Red Light Cameras Research Paper

A career in front of the camera is the dream job for numerous Americas. Little do they know they may have already been on camera. Every day people in the United States of America are caught in the lens of law enforcement cameras. These cameras sound nefarious due to their constant watching of people. However, law enforcement cameras are anything but nefarious as their intent is to stop actions that may rightly be deemed nefarious. The cameras the law enforcement use may be on the street, a member of the law enforcement, a police car or a traffic light. With all the cameras, their purpose is for the good of the people and to enforce laws. However, there is controversy surrounding the usage of the law enforcement cameras due to how some people

With the increasing emergence of traffic cameras around the nation, there has emerged a debate about whether the cameras are effectively functioning to keep drivers safe or whether they are just another source of revenue for cites. Facts have proven that the purpose for the traffic cameras is simply generating more money for the cities. The estimated amount of money that the city of Denver will be making in 2011 from these cameras (Kaminsky)—excluding the ones recently put up—a grand estimation total of seven million dollars… “According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety more than 550 communities in the United States use red light cameras.” (Urie) Research shows how the cameras are not improving safety for drivers, and for

However, this method of traffic enforcement is not without its drawbacks. Intersection monitoring with RLCs is not acceptable because they increase rear end collisions, suffer legal uncertainties, and effective alternative methods are available.

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.

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).

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.

The individuals with wide diversity have different requirements. They are facing many difficulties due to this management system. 2 Among them, the Red Light camera is one most controversial issue of the local and state governments. The controversy of the red light camera between local and state government was started from early 2000’s and is still continuing. Similarly, the committee of Texas voted 8 out of 22 approving a bill to ban the authorization of Red Light’s contract. Likewise, the major controversial topic in Austin and Dallas is about the Red light camera. In addition, the main purpose of keeping Red Light camera was to prevent the possible road accident. But the Red Light camera didn’t provide the strong witness in identifying the drivers. Therefore, the State government didn’t find it

There is no doubt that red-light cameras have gained increasing popularity among local municipalities following Florida’s 2010 decision allowing local governments to install them. The city of Lakeland elected to install nine additional cameras in just the past three years alone (Dunkelberger). Revenue and citations are not the only things that red-light cameras are generating; more and more citizens and legislators are sparking the news and interest of the media regarding the constitutionality of red-light cameras. Last year Hernando County Judge, Donald E. Scaglione, issued a statement calling the laws surrounding red-light camera violations "vague (and) arbitrary and capricious." While red light camera supporters argue that the cameras make intersections much safer, others insist that constitutional rights are being blatantly violated by state and local government. Most Americans agree that intersections and roadways need to be made safer, but at what cost?

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

Some of the ways that police abuse the law is by creating unneeded tickets, wrongfully taking others possessions and using excessive force, usually referred to as “police brutality.” In some cases, allegations of police brutality are false; however, some officers use unnecessary force and innocent people suffer. In America, there are numerous cases of law enforcers that harass innocent citizens physically, mentally or verbally. Police men and women are supposed to prevent crime, not create it. “One of the main reasons that police brutality occurs is due to the mental, as well as physical, health of the officer. One of the underlying causes of these syndromes or states of being is the lack of wages, which is brought on by less funding to the police” (Cao). Dashboard cameras are one attempt to help stop police abuse but they are easily able to be removed and turned off and are under the control of the officer. If the officer did abuse somebody he could erase the footage on the camera before he even got back to the department. A new, better, solution is mounting Point of View (P.O.V.) cameras on the officers with a live feed leading to one central computer in charge of monitoring these cameras. Daniel B Wood, a professor at the University of Texas A&M, stated in the article “Why The Police Are Hard To Police,” “Mounting cameras on a police officer through federal funding will lower the amount of criminals that were not convicted because of a lack of

In the high-tech age we live in, and where the use of smart phones can capture and record live actions and moments, many of these moments are now being captured by on-duty police officers who are using body mounted cameras to record incidents as they occur. The cameras, that these officers are utilizing, are small devices that are no more than two inches long and can be easily installed onto the officer’s glasses. The recording device is then attached to the officer’s uniform and is placed in an obscured location. The use of these body cameras are still under scrutiny but are quickly becoming standard uniform equipment in law enforcement departments throughout the United States.

I could not people that believe actually have to question if it has something to do with their rights. People want to point the fingers at the government so bad. When really it does not work like that. The government and state have those red light cameras so that they can protect people. I think that they handle it very well. Some people will agree with the lights and some people will disagree it just all up to the individual and their point of view on things. Of course some people will wonder where the money goes when they pay the ticket that is no surprise for me. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety website, most, if not all, of the fines collected go to maintaining and purchasing the camera. Defense attorneys who handle traffic violations assert the part of the revenue from the camera that exceeds the cost of maintenance, is required to go to local traffic safety programs and a regional trauma account. Just like when you get a speeding ticket you do not really question where the money goes you have to just pay the ticket and where ever it goes it just goes. I think that they handle the

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

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”

Cops wearing cameras might seem like the perfect idea, for all the logical reasons: The cameras have the potential to increase accountability, reduce complaints, and increase positive police and citizen interactions. However a lot of the assumptions about body-worn cameras are not true and there are some negative unattended side effects of body-worn cameras. Academics of Criminal Justice, at various universities and government organizations have recently studied body cameras, and have identified the misconceptions and potential consequences of having police use body-cams. If police departments in the United States are going to adopt the technology, then both law enforcement, government, citizens