious legislation created. As it is suggested that body cameras pose as a risk for privacy rights, it is evident in order to implement them effectively, there needs to be regulation constructed. Body cameras can be an effective and useful tool, but without legislation, they can cause problems. Bruce Chapman, president of the Police Association of Ontario expresses, “We want to do it right. We don’t want to do it fast” when asked about the implementation of body cameras. While body cameras, are important to have in today's society, it is also dire to have it done properly. By enforcing strict guidelines, and documents addressing body camera legislation, it will ensure the process is done correctly. In order to implement body cameras properly, privacy rights need to be assessed. This process takes time, and proves body cameras need to be implemented at a pace legislation can follow. Thomas K. Bud, discusses the worry that privacy will be violated with body cameras. Factors such as facial recognition, citizen consent of recording, and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all pose as risks. While legislation has not matched their guidelines with modern technology, it proves how important it is to create new documents, in order for changes to be made. Therefore body
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.
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.
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
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.
Do police officers really need body cameras is a question that has been repeated all throughout the nation. Body cameras are video recording systems that are used by law enforcement to record their interactions with the public and gather video evidence. Most police departments do not wear body cameras currently and the ones that do are in trial phases to see how it works out. There are many advantages to police officers wearing body cameras but in asking the question should they wear body cameras the stakeholders should look at the complete picture. One reason that police and body cameras have constantly been brought up lately are the instances of police brutality happening within the United States. Police brutality within the United States
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:
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
" Surveillance is not a new concept, and has been used every since the beginning of civilization. However, with the influence of technology, it has evolved. Policing agents no longer need to use methods of surveillance such as listening through walls, looking through windows and over fences, and even sitting in a suspect's garbage. Because of the ongoing development of new technology, policing agencies can hear, see and track almost everyone and everything at any given time.
...t cameras can be misused and the anti-surveillance side agrees that the cameras have a place in crime determent. There still challenges that both sides will have to face to come to a compromise however. Cameras will most likely continue to be installed in the United States largest cities and most important areas, but with growing support for privacy advocates, it seems like there will be more of a push for the laws and regulations to accompany them.
This will all change in the future, now that the media and privacy advocates are starting to ask questions. Law enforcement security cameras clearly have many benefits to our society, and with the right policies in place the negative aspects will pale in comparison. Works Cited Kelly, Heather. " After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras. " CNN.com - "The 'Casino'" Cable News Network, 26 Apr. 2013.
Basically security cameras are basically good and bad in all ways due to helping the public and bad for invading peoples privacy daily which would not surprise me that the government is also up to no good doing all of this but if it helps catches people who are hacking computers from other countries then oh well with that stuff. So in all ways they are good and bad for most public areas besides stores and high criminal activity area parking lots for the US otherwise crime will not stop for the people in the US and privacy will keep being invaded as long there is crime.