Sonoma County, Following A Global Trend: Article Analysis

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).

A Surveillance Society Summary According to “A Surveillance Society” By William E. Thompson there are camera everywhere, watching everything you do at all times. Cameras are found everywhere and are used by everyone, including the governments of the world who use it the most to track its citizens and potential threats

Now : Surveillance cameras in most buildings (operated by businesses), and in some public streets (operated by police) to prevent crime. Although most of these cameras are operated by private businesses instead

There has been a lot of talk lately in the news about police body cameras. Some people agree that body cameras should be used by all police officers, while others disagree and believe that they shouldn’t be used at all. There are some cons to having body cameras but all of the pros outweigh it. Police body cameras should be used in all towns no matter how small because the people will act less aggressive towards officers, they provide truthful evidence that cannot be altered with, and the videos can be stored so if something were to happen, they could be brought up and checked as sort of like a surveillance device.

Although the cameras keep track of people for most of their lifetime outside their homes, the surveillance is necessary to regulate citizens and prevent them from doing criminal activity. Cameras control a large part of people’s lives, with purpose “to enforce good laws... to track the government’s political enemies, to gather ammunition for blackmail, and so on,” (Volokh 9). Cameras do not watch everyday activities to observe where one needs to go, but they are there to examine the cities for thieves and vandals. While these cameras appear in almost every part of the city, and people are unaware of what information of theirs is being taken away, the government or city does not scrutinize and judge people for everything they do. Unless a recent crime has occurred and the police requires its usage to track down the suspect, only then would a footage be released for the public regarding the criminal. Otherwise, other trivial and personal information about where one goes is not revealed. Whether the information is recorded or not, it does not affect the normal citizens who live in the area who have done nothing

Dalton Martin Reed A1 English 12 12 November, 2015 Should Law Enforcement Officers 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

States are adding more cameras around the However, this is against the rights of the citizen. A police officer may not arrest a citizen unless he has probable cause of something suspicious happening. It is stated in

The presence of body cameras make the community that they are in a safer and better place. Body cams can make

With surveillance cameras, the number of crimes decreases. People will continue They are not going to solve the problem. It is one of the steps.” Although I agree with Al Shipp’s point, I cannot accept his overriding assumption that cameras are not going to solve the problem. Cameras don’t necessarily mean no crimes, they are still going to happen, more are just going to get caught. Some people can know they are on camera and still choose to break a law or commit a crime. My view, contrary to what Shipp is arguing is that these cameras are catching people and decreasing the number of crimes. There would not be many crimes caught without these cameras and would not be proof of knowing who committed the crime.

One such petition, has reached that mark. It asks the government to create a law that to require all “state, county, and local police, to wear a camera”, on duty (Mike Brown Law 2014, August 13). The petition argues that forcing officers to record their interactions with the public will deter things like police brutality, racial profiling, and abuse of power. They also argue that it will hold all parties accountable for their actions. Eliminating the he said/she said type of questions that can come out of police investigations. The cameras, which records both video and audio, will benefit citizens and the police force alike. On the citizen side of things, police tend to be less aggressive and more subdued when they know they are being watched. While police also benefit because they can prove that excessive force complaints are inaccurate and false. The benefits of body cameras include but are not limited to, less police related lawsuits, less unnecessary police violence, and more trust in police, these benefits far outweigh the

Furthermore, as opposed to popular belief, body cameras can not only lead citizens to act lawfully, they can also provide amenity for both officers and citizens. Throughout history, times have arisen where an officer has acted out of the law. Body cameras can ensure that officers acting unlawful are punished for their wrongdoings. (The Police Foundation) A a result, this can assure citizens that they are not the only ones being punished for acting out of the law. Officers and citizens will also be more likely to act within the law, knowing that they are on camera. (Weisburg) In response, studies have shown, that citizens have developed comfort towards officers equipped with body cameras. (Fullerton Police Department) This new found trust has the ability to change the mentality of a community in an affirmative manner. (Mims) This alone could help revive a community such as Ferguson, that has been in shambles ever since Michael Brown was killed. In addition, Officer Drumond a highly respected officer at Sherwood said “I support body cameras and find it very comforting that everything I do is on camera”. (Weisburg) If body cameras can give officers a sense of comfort it can help improve their work ethic as well as keep them relaxed while on shift. This can lead to trust between officers and the community. Ultimately, body cameras have the ability to restore trust in a community as well as keeping both citizens and officers safe and acting within the law.

Throughout his article, he discusses both sides of the issue. He begins by stating that many believe cameras are needed to maintain security in modern times. However, he also mentions that the cameras are expensive to acquire, maintain and that they are an invasion of privacy. Brasch mentions that with the cameras there is "less overtime paperwork from officers having to defend themselves or explain how a traffic stop happened in court" and that it keeps more people honest (2). Brasch then goes on to include information about a police department that got rid of the law enforcement cameras in their department due to the cost and maintenance. He also mentions a police department that will not install any cameras because they believe it is against individual rights. The author then goes on to include that the cameras would help clear up situations that are difficult to understand such as police-officer related deaths. Other opinions believe the cameras would not help clear up the controversy caused when there is shooting incidents. The author concludes that although cameras have pros and cons not all problems can be solved with them. This article is very informative to read when one wants to be informed about law enforcement cameras. Brasch provides support for each point he makes on both sides of the argument. He also maintains a neutral tone in his writing, the only bias coming from the quotes he takes from sources. However, Brasch does not elaborate long on the opinion that cameras invade privacy. This is a weakness for his article since the opinion can easily be disproved by looking to other sources for information. The article "Public Video Surveillance: Is It An Effective Crime Prevention Tool?" by Marcus Nieto states that the cameras "surveillance is physically

Government surveillance may be helpful when it comes to catching criminals and detecting crime, but what harm can it do to those not in the wrong? All citizens have a right to privacy, I believe many of us will agree with such a statement. Unjust Government surveillance takes this away without the knowledge or the consent of the innocent victims.

Possibly the technological feature creating the most controversy is surveillance cameras. What is seemingly there for public safety could also inhibit safety by exposing the public’s private life. Every move made under the hawk-like vision of the camera is observed and judged by someone sitting behind the scenes. Women risk being stalked by sexual predators, and assailants have been known to memorize the schedule of a subject in order to time the perfect attack (Stead). “Bad cops” may gain insight to a personal life that allows for the watcher to blackmail the victim. In recent studies it has been proven that an increase in surveillance cameras does not decrease the crime rate; it

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