Police Enforcement Agents Should Wear Body Cameras

There has been some debate on the matter of whether or not law enforcement officials should wear body cameras or not. Law enforcement officers should wear body-worn cameras because it will help the officers while on patrol and the offender while being arrested or stopped. This topic has been debated for a long period of time. It really came to light when Michael Brown, an 18 year old african american boy, was shot and killed in August of 2014 by Officer Wilson, in Ferguson, Missouri.

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

Police officers should have to be required to wear body cameras to ensure the safety of the citizens and to provide evidence for a court case. Many times the police have gotten away with too many things and commit crimes that go unnoticed It’s time we put a stop to that and we make a change. With the use of body cameras that police force would be more trustworthy, they wouldn’t commit crimes, and they would be able to supply the court with undisputable evidence.

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.

Today, law enforcement agencies, or more specifically police officers, are under constant scrutiny from their peers as well as outside sources. Many of these problems arise from how the police treat and deal with these citizens. There is however a solution to these problems, which can not only improve officer safety, but can also protect anyone else that the officer encounters. The solution to this problem is officer mounted camera systems, or better known as body cameras. These body cameras capture almost everything an officer see’s as well as hears. This allows for protection against a police officer as well as protection for a citizen who was scrutinized for something he or she might have done or not. Body cameras are ever increasing in policing and have many benefit’s as well as draw backs.

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

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).

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.

Body cameras on police officers in this day and age should be required for all departments. Body cameras should be worn to not only protect the officers but also the civilians that come into contact with police officers. It can give valuable information on what happened during an interaction between the public and law enforcement. This can protect the citizens from abuse by the police, as well as give necessary information into officer related shootings. All states should require their branches of law enforcement to require body cameras while on duty.

The body camera has become a popular choice amongst police departments worldwide. The situation of the scenario, and if the officer or suspect acted in the right can be determined from past footage. The cause of the body camera has been the allegations against officers for how they acted in certain situations, as well as for how the suspect acted during the callout. The effect has been officers being terminated due to lack of integrity or situational awareness, as well as officer safety. Suspects have also been convicted of false accusations against a police officer, as well as crimes presented in court, from fights, to officer involved shootings. The body worn camera has benefited both police officers and the general public.

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

Before the creation of these cameras, complaints about police officers were numerous. By using these cameras, studies have shown that they enhance officers’ behaviors and have also helped reduce citizen complaints. “They found that the ‘officers wearing the cameras had 87.5 percent fewer incidents of use of force and 59 percent fewer complaints than the officers not wearing the cameras,’ the report states”

Law enforcement has faced a lot of criticism regarding the relationship between the people with the inner communities. The change in law enforcement is now taking place in most departments across the country. In the next ten years the criminal justice system with implement body cameras for every officer. These cameras will change the face of law enforcement. First it will protect the officer from malicious prosecution for miss use of force. For example, the Michael Brown case in Ferguson Missouri involved a police shooting of an unarmed black male. In this case the officer use of deadly force was called into question, because some witnesses believed that the shooting was unlawful. Due to the lack of supportive evidence, it created an uproar

Good afternoons Ms. Harrel’s 6th period. Today I am going to inform you of the reason why police officers should wear body-cameras. I am taking a stand on the benefits of body cameras during a public police confrontation.