Body Cameras Pros And Cons

Body cameras can hold police officers accountable for their actions, both the good and the bad. “Continuously wearing body cameras would hold police accountable for their appropriate, and inappropriate, conduct” (Buam). Also when the citizens make accusations they could pull the video from the camera and see whether the police officer did what they said they did or not. “Video recorded by body cams protect any false accusations, misconduct, or abuse

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

In today 's society, one highly debatable topic is whether or not law enforcement agents should wear body cameras. Most cameras used by law enforcement agencies across the country record audio and video, therefore, the cameras see and hear nearly everything a law enforcement officer does. There are many advantages to law enforcement personnel using body cameras while on duty because it holds the officers accountable, is used to document the contact made between the officers and the victims and/or suspects, supports the “use of force” action, keeps the officers and citizens honest, and the videos can even be used for training for other officers.

A fairly common recommendation for reducing police misconduct to increase use of body cameras. By recording police-citizen encounters, police supervisors, judges, reporters, and others can get objective evidence of what happened instead of self serving hearsay. Body cameras have been the talk of many police departments among the United States. But not everyone has tried it out or used it yet, as we can see. Body cameras should be used because citizens are being innocently killed by police, officers are being falsely accused of wrongdoing, and it allows for physical proof of evidence.

In today’s society no one is safe from everyday peril. Situations arise daily that may present either a law enforcement official or civilian that could warrant the need for extra protection. In some cases it is a matter of he said, she said. For those faced with such situations, documentation that could be provided by body cameras worn by police officials could be of great use. Body cameras have been tested in a small group of police departments and have provided an overwhelming positive effect. Police officers wearing body cameras not only provide the officers with extra peace o mind but give civilians documentation to back up their sides of the story. Not everyone is in favor of police

Law enforcement agencies have been in a heated debate in the use of body cams by the surrounding communities because of the use of force incidents that have occurred in the media. Body cameras are the new age technology that allows law enforcement agencies to record encounters with the community. There are some positives aspects of law enforcement wearing body cams. The body cam allows the officer to interact with residents which will help to eliminate complaints about police behavior and the use of force encounters. The body cam gives video evidence of the decisions made by on-duty law enforcement in violent situations. This helps keep accountability of law enforcement and the ensure that the department and decreases liability. Because the

In today’s society no one is safe from everyday peril. Situations arise daily that may present either a law enforcement official or just a civilian with a situation that could warrant the need for extra protection. In some cases it is a matter of he said she said. In just those instances it is important that there be some sort of documentation that provides corresponding evidence. Body cameras have been tested in a small group of police departments and have provided an overwhelming positive effect. Police officers wearing body cameras not only provide the officers with an extra peace of mind but give the civilians documentation to back up their sides of the story.

Furthermore, as opposed to popular belief, body cameras can not only lead citizens to act lawfully, they can also provide amenity for both officers and citizens. Throughout history, times have arisen where an officer has acted out of the law. Body cameras can ensure that officers acting unlawful are punished for their wrongdoings. (The Police Foundation) A a result, this can assure citizens that they are not the only ones being punished for acting out of the law. Officers and citizens will also be more likely to act within the law, knowing that they are on camera. (Weisburg) In response, studies have shown, that citizens have developed comfort towards officers equipped with body cameras. (Fullerton Police Department) This new found trust has the ability to change the mentality of a community in an affirmative manner. (Mims) This alone could help revive a community such as Ferguson, that has been in shambles ever since Michael Brown was killed. In addition, Officer Drumond a highly respected officer at Sherwood said “I support body cameras and find it very comforting that everything I do is on camera”. (Weisburg) If body cameras can give officers a sense of comfort it can help improve their work ethic as well as keep them relaxed while on shift. This can lead to trust between officers and the community. Ultimately, body cameras have the ability to restore trust in a community as well as keeping both citizens and officers safe and acting within the law.

In some cases, the incidents were captured on camera and in other instances they weren’t. Body-worn cameras are the public’s popular choice to potentially be the solution to preventing officer-involved shootings. These devices can help by reducing police use-of-force, reducing citizen complaints against officers, increasing transparency and accountability, and increasing the likeliness of prosecution of guilty officers. There has been a lot of talk about implementing body-worn cameras in the media. In addition to the United States, there has been talk about their implementation in the United Kingdom as well. The College of Policing in England and Wales suggests that body-worn cameras will help to restore the public’s confidence in justice regarding police misconduct (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015). Despite these great promises, a lot more research needs to be done on body-worn

Police body cameras are becoming more common in major cities around the us, and are meant to lower aggression and complaints brought upon the department's. Though the cameras are only becoming a big topic there have been many studies and debates in whether or not the cameras should be mandatory for all departments. The main and most talked about disadvantage of the cameras is the questions it raises about privacy of cops and the public. On the other hand one of the upsides are how much they will help in court cases by lowering costs and time spent. When in court the cameras can either show is it is a case of police brutality or if the cop handled the situation properly.

Body cameras footage has proved valuable in the investigation into police misconduct. “Some police departments are doing themselves a disservice by not using body-worn cameras. Everyone around you is going to have a camera's so that everyone else can be able to tell their story better than someone who does not have these cameras”. For example, the student in south Carolina who was pull off her chair by a police officer, because she refused to give her phone. Other students, however, recorded the situation on their phone. They claimed that the student hit the police officer, which resulted in the officer removing her from her seat. However, the student who was pulled out of the chair said she only hit the police officer because he hit her. First, the police officer had been wearing a body camera it would have proved the actual events.

In recent years, the issue of law enforcement’s use of excessive force has led to the utilization of body cameras by various police departments. The utilization of body cameras are believed to have several benefits that includes reducing law enforcements utilization of excessive force, as well as, reducing complaints filed against officers. This would also assist in judicial claims filed against police departments. This allows transparency of police officers and can also assist in the image of officers if video evidence is available to back the claims of law enforcement. Unfortunately, there have been previous cases were it was found that law enforcement lied about a series of events. Video footage would lower false claims and could assist in regulating police misconduct (Drover & Ariel, 2015). The major issue that is presented with the utilization of body cameras is the amount it would take to equip every officer with a body camera. This could be seen as an investment compared to the amount of money that is paid out yearly in claims against law enforcement that were the result of the officer using what was perceived as excessive force.

Any footage that is on a body camera that records a crime happening at that very moment, can be used in a court as evidence against the suspect. In some cases, if there was no footage to be shown there would be little to no evidence to convict the person of the crime and the suspect may be set free. Erica Baum, author of “5 Pros and Cons of Police Wearing Body Cameras” gave a great example regarding a study that was done at the University of Cambridge. The study found that when police officers are wearing their body cameras, the police and as well as the suspect was fifty percent less likely to use any type of violence. Body cameras can prevent incidents like the Ferguson case, when an African American male died due to a police officer using superfluous force and the entire incident was caught on the officer’s body camera. Unfortunately, every citizen does not trust body cameras due to the limitations of when the police can turn the camera on and off. Thus, lacking the credibility of the body cameras and if they may be potentially tampered

I believe the cameras are useless in capturing an incident. Most of the time the image is obscured by being close to the suspect or knocked off during the use of force encounter. Rarely is the image captured from a witnessing officer’s perspective because most officers don’t just stand there doing nothing. It is an added responsibility and a very time consuming procedure that has little benefit but to satisfy the curious minds of those who want to see what happened and second guess the officers. Instead of getting back to the station and doing the report, officers are reviewing video from all officers involved, and that’s on every single incident that requires a report to be written, not just a use of force incident.

If used correctly body cameras can help in many ways.  BWC’s can greatly improve how police officers can be portrayed by the media.  Video evidence could show the whole story behind incidents and not just rely on “he said, she said” reports.  With a new way to record audio and video and have accurate information on what happens during confrontations it could reduce some of the negative stigmatism that has been