Body Cameras: Article Analysis

The social media and the public might want police body cam footage release but sometimes it might be to graphic or controversial. Police body cameras have been a topic since the incident with Michael Brown in august of 2014. Police shot and killed an unarmed individual in ferguson, MO, leading to many people wanting cameras on police. Whether the cameras are a good idea or not this paper will explore the facts and sides of police body cameras. Overall body cameras should be required Because they can save the lives of the innocent, keep innocent people from going to jail, and can help a case as more evidence.

Across the country a growing number of legislative departments have been debating about the pros and cons of police body cameras. This paper will further explore benefits, as well as the downfalls of using such devices. This paper will also look at specific cases and examine whether or not body cameras were helpful in various situations. It will examine if they were a deterrent in cases dealing with police brutality and domestic violence. It also looks at how they could be misused and assisting some officers in covering up their corrupt behavior.

Within recent years there has been much controversy surrounding police officers and whether or not they should be wearing body cameras to document their everyday interactions with the public. While the use of body cameras may seem to invade the public or police privacy. Police-worn body cameras will be beneficial to law enforcement and civilians all over the world. Police must be equipped with body cameras to alleviate any doubt in the effectiveness of officers. Law enforcement worn body cameras would enhance the trust of the public by keeping both the officers and the citizens accountable for their actions, providing evidence, and helping protect them from false accusations, while protecting privacy

Body cameras in policing are still new, but more and more agencies are beginning to implement this technology into their line of work. At first police officers were very hesitant to wear these body cameras because they were afraid they would infringe themselves and give away their own privacy. Later, as body cameras were beginning to see more use in the work place, officers began to realize that these very own body cameras that they once thought would only cause themselves harm would actual prove to be useful in a variety of situations. Some of these situations can be citizen complaints, to even backing up an officers use of force. Body cameras can be the one sole thing that can give

I will identify the advantages of using body cameras as well as the drawbacks (Pollack, 2017). I will discuss if I was stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense would I want to be videotaped. If I was involved in a domestic violence incident would I want to be videotaped when the officers arrived? Then I will discuss whether the police should have the discretion to turn off the camera when they believe a person’s privacy is being invaded regardless of what the person involved thinks so.

Next, let’s talk about body worn camera these are very important. This could help put a lot of people in jail or even corrupt officers. In a sample of police departments surveyed in 2013, approximately 75 percent of them reported that they did not use body-worn cameras. The survey was funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum PERF’s report about the survey notes a number of perceived benefits for using body-worn cameras, including better evidence documentation and increased accountability and transparency. But the report also notes many other factors that law

According to Rialto’s police department, the use of force by officers declined by 60% during their first year of using body cameras and complaints from citizens dropped by 88% in the state of California. The cameras were able to keep track of the statements and evidence, but also possessed a threat to the public that may see it as an invasion of privacy. For example, citizens know that they are being recorded on cameras on streets or inside public buildings, but having a police wearing a body camera come to a civilian’s home would be a huge invasion of privacy. Although the study of the Rialto police department came back mostly positive, the fact remains that the officers still have the ability to use the cameras as they want to, and only turning it on or off when they choose to. In some states, officers are ordered to turn the cameras on as soon as they approach a citizen, or they will be responsible for any complaint or action that will happen during the encounter, keeping the officers

In the recent wake of the death of Michael Brown, an eighteen-year-old, who was shot by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, the topic of police accountability and excess force have been heavily discussed. Among those discussions a reoccurring question has been asked “Should police officers wear body cameras”? While some view this as a violation of privacy, many agree that they law enforcement should be equipped with body cameras. Law enforcement should wear body cameras to promote compliance from the public when interacting with law enforcement, provide documented evidence, and also cameras would help reduce the complaints made against officers, while promoting accountability.

According to the National Institute of Justice, at the end of 2013 only 25% of the 18,000 police departments in the United States were using body cameras (Maney, 2014). This number has increased greatly since 2013 as one-third of police departments are now outfitting policemen with wearable cameras (Delong, 2015). The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced concerns about privacy regarding footage recorded on body cameras and has asked questions about whether the scene like that of a suicide or domestic battery be made public (Vega, 2015). In response to concerns about privacy, the President of Citizen’s for Privacy authorized this study to determine if the benefits of police worn body cameras outweigh the impact on people’s privacy and to establish some recommendations to further protect citizen’s privacy with the ever growing use of this

In addition, supporters of body cameras have argued that this new innovation to policing is positive and beneficial for both police department’s administrators, police officers, citizens, and the courts in plenty of ways. Those who are in favor body camera note that recording police interactions keep the officer and the subject they are addressing well behaved because video recording is viewed as an oversight. According to Katz et al. (2014), numbers of arrests are higher among officers who wear body cameras than those do not. Also, complaints by citizens against officers who

Communities expect officers to honor their oath by protecting and serving the neighborhoods they work in, treating everyone fairly, and most importantly to not abuse the powers granted to them by the citizens that reside in the jurisdiction they serve. Police excessive use of force and other official misconduct is a major emerging issue that tremendously plagued the relationship between law enforcement officials and the public the last several years (Ariel et al., 2015). Police misconduct translates into continuous complaints against the police by citizens, which is the reason why various departments around the United States have implemented the use of body cameras. The purpose of police body cameras is to reduce

Police bodied mounted cameras has been a crucial topic in regards to civil and human rights about excessive use of force. Not to mention, excessive use of force has been on the rise lately which has caught tons of attention from multiple range of communities such as the African American community. The encounter of excessive use of force has grabbed many police department’s attention to change their way of reducing such act. By all means, most agencies around the world had already implemented the use of mounted cameras on their officers because it has proven to reduce use of force and fewer complaints from the community. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), “body cams are small, pager-sized cameras that clip on to an officer’s uniform or sunglasses or are worn as a headset, and record audio and video of the officer’s interactions with the public.” Police bodied mounted cameras is a tool crucial to whether or not this technology serves its fundamental purpose of deterring police misconduct.

“Body Worn Cameras are spreading worldwide, under the assumption that police performance, conduct, accountability, and legitimacy, in the eyes of the public, are enhanced as a result of using these devices. Also, suspects' demeanor during police-public engagements is hypothesized to change as a consequence of the video-recording of the encounter” (Ariel, 2016, para.1). Research has shown that body-worn cameras by law enforcement officers dramatically reduces both civilian complaints against officers and the use of force by officers. Since the beginning of using the body-worn cameras by law enforcement officers, behavior has improved, and de-escalation on both sides of the cameras that happen during the interactions with the public has decreased. The body-worn cameras provide members of the public, the media, and researchers with vital information about the quality of police-public interactions; especially the relatively small, but critical, minority that involves officer use of force. (Kiernan, 2016) "These videos will not resolve all debates about the propriety of the officer's behaviors they portray, but the information they do reveal can advance empirically grounded policing reform."(Kiernan, 2016, para. 6)

Police brutality has been a prominent feature in the United States’ media for several decades. Tackling this issue is multifaceted, and certainly will not be easy. The argument is not focused on whether police brutality exists, rather what can be done to ensure that both public officers and citizens are equally protected in any encounters. One proposed solution is to require police officers to wear body cameras that record during interactions with the public, such as a traffic stop or responding to a call. Body worn cameras (BWCs) sound reasonable, but the literature on the topic presents mixed reviews.

In 2014, Michael Brown, an African American teenager, was shot and killed by a police officer named Darren Wilson. However, he is not alone; many people have been hurt or killed by aggressive police officers in the past few years (Dudley 44). Because of this, many Americans are demanding body cameras for officers as a solution. Body cameras are small cameras that attach to an officer’s uniform and record everything that they do. Many people believe this will solve the problem with police officers and violence. However, after research, some are unsure (Dudley 43). Due to the ineffectiveness of body cameras to change behavior, differing perspectives and video bias, and privacy issues associated with them, body cameras should not be used in the police force.