Over the last few years there has been much controversy leading up to the need for law enforcement officers to wear body cameras. This is not only for citizens but also for the officers’ protection. With so much debate regarding police brutality and excessive force body cameras are quickly on the rise. New technology is giving police on a state and federal level a new opportunity to cut back on some of the allegations and negativity we have seen in the last few years. On the other hand it is giving citizens all over the country the safety they should feel when being approached by law enforcement. Our technology has improved significantly over the years and this seems to be something that will benefit everyone.
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
There is so much crime which occurs in our society today, which it is very difficult to put an end to it. But there is a thing which is common among these crimes which are the criminals. According to the article, "Police body Cams: Solution or scam? Nwanevu the author has stated many questions to which he gathers the responses from three panels who is Mariame Kaba a member of the Chicago antipolice violence organization, David Fleck a vice president and he is also a major manufacturer of the police body cameras, and Connor Boyack who is a president of Utah 's Liberates Institute. This article mentions the popular magazine such as Time magazine, this magazine reports that over a quarter of the country 's police departments are already testing or actively using cameras, including the NYPD and the LAPD (Nwanevu, 2015). Also the author Nwanevu states that The Obama administration has called for the federal funding to support the deployment of as many as 50,000 devices to state and local law enforcement agencies. The administration 's reasoning captures the perspective of most camera supporters. According to the status the usage by police officers will help sustain trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they interact with (Nwanevu, 2015). Reformers have suggested that the video could have gone a long way towards resolving the ambiguities of the Michael Brown case where eyewitnesses had given conflicting stories and also the death of Eric Garner according to
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
Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed on August 2014, by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, in Ferguson, Mo. Brown, an 18-year-old African-American was fatally shot and killed in the street shortly after robbing a convenience store. The disputed circumstances of the shooting of the unarmed young man sparked existing tensions in the majority-black community and law enforcements in Ferguson, Mo. The event received considerable attention in the U.S. and elsewhere, attracted protesters from outside the region, and generated a powerful debate about the relationship between law enforcement and African Americans and the police use of excessive force. The shooting prompted protests that shaken the area for weeks. The announcement of the grand jury that they decided not to indict Mr. Wilson set off another wave of protests. Many police officers have defended Wilson, pointing out that officers patrolling violent neighborhoods risk their lives, while demonstrators saw the case in terms of racism and police brutality. However, Brown’s killing and the following events in Ferguson became a national controversy touching on much larger national issues of race, justice, and police brutality. While the specifics of the Brown shooting involved is not clear, the situation would have been dramatically different had Wilson worn body camera which would have recorded the actual event. With new body camera technology
From examining the past, we can understand why certain rules and regulations have been put into place. For example, body cameras are now being required based off of events that have taken place in the past. The police shootings against African American males has brought much attention to police violence and the need for body cameras. Because of the past shootings, police officers across the nation are now required by law to wear body cameras while on duty. Another event that can be related to this subject is the right to drive your vehicle in front of certain buildings. Because of past bombings, as well as shootings, you prohibited by law from driving your vehicle in front of particular buildings such as, the White House and Capitol. These
Only five states in America have laws that require the use of body cameras. In addition, there are six states that have eavesdropping laws in place in relation to government officials. Lastly, there are eighteen states and the District of Columbia that have legislated how body-worn camera data is addressed under open record laws (“Body-Worn Camera Funding”). In recent years, the discussion of how states should regulate the use of body cameras and the ethics of body cameras as an moral solution to police brutality has spiked due to the easier access to smart phones and the greater publication of altercations between police and civilians. These discussions have lead this topic to ultimately become a controversy across America.
The main purpose of putting cameras on police officers is to provide accountability for actions by the police and suspects. Holding police officers accountable for misconduct will help rebuild crumbling public trust in law enforcement. Cases of excessive use of force can be reviewed from video evidence instead of the account of the officer, who may attempt to protect himself, or witnesses, who may have the complete unfolding of events or have a bias against law enforcement. The shooting of Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson was one of many police use-of-force cases that sparked protests against the law enforcement, citing seemingly racist conduct by the Ferguson Police Department.
document link Abstract: Liability-conscious city attorneys say the cameras could help in lawsuits; rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say police accountability will be bolstered by another layer of public documentation; and the Justice Department, surveying 63 police departments that were using body cameras and many others that were not, concluded in a report this month that the technology had the potential to "promote the perceived legitimacy and sense of procedural justice" in interactions between the public and law enforcement. Links: Linking Service Full text: PULLMAN, Wash. -- Amateur videos of police officers doing their jobs have
Police body cameras are controversial. There are people that agree with it and some that do not. This paper will discuss the pros and cons of police officers using body cameras.And the legal implications and functionality of the police body cameras. It will also discuss the history and show scientific research that shows how it can be helpful to our society.
Every sector within all the economies has felt and continued to feel the influence of technology advancement and changes. Technological change is currently inevitable in every sector. Organizations and government agencies have to embrace it so as one of the way to promote success. Where organizations are reluctant to embrace technological change, they should be prepared to deal with the negative effects that may result from failure to use technology. Law enforcement agencies such as police and military have no choice but exploit technology so as to prevent as well as deal with crime. This paper will explore how the use of cameras surveillance by police continues influence mixed reactions within from different people.