Police Body Cameras Myths

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Body cameras are proven to make policemen act better while they’re are on duty. “Police officers "tend to behave a little better"(Kon, Body Cameras for Police Officers). if they know their behavior is being recorded on camera” stated author Tsin Yen Kon. Police will act better cause they know they are being “watched”. Just like when a student has a parent to sit in their class, they act very well, police do the same. Police will also act right, because they don’t want to lose their jobs or get fired because some careless mistake that they made while on camera. “When police officers are acutely aware that their behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras), and when officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better” (Knickerbocker). Brad Knickerbocker, the author, explains how both sides of the camera, police, and criminal will have an effect on their behavior because they know that they are being watched, and recorded. When people know they are being watched, it is like they get scared, because they don't want anything to be used against them. Although cameras will make police act better, people will still think that police brutality will still happen.

Historically speaking, authorities of the law were never in a position where their professional duties and their character as a public servant of the law were demeaned in a way that there needs to be constant surveillance of them and the people whom they come into contact with. There was never a need of documenting every encounter you had with a civilian before. In this day in age, things have certainly changed, and the past has always been something society likes to change and make better even if it raises concerns. Due to all the violent police stories that has surfaced in the past decade, the idea of having police officers wear video cameras as a part of their uniform while on duty has resulted in a radically divergent account of society’s future. The law may uphold cops to wear cameras while working, but is this really the best decision? This topic is very controversial and may create issues with cops and the civilians they try and protect in the future.

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.

For the past several years the push for police to wear body cameras has greatly increased. Body cameras are small video and audio recorders that can be worn by police officers to capture all encounters the officers have with citizens. Large cities and counties across the nation have been testing body cameras among several police departments to see if they can actually improve the way police and citizens interact with one another. Over the course of the past several years evidence has shown that the tests seem to be rather successful. Evidence has proved that in many cases the body cameras have made a significant impact on how some police officers deal with certain situations and behave toward citizens. Even the citizens who know they are being recorded have either changed the way they interact with the police or will not make false accusations or false complaints toward officers. In Rialto, California in 2012, the test of body cameras showed a decrease in officers using force and complaints of police brutality (BloombergView). When officers are aware that they are on camera they tend to follow the rules more. The same can be said about citizens, when the officers tell them they are being recorded, they change their behavior and sometimes begin to act more rational. Currently, the relationship between the police and citizens is rough. Citizens have trust issues with many officers, and officers are now scared that they may become targets of police hatred. Hopefully, with the

August 9th, 2014 is a day that will live on in infamy in the United States and the law enforcement community. On this day in Ferguson, Missouri, a member of the Ferguson Police Department, Officer Daren Wilson, shot and killed Michael Brown. From all accounts of the investigation at this time, Michael Brown was unarmed and had been stopped by Officer Wilson due to walking in the middle of the street (jaywalking). What happened next is in dispute and shocked the conscious of America. While investigators are still trying to answer the question as to what caused this tragic event to take place and evidence is being presented to a grand jury; a secondary discussion has emerged. Should all law enforcement agencies be required to purchase body-worn cameras for their officers to wear? Are body-worn cameras a good idea or will this help to create an Orwellian environment? Will body-worn cameras increase transparency for the law enforcement community or will it create a greater divide?

Among the police officials whose agencies use body-worn cameras, there is a general view that the body-worn cameras provide a valuable tool for law enforcement. For these agencies, the alleged benefits that body-worn cameras offer such as capturing a video recording of critical incidents and encounters with the public, reinforcing police liability, and providing an indispensable type of evidence, basically offset the possible disadvantages.

Are the police body cameras going to keep the officers that patrol our streets honest when dealing with public (Barak&Farrar&Sutherland, 2015)? The officers that are working the high drug areas and the high crime areas when they do encounter an issue are the officers going to be in fear responding to these actions. The cameras have some good and bad qualities. They will show the actions officers take when they respond to a radio call for help.

Throughout the pass 100 years America has experienced an ample amount of growth pertaining to its maturity, both socially and technologically. Even though we are a rapidly developing country that is becoming greater every day; we still have some major flaws that need attention. As cellphones and cameras become more prevalent in today’s society, so do people being exposed through these devices. Most notable being controversial activity and retaliations by police officers. These powerful people that were once considered the protector of the common citizen are now being criticized for doing the exact opposite of protecting. Often there are videos of potential police brutality that go viral and cause riots and eruption throughout the country. The only problem is we’re not seeing both parties’ perspectives and what better way to fix than adding body cameras to police officers?

Polices wearing body cameras is very important for society today, not just for the United States but also a cross the world. Today all the new covered about law enforcement is just negatively and it comes with video showing police officers interacting with citizens. (Lina Park personal interview), said that she visited Vietnam and China in 2014, while on her car traveling from city to city’s, her vehicle was stopped by the police in both countries. They noticed her as a visitor and a citizen of the United States; and they assumed that she would have some money and would probably slip some cash under her car registration. They kept her there for about an hour or so, making issues with her driver license, saying that she is not allow to drive with United State license in their countries, she knew something was up. Park and her friends had their smartphones out, recording the conversations between the officers and themselves. She said that his mood changed after she had the camera on, and the officers let them go nicely and did not make any more problems. This isn’t just happens in some foreign country, it also is happening in the United States. (Journalist’s resource Pra 5) from Justin and Jacob Young of Arizona State University had shown officer worn body cameras making less arrests then officer who did not wear cameras, “Officer assigned to wear cameras issued 23.1% more citations for ordinance violations than those who did not