Body Cameras for Police Officer’s
Over the past few years police accountability has been doubted by the citizens that the police have been sworn to protect. Many times, there have been instances that police have been able to get away with doing what they please with little to no repercussions making it harder for the people to trust them. Currently, “25% of Americans say they have a great deal of confidence in the police, 27% quite a lot, 30% "some," 16% "very little" and 2% "none." (quote a 6). More and more police shootings have led to this distrust by the public towards our police officers. When the only story being told as to why these shootings have happened are told by the officers that are doing the shootings, it is hard to believe them
…show more content…
This outrage causes distrust with our law enforcement, a way to not have this distrust is to be able to know exactly what happened during a situation instead of going of he said/ she said. By having police officers wear body cameras at all times, it will help gain this trust with them because we would be able to hear and view what actually happened. “Allowing more police officers to be outfitted with body-worn cameras is an important tool to improve trust between law enforcement and the people they serve, which helps improve public safety, reduce crime, and strengthen neighborhoods,” (QUOTE a 2) Not only would we have better evidence documentation we would also have more accountability by our officers and by the …show more content…
Privacy issues have come up when talking about body cameras as well as the length of time the recording should be kept. Government funding will be the best way to have body cameras provided to police departments across the nation. The 2017 fiscal year budget proposed by former president Barack Obama would request the Department of Justice grants be used to buy body cameras. “$30 million for the Body-Worn Camera Partnership Program, and $20 million for Smart Policing Initiatives, of which $10 million would be used for the Body-Worn Camera Demonstration Program.” (quote a 2) This would be a great start to being able to equip officers with this technology, and start rebuilding the trust between the public and law enforcement. “Fully funding these grant programs will make it easier for law enforcement agencies to afford body-worn cameras and related technology, and is a critical step that Congress can take to help mend police-community relations and improve the safety of cities and towns across America.” (quote a 2) Congress needs to be pressured by the public so they know this is something that is being asked for and something that should happen to help all people involved. With this technology implemented in
“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
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.
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
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
The New York Police Department has a mission to "preserve peace, reduce fear, maintain order," and protect its civilians in their communities (NYPD, 2016). On the contrary, civilians do not see the police officers as individuals who are there to protect them because they do not trust the police officers or the justice system. In the past few decades, police officers have not been held accountable for their actions in a few incidents where a few unarmed young black males were killed by the police. Communities responded to this issue with the Black Lives Matter movement with protests nationwide to show support for the unarmed young black men who were killed by police. In response to the aggressive policing, methods of using body cameras and detailed incident reporting ...
The article states, “that the indiscriminate release of body camera footage could have a devastating effect on the victims of crime. Those crafting police body camera policy have to effectively balance privacy with the desire to hold police officers accountable for their actions”. However, it is against the first amendment to withhold any evidences to the
Police shootings occur all over the world but are a huge problem within the United States. We continue to hear more and more about them. These shootings are making headlines. Front page news it seems almost weekly. All the shootings go one of two ways. Either a Police Officer has been shot or a Police Officer has shot a citizen, but either way the final result is death. Whether an Officer has been shot or an Officer has shot someone these cases seem to be related to one thing, fear. People in today’s society feel as though they can’t trust Police Officers as they are there to hurt and kill them. And Police Officers feel as though they are in danger of doing their everyday duties because people see them as the “bad guys” and want to hurt or kill them. Yes, police brutality and racism still exist, but not all cops are bad. Yes there are still bad citizens in this world that want to kill and harm others, but not all citizens are bad. People seem to react to these shootings by rioting quickly after a police officer has shot and killed someone without
Is your privacy being invaded by America’s police force? Across the nation, numerous police officers are required to wear a compact, portable camera attached to their uniforms. Body- worn cameras were recently introduced to document incidents and encounters between officers and the public. Debates are stirring up around the public if body-cameras are not constitutional and should be eliminated. Many people believe the police body-camera takes away peoples right of privacy and not having the right to decide to be filmed or not. The article written by Jim Walsh effectively reveals the benefits of police body-cameras, by using persuasive logical evidence.
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
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.
Across America, police have been involved in scandals and drugs. They are abusing the power that they have been given. The communities have begun not to trust the police because of their conduct toward the citizens. People have been beaten and harassed by the guys in blue. People in the communities have seen the police push individuals around and take things from individuals for no reason. People receive the wrong message. The public no longer can see a difference between the police and criminals.
A few issues are the police officers themselves, the court system, and simply knowing what to do in certain situations. I have three recommendations that help these issues such as body cameras, a special court system, and retraining police officers. First, the body camera idea has been floating around the news lately. As previously stated, President Obama has funded these cameras and they will be implemented soon, however, I would like to recommend on how to use them. The camera could be on the waist of the officer along with their utility belt. The cameras must be turned on during their shift and turned off at the end. At the end of the day, someone will review the camera footage and write reports on the officers. The pros of this recommendation is the feedback and seeing the actions of the police officers to be used in the courts, while the cons could be people inferring with the footage or the officers blocking the camera somehow. The cost of these cameras is the consequence, because there are an abundance of police stations and for every cop to have a body camera would cost millions of dollars. My second recommendation would be establishing a special court system that handles murders committed by police officers. The judge could review the body camera tape, hear both sides, and then make his or her decision. It could reduce rioting and uproar within communities. A pro of this court system is simply
Members of the public whose views are “anti‐police” make earnest attempts to bring frivolous lawsuits against officers and their departments that they may have been involved with. These lawsuits range from accusations of police profiling to excessive use of force. With that said, Body cameras protect officers from false allegations by providing an unbiased visual record (Lou Ponsi, 2015). The actual footage of the occurrence could then show the actual events that transpired, and if the officer did not violate the rights of the individual in question, then the case would, in most instances, be dismissed, saving the police department a lot of time and
The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: do the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative side to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned. There are many benefits to having law enforcement security cameras, which people take for granted, and are quick to point out the negative.