Police Body Cameras Should Reduce Police Misconduct

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.

To peep or not to peep, that is the question being asked by many regarding police body cameras in communities. The topic of police brutality is a rising issue in today’s society. Several questions have arose over the use of police body cameras and whether they are a good or bad idea. Police body cameras have has a variety of concern to many communities regarding their potential. Every city has a different trust and relationship for their police force and these concerns vary depending on the community. People have the concern regarding privacy, protection, and impact on the community and more. After researching the problems caused by Police body cameras as well as its background, the current state of the issue, and the potential solutions, it is clear that communities need to bring a solution to this situation.Such as laws, policies, rules, and more to control this new information.

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

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

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).

One widely accepted idea is that body cameras for police to wear will help to observe what actually happens in traffic stops with police and serve justice to civilians and police officers. According to the article, “Should Police Wear Body Cameras?”, in May of 2015 the Obama administration started a $75 million dollar program to test how effective body cameras are, with hopes to give out 50,000 body cameras in 2018 to police officers (Majerol 6). Body cameras is a solution that is extremely considered and is already taking some effect. Moreover, research shows that body cameras can keep tense police encounters calm, help behavior of both the officer and civilian, and the footage that comes from the cameras can serve as evidence ( “Should Police Wear” 7). Research proves that body cameras can have an effect on police brutality and will help fix the issue. However, there are other techniques that can possibly help fix the issue such as training. “An officer also needs training on dealing with community members in nonthreatening ways and better communication skills” ( “Police Need Better” 1). Training will help officers work on making police encounters less tense and make sure excessive force is not a go to. Lastly, according to analysts, changing hiring practices in the law enforcement could make sure that unbiased officers that are focused on being close to all communities could help lower the amount of police brutality cases (“Police Need Better” 2). If police departments really focused on an officer’s beliefs involving the topics of race or religion, officers that are not willing to be fair to all would not be hired and in turn prevent more police brutality cases from happening. To conclude, officers wearing body cameras and police departments changing hiring practices could help stop more police brutality cases from

Does the body camera decline police brutality? Are body cameras more effective in urban or rural areas? Could these cameras decline corruption in policing? These are a few of countless questions that might be brought up about this newly relevant issue. Without even undertaking exploration on this subject you could question a sample of individuals these burning questions. I think that they would agree that it is a necessary evil when dealing with criminals. It’s logical to assume that your every move is being documented and you are theoretically always being “watched”, in saying that one will in turn do their career to the best of their capabilities. Its elementary science that the independent variable being the camera. The dependent variable is the logged evidence which is

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

Having body cameras eliminates or reduces the chances of officers using excessive force. Many cases involving excessive force

Stories of presumed police misconduct have been surfacing in America in the last couple of years, sparking many debates and speculations on the true causes of these situations. Many blame the officers in these encounters, forcing them to face repercussions for crimes they did not commit. Alternatively, in some situations, the officer is guilty, but public outcries in favor of the police protect them from any consequences. Regardless of the situation, there is a great bias concerning law enforcement in this country. Recently, people have begun advocating for body cameras on police officers to provide the public with accurate records of all police encounters so that no false claims could be made against the officers. Body cameras on policemen should be necessary for the safety and comfort of our citizens, as well as for our officers, for regaining the public’s trust, and for maintaining an honest law enforcement system.

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 community will feel more trustful towards the police and the work they do if they have the body cameras that can support their work. The police department in Rialto, California has received 88 percent less complaints since using body cameras than those not using body cameras (Police Body).

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.