Police Officers And The Police Officer

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.

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

Body cameras will prevent officers from using to much unneeded force. In the "SIRS DATABASE--At Issue: Police and Body Cameras" it states that. "In the past several years, wearable video cameras for police officers have also been issued as standard

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

From the article, “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality,” author Adam Schiff writes that a “study conducted of the Rialto, California, police department found that shifts without cameras experienced twice as many use-of-force incidents as shifts using the cameras.” Police officers without cameras have had more forceful encounters, but when police do have the cameras on, they know that if they use excessive force, it will be recorded. For instance, in the article, “Body Cameras Will Stop Police Brutality,” Adam Schiff states from the same Rialto, California study, “with half of the police department wearing cameras recording each interaction with the public, the department experienced an 88 percent reduction in complaints against officers.” When body cameras are worn, it demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability to help de-escalate potential tense interactions. A person that sees a police officer with a camera could pick out that they don’t intend to inflict harm unless you are actually a criminal. People on the streets won’t be afraid of police officers if they had specific boundaries like the cameras, which when citizens on the street see cameras on officers, they won’t be fearful of the

a) In a 2012 study, it was found that officers that were required to wear cameras while on the job were more cautious and their use of excessive force fell by 60 percent, while public complaints dropped by 88 percent. (Rory Carroll, 2013)

In 2002 alone, large state and local law enforcement agencies, those with 100 or more officers, received more than 26,000 citizen complaints about officers’ use of force. Among those complaints only eight percent had sufficient evidence of the allegation to justify disciplinary action against the subject officer (U.S. Department of Justice). These incidents occur frequently but what truly happens is never very clear. Witness reports don’t hold up with evidence, the victim has their recollection of what happened and the police officer has another. There is no concrete way to hold police accountable for their actions unless there is hard evidence to prove them guilty. This allows officers to use excessive force and not face any penalization from their department or in court.

The psychologist serves a great purpose in the law enforcement as well. The police psychologists provide services that are used to counter police use of excessive force. The psychologists are there to characterize the types of officers who are known to abuse force and to recommend psychology-based intervention that could help police managers reduce cases of excessive force. Some think that the police departments should rely mostly on pre employment screening to identify violence-prone candidates.