Body Cameras In Law Enforcement Essay

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.

The cameras are very small portable devices, it’s the size and length of a cigarette stick. The camera is attached to the police officers uniform and sits in a pocket. Usually police officers are required to wear this body camera while they are on duty. The cameras record everything that happens between officers and civilians. The Rialto Police Department was the first to actually use and wear the body cameras in 2012. They did a yearlong study to see the impact of police relations by wearing body cameras. One officer wasn’t feeling too good about this idea because he thought the cameras would be to punish them instead of helping them out. “During the first year after the cameras were introduced, the use of force by police officers reportedly declined 60% and complaints from citizens against law enforcement officers decreased 88%.” This was a yearlong study in which 54 officers had to

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

First advantage in law enforcement agents wearing body cameras is to hold the officers accountable. “Holding the officers accountable, will ensure the officer adheres to policies and procedures during an encounter with victims and suspects.” Body-worn cameras are poised to help boost accountability for law enforcement and citizens and, unlike many new police technologies, the cameras share preliminary support from both law enforcement and social justice groups. Successful implementation of the cameras will require careful policies that respect and protect both the police and the public.

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

Rialto, California is an example of a city with positive results from the use of body-cameras. In Rialto, police began wearing body-cameras a little less than three years ago. As a result of officers wearing body-cameras, citizens’ complaints against police officers dropped 88 percent and use of force by police officers dropped 60 percent from the previous 12 month period when body-cameras were not in use. Rialto’s police chief said, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if the citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better” (Lovett).

The dispute of police body cameras truly hit the media hard this week. Blasting from the headlines all citizens were aware that Michael Brown was lethally shot in Ferguson, Missouri. This prompted officers to become fortified with body cameras. This technologically progressive world that we live in today has shaped a world of tweeting, posting and uploading. It’s about time that police departments take advantage of the tools accessible to them, especially with the advancement of equipment. The move forward in technology will help to alleviate speculation on any misconduct perpetrated. There now will be hard honest evidence of any crime committed against a police officer.

Due to devastating events that have taken place between the police and civilians in 2015, law enforcements are finding it liable for policeman to be suited with body cameras. They believe doing so will begin to hold policeman more accountable for their actions, reduce police brutality and crime, as well as shedding light on the good cops still out here.

Moreover, to stop the crime and police brutality, body cameras would not be a bad idea if they were to be taken a step forward. Nancy La Vigne writer of “Body Cameras for Police Could Be One Smart Step” talks about supervisors monitoring the cameras in case an altercation were to happen (6). Nancy also talks about body cameras invading constitutional rights of the citizens. Vigne writes, “Body cameras will capture not just an officers actions, but also those of the citizens with whom they interact – or even individuals walking by or in the background” (Vigne). Nancy’s point is that with the body cameras and civilians being recorded, should the citizens know they are being recorded. Another solution for the body cameras to be able to work would be for the cops to have no access to the cameras.

In February 2012, the Rialto California police department started supplying their officers with cameras they could clip on to their uniforms. At any given time, about half of their active duty officers wore these cameras. They found, in a twelve month period, that the department overall "had an 88 percent decline in the number of complaints filed against the officers". (Stross, R. 2013, April 6). They also had a 60 percent decline in the use of force by officers. They also found that officers wearing a camera were half as likely to use force as oppose to officers not wearing one. This is clear evidence that police wearing body cameras is a good

The most beneficial way to work with the community is by having body cameras. According to Issues and Controversies, President Obama said, “the safer it is for cops, the more effectively they can do their jobs, the more cooperation there’s going to be, the more likely those communities are to be safe” (Police Body Cameras). Due to, the power of authority police officers is mistreating and killing the civilian. As a result, the community feels unsafe and fears police officers. For this reason, implementing body cameras on police officers is crucial for safety, evidentiary purpose, and liability.

With so many incidents occurring between law enforcement and civilians, it’s about time we have our officers wear body cameras. Law enforcement wants to use body cameras, many politicians are in favor for them, Civil-rights groups are advocating them, and communities that already have a strong police presence in their neighborhoods are requesting that the police get cameras now. With the uproar of law enforcement and the death of many black American’s, body cameras can be very useful. There is always that missing link when trying to put these horrible moments back together. Far too many times we end up with the suspect dead and only get one side of the story. With the use of body cameras, we can now get more insight on the events that happen (Boyd, 2015).

Many departments have been forced to change how they patrol their streets and how they interact with citizens. One of the precautionary methods that the government took was to provide funding to police departments that would go toward officers being issued body cameras. The Justice Department in fact his year provided $17 million dollars to police departments for body cameras. As stated by Attorney General Loretta Lynch "Body-worn cameras hold tremendous promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability and advancing public safety for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve,.. (Jackson,

There are three main points supporters argue in this debate of why police should be mandated to wear body cameras. First, supporters state that police body cameras can help solve police brutality. The first police department in the United States to implement police body cameras was in Rialto, California, and according to Al Jazeera America, "The department saw an 88 percent decline in complaints against officers and use of force incidents plummeted to 60 percent" (Demetrius and Okwu 2). These supporters think if we were to implement police body cameras for all police departments in the United States, then these effects on police brutality could be attained nationwide. Second, supporters believe that body cameras will punish corrupt police

The use of body cameras as a resource in the law enforcement field has been adopted by agencies all across the country. However, body cameras have both beneficial applications and disadvantages in their use and application. Officers in many agencies across the country are required to wear body cameras to document what officers do on a daily basis or during interactions with the public. Body cameras have advantages and disadvantages that continue to be debated if it is a viable option for the future of law enforcement.