Police Body Worn Cameras
Police worn body cameras would help the public believe in police agencies again. The cameras would help minimize the complaints about officers that use unnecessary force or inappropriate behavior and vice versa from a civilian. The police worn cameras do not lie so they will protect against any false accusations, misconduct and abuse against officers or civilians. The video footage would also help in speeding up court proceedings by providing proof of the crime. The video footage could also help in reducing court costs by speeding up the court proceedings by pre-trial plea bargains or convictions. I think police body camera’s are a good thing because they would help protect the police and the public.
Police distrust
…show more content…
While no system is absolute, body worn cameras help encourage trust, help keep police officers and the public safe and foster greater visibility and liability on behalf of the judicial system ("Data security is key to police body cameras."). Body cameras will show the event as it happens. The video does not lie. It not only protects the citizens but it protects the police as well. The Criminal Justice Information Services security policy requires routine audits and background checks for those who work with the data. Activating the highest data security will protect the programs ethical principles ("Data security is key to police body cameras."). Body cameras can and will help improve the public’s trust with police officers. Unfortunately, not all law enforcement agencies will use body cameras. The US Customs and Border Protection staff will not wear body cameras. After a yearlong review and trying out the body cameras it was decided that there was a concern of cost, employee morale, harsh environment, and could hamper the officers’ ability to collect intelligence (Jackson). Michael Brown’s, a Missouri teenager who was shot and killed by a Ferguson, Mo police officer on August 9, 2014, mother is urging a Missouri Senate panel to pass a bill requiring police to wear a body camera. Michael’s mother says details from the shooting are still unclear even though a St. Louis County grand jury did not …show more content…
Even though the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures,” there are no limitations on police or anyone else recording you in public. (The amendment requires police to get a court issued warrant to enter your home, but it does not say one way or the other if they can record you in your home without your permission) (Majerol). Police departments must implement the highest data security when it comes to public privacy so the body camera program is not questioned. If you do not have the proper security protection prosecutors, jurors, police officers, and the public may not believe the video recordings. Privacy protocols and safeguards must be in place to protect the integrity of the video. In Seattle, Washington the police department set up a YouTube channel to upload their body camera videos. The police department blurs the images but is this really hiding your identity
One of the sources used to disprove that body camera isn’t the answer includes Jamelle Bouie article, Keeping the Police honest. Mr. Bouie is the chief political correspondent at Slate who graduated from the University of Virginia with a political and social thought degree (Tumblr.com). His work consists of issues relating to national politics, public policies and racial inequality. His work has also been published in Slate online magazine, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and TIME Magazine (Tumblr.com). Slate is an online magazine that post about the news, politics, business, technology and culture (slate.com). In Jamelle article, Keeping the Police honest he talks about incidents where police officers were being recorded and took excessive
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:
I feel body cameras will bring more awareness to police departments when it comes to the honesty in their staff’s action when they are unsupervised. They can be used as hard evidence in court rooms, to help make the correct judgment on the situations in question. A case of which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened.
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.
This little camera doesn’t have but one job and that is to record the story. “Advantages of police body cameras..” article talks about the pro and cons of such camera on the officers while on shift. The camera is there to help give an unbiased account of what happen. When you know you are being recorded, then you naturally act a little better because you know someone is watching you not so impulsive. There is a statement “A study performed by the Rialto, CA police department found that the cameras led to an 87.5 percent decrease in officer complaints as well as a 59 percent reduction in use of force over the course of a year—and they’re not the only departments seeing positive results.” “This drop in complaints can also lead to a substantial decrease in the time and resources devoted to investigating complaints and resolving civil litigation.” .The two cons I keep seeing against using cameras is the initial cost to issue one out to all law enforcement and the upkeep cost required by them. Additional is a privacy issue with what is recorded on them. These successes number out weight the cons specifically dealing with the public
Not only will using body cameras decrease the number of civilian deaths, it will also allow better and faster punishment for both officers accused with violating the rights of an innocent civilians. These recorded videos will also help punish civilians accused of crimes caught on camera, due to the jury and judge 's ability to get visual first-hand evidence of the incident. According to Paul Marks, author of Police, Camera, Action, “Confronted with footage of their actions, defendants are pleading guilty earlier” (2). Also these cameras will be a deterrent as because these officers know they are being watched and will be more cautious about the amount of force used when subduing a suspect and in policing in general, because just like in normal situations people act differently if they know they are being recorded. Others may argue that because the cameras are recording people will be less likely to come forward with evidence. However, according to Kelly Freund, author of When Cameras Are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body Mounted Cameras on
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
This research paper will give a general overview of body-worn cameras with policing and how police officers respond to body-worn camera. There will be several sections that will explain more about body worn cameras. The reasons why the police use body worn cameras. The issues police officers face with the use of body worn cameras. Issues of citizen privacy will be explained. A research study of positive outcomes of body worn camera will be discussed. As well as officer’s perceptions of the use of body worn cameras.
The American public has been dealing with a lot of police brutality over the last two years. We have asked for body cameras to be mandatory for all police officers and even though a lot of cities and town don’t have them yet it has been some changes. Some people want them to show evidence of misconduct by police officers while others want it to protect those officers and then you have those that think it is violating privacy laws. My argument will be are body cameras working so far and are they the solution for the future. Does police officers wearing camera put at risk the privacy of the American public or does it expose
...f police officers are diligent in the process of storing information than it should lay to rest the concerns that some have over the protection of privacy. The advantage of body worn cameras by law enforcement is essential in protecting the officers from wrongful accusations and is beneficial to citizens as well. By having an unbiased recount of events it protects both sides from wrong doing. It also encourages police officers and citizens to behave better when their actions are being recorded. The use of body cameras also provides a detailed account of a crime scene. This can be useful in the prosecution of a crime and can also provide documentation of witness statements. Deputy Chief David Ramirez of the San Diego police department lauded the practice. "Body-worn camera technology is a win-win for both the officer and the community," he said in the report (Prall).
In conclusion, there are some potential benefits to officers wearing body cameras and having the cameras recording at all times the costs associate with the cameras, the privacy violations of the average citizen, and the recording of witnesses in key situations putting the person at risk outweigh the benefits. Maybe in a few years when there has been more time to think through policies and ways to address the privacy concerns the body camera could be implemented, but as of now the cameras should remain on the shelves and not on
Surveillance cameras have helped hundreds of law enforcement agencies solve thousands of crimes throughout the nation. They have become so helpful that most law enforcement agencies are planning on setting them up on street corners, buildings, publication parks, and on their own officers. There are many cities across the nation that have began to use surveillance cameras. Setting up cameras is a pivotal technique to solving and preventing crimes. Although, it is often argued that having law enforcement surveillance cameras set up throughout the nations communities is an invasion of privacy, citizens should sacrifice a little bit of privacy in return for their safety and protection of civil rights against criminals and police officers.
Recently there have been many controversies and talks about body cameras going on police officers uniforms to help stop crimes. Birmingham, AL has given their police officers 319 body cameras this July, causing the use of force to drop 30 percent and complaints from public by 70 percent. Here we can tell, that body cameras can give justice and fairness to the public by stating how high percentages raise for safety. Their procedures and policies change for the officers that take their duty as a joke and misuse their power and position. Policies tends to change, because the police officers will have to control their temper and despite how rude a civilian is behaving they will have to give full cooperation and kindness. They will not be
I believe that police should not be required to wear a body camera while on patrol. Some believe that police should be required to wear a camera while questioning a suspect. “Proponents argue that body cameras will provide accurate and contemporaneous records of events, thereby both enhancing the transparency and accountability of the police by protecting members of the public and improving the ability of the police to gather evidence and prosecute suspects.” (Tsin 2). I think that it is a bad idea to wear for police to wear body cameras. These cameras will not save the victim. Video evidence can be interpreted in different ways from the viewer. If police are required to wear body cameras it will look like we do not trust our own police system. The use of body cameras may also prevent witnesses to come forward and help assist with investigations, due to fear of retaliation or fear of exposure. Others, like myself, argue that police should not be required to wear this equipment. “On the other hand, skeptics are concerned that camera footage cannot provide full and accurate details of incidents, that the increasing use of video technology raises privacy concerns, and that the adoption of body cameras fails to address the underlying causes of social problems.” (Tsin 2). Wearing a body camera will not stop the suspect from doing what they intended to do, if anything he or she would act out more in aggression. In most cases, body cameras show that it was the suspect that is the one who is unwilling to comply with the officers commands. Body cameras are seen an invasion of privacy. “The use of video technology has also raised concerns about privacy of both citizens and police officers.” (Tsin 4). The camera captures footage from everyday civilian and police behavior that should not necessarily be recorded. Bystanders and all defendants are recorded without their
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.