Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Police brutality through the years
Essays on the use of police body cameras
Essays on the use of police body cameras
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Police brutality through the years
April 2007, a study of the Chicago Police Department found that out that over 10,000 police abuse complaints were filed between the years 2002 to 2003. Only 19 of those complaints resulted in disciplinary action. These complaints, mainly false, can damage a police officer’s reputation, even though it may have been false. Time is taken away from more serious and stressful matters, to comb though complaints, which are usually false. Police brutality is real and shouldn’t go unlooked, but there is a better way to solve these problems. Recently this problem has been seen today in cases that have gone more public and have harmed many officers in the line of duty from false views and statements. That is why it is time for police officers and citizens …show more content…
However, the use of body cameras are not new. For many year different departments in California, other states in the US, and the UK have been using body cameras for years. The LAPD department is a major police force that has set up the example of the importance of body cameras. Policies have been made and followed though to make sure the cameras are doing more help then harm. The police department has shown many positive results involving false complaints becoming diminished and gathering evidence that can be used in multiple situations. The police chief of the LAPD, Charlie Beck, stated that the addition of an on-body cameras will be a helpful investigative and accountability tool. Beck continues on saying that the body camera are also a less expensive option than the in-car video that most police departments used today. An example of video evidence being used in an investigation is in 2013, a police officer from California videotaped an encounter he had with a man being accused of abusing his stepson. The officer right after the encounter submitted the video footage, because the evidence he gathered about the man’s demeanor during the visit showed some evidence that this man had the means to abuse his stepson. This is just one example that footage captured on the PBC’s can be used. By adding these cameras …show more content…
These cameras offer protection towards police officers and citizens when encounters between the two are recorded. However, there is a lot of debates regarding the issue of policing the police. A sustainable issue that is seen is that cameras will offer more evidence to protect both side. However, would “babysitting” the police effect their work? The cameras are simple and easy to operate states many of the LAPD police officers, and they continued on stating how the positives that come from using the cameras over shadow the cons that can come from using them. Mayor of California, Eric Garcetti, shares his view on how many people will be expecting these cameras to show how bad the officers are or how good they are. “These cameras are meant to protect and that is exactly what they will do”, stated Garcetti.Protection, evidence, training, and saving resources are just a few of the positives that come from the use of these cameras. These cons can be diminished with having the right laws and regulation on the use of the cameras content and evidence gathered, such as the policies the LAPD department are using now. PBC’s are here to help and it time to help states around the US to use this
There needs to be an estimate of the cost and technical expertise needed to maintain the body cameras. TPD and city law-makers would also have to consider policy that would need to be in place in case the officers’ equipment malfunctions or is rendered ineffectual in some manner. For this reason, there needs to be an understanding among all stakeholders that a change in the policy for body cameras will not alleviate all possibility of police misconduct or be a catchall for false allegation against officers by citizens of police
If body cameras were required many police officers would be serving time in prison for some of their actions. A vast majority of the victims also would not have been harmed. Following a study done by Rialto, Calif. Police that ran from February 2012 to July 2013. A group of officers wore tiny video cameras while interacting with citizens. According to the New York Times, the video cameras resulted in a 60 percent drop in the use of force and an 88 percent drop in complaints against officers (Amalcar Scott, 2015, p.13). On a different randomized controlled trial, “nearly 1,000 officer shifts were randomized over a 12-month period of treatment and control conditions. During ‘‘treatment shifts’’ officers were required to wear and use body-worn-cameras when interacting with members of the public, while during ‘‘control shifts’’ officers were instructed not to carry or use the devices in any way. We observed the number of complaints, incidents of use-of-force, and the number of contacts between police officers and the public, in the years and months preceding the trial (in order to establish a baseline) and during the 12 months of the experiment” (Tabarrok,
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.
An hierarchy system of who is to be allowed accessed to camera recordings would be implemented and a specific time frame would be created for the storage of recording data. A recording may be kept for a week and after it should be removed from the data servers. However, if a recording is flagged for any reason whether it is for an investigation, it must be kept for a substantial amount of time until its usage is no longer needed. In this case, it will free up space for storage and save money from purchasing data storage. As a result, if a police officer receive a complaint or a civilian may feel the need to file a complaint, there will be a recording available to show an objective encounter of an incident between the officer and civilian; therefore, there will not be any biased statements from either party. Wakefield Police Chief, Richard E. Smith stated that “Studies have shown that when body cameras are deployed, citizen complaints against officers drop measurably”. As a result, police officers can gain a sense of security on their
Body cameras are now widely used by police departments in the United States for safety measures. It would not be a bad idea if The Department of Correction would make it mandatory for all correctional officers to wear body cameras during their shift. Each state here in the U.S. is responsible for maintaining a prison budget, especially when the state is facing severe budget cuts due to economic struggles and drops in tax revenues (Clear et al, 2013). With that being said, proposing body cameras for correctional officers will require a lot of my money, and it will be a challenge to come of up with the funds. The Houston Police Department has requested for body cameras for over three year now and the city understands how critical it is for officers, especially after seeing numerous police use of force and shootings all across the U.S. Houston Police officers are unequipped when it comes to devices that could prevent criminal and civil litigations. HPD Chief Charles McClelland requested City Hall for $8 million to equip 3,500 police officers with small body cameras to record encounters between law enforcement and citizens as a way of improving accountability and transparency; furthermore, to reduce use of force incidents and citizen complaints (Kuffner, 2014). The request made by the Chief has been pending for over three years due to lack of funding. The estimate cost for the device per officer is approximately $2,500. Body cameras will also prevent officers from having fraudulent complaints filed against them. Houston Mayor Anise Parker’s administration stated they are having trouble finding the money to pay for the Chief’s request (Kuffner,
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:
Police misconduct is as rampant as ever in America, and it has become a fixture of the news cycle. Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose. The media is inevitably drawn toward tales of conflict, hence why there are so many crime and police stories on the news. Despite the increasing frequency of misbehaving cops, many Americans still maintain a high respect for the man in uniform. Still, police misconduct is a systemic problem, not just an anecdotal one. Here are some reasons why it is a problem. First, many departments do not provide adequate training in nonviolent solutions. With this, police are unfamiliar with what to
Officers need sufficient training on the technology they are to use in their job, and policies regarding body cameras use within the police department need to be strong enough to guarantee their success. Across the United States police departments, the level of training and procedures in how to use body cameras vary from police station to police station. Due to this, it is hard to determine what the most effective way to use these cameras is. Those with weak policies are more likely to face legal issues such as the lawsuit in Round Lake. Without knowing how to operate the equipment properly and issues such as placement of the device the technology could become ineffective (Bakardjiev). By training officers to use the equipment properly police officers will be more familiar with it and be able to avoid issues in the equipment. At the forefront of the Round Lake issue, the invasion of privacy must be addressed. The reason cameras are not constantly filming officers is to build a positive work environment and foster trust (Bakardjiev). The ten officers in the lawsuit feel as if that trust was violated. The implications of the lawsuit are those who were in charge of training and ensuring the cameras were working as promised failed, and this has broken the trust of the officers
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.
Cameras have become a large debate in the fight against brutality for the main reason of privacy. It was said by Richard D. Emery that police themselves and other public figures should not expect privacy. They are always in sight and every action of an officer can be seen whether they are aware of it or not. It is an officer’s job to know the limit of force and to also report other officers pushing that limit. The instillation of cameras on officers and in their vehicle’s is for officer and civilian safety. It is also the only “way both the public and the accused police officers be more assured of a fair assessment of police actions” (Emery). Some departments have already begun installing more
When one thinks of police misconduct many not too distant stories might go through our heads. Most adults will remember how they felt when they saw the brutal beating of Rodney King on their local news station; or the outrage they experienced when they heard that the evidence in the OJ Simpson trial had been tampered with. But thanks to new guidelines, procedures and even civilian groups who now “police” the police, instances of police misconduct may soon start seeing a decline.
Background and Audience Relevance: According to the Human Rights Watch 2012 report on Police Brutality and Accountability in the United States; police brutality has become one the most serious human rights violation. As citizens of the United States it is our duty to make sure that those with authority don 't take advantage of their power.
From the Harvard Law Review pertaining to body cameras, “This technology[body cameras] has also been praised as likely to reveal instances of police misconduct, reform police (and civilian) behavior, and build trust between the police and the community, all of which provide strong justifications for adoption” (Considering sec. B).
In Rialto, California, a police department participated and contributed to a study regarding the impact of equipping officers (Ariel, Farrar & Sutherland , 2014). The results are empirical and irrefutable. The officers wore body-mounted cameras that recorded everything that happened during encounters. Ariel et al. (2014) reports that “during the first year after cameras were employed the use of force by police officers reportedly declined 60% and complaints from citizens against law enforcement decreased by 88%.” The authors also report that “the number of complaints filed against officers dropped from 0.7 complaints per 1,000 contacts to 0.07 per 1,000.” The idea of having a camera reporting your actions is a strong motivator that helps to govern officer force used. This is the transparency and reporting required helping restore the nation’s trust in our law