The Importance Of Recording A Police Officer In Prison

In the aftermath of the Rodney king beating a lot of things changed with police on the field. “In the wake of the Rodney king case; cameras became standard equipment in patrol cars all over the nation” (Marcou). In doing this police now cannot cover up an incident that they were a part of. “As far as citizens recording police, there is still much disagreement about how it should be handled” (Marcou). Nowhere in the constitution does it say the citizens cannot film stuff that is happening outside their house. “When it comes to training, officers are told “have your camera going at all times. A professional police officer has nothing to fear from being recorded and always act as if you are being recorded, because in today’s world you probably are” (Marcou). Thanks to cases like Rodney Kings, law enforcement is much more aware of misuse of force in the field.

recording device to an officer’s person, society is able to cut out human bias, and reveal the true

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.

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.

In todays society, American citizens are unpleased with the law enforcement officers. These officers are here protecting the people of America, and to get the people doing the wrong things off the street so the rest of the people can be safe. In the past few months, there have been shootings of American citizens, and shootings of law enforcement officers. The people of society are only seeing the bad side of police officers, and never understand the whole story when needed to be heard. As the internet continues to expand, the promises it makes is beyond human understanding (Carr 56). The internet and television are the most complex form of technology, and only portray the bad side of cops. “The idea of multimedia is to combine text, sound, and pictures in a single package that you browse on screen” (Gelernter 97). The idea of body cameras put in the uniforms of the law enforcement officers has been talked about, so that everyone can see the exact truth of the situation. The idea of body cameras for the law enforcement officers has it benefits and drawbacks. I think having the body cameras will greatly benefit the law enforcement officers in society today and in the future.

With today’s advanced technology, police body cameras have proven to be very useful. They are crucial in putting an end to unnecessary police misconduct. In 2012, the Rialto Police Department in California implemented police body cameras and recorded the outcome. The results showed that “the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period” (Lovett). Without a doubt, police body cameras do the trick to prevent potentially dangerous situations from occurring. As William A. Farrar, the Rialto police chief once stated, “When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better. And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.” I strongly agree with this statement because if the interaction between the officer and the citizen is being recorded, neither of the two will want to behave badly. The citizen knows that their bad behavior could result in consequences and the officer knows that their misconduct could result in punishment or even the loss of their job. The cameras record every detail that can be looked back on if there was a complaint filed against the officer that was wearing it. Clearly, police body

Because of the tender emotions attached to the deaths of people I custody, the violation of rights alleged to some police officers, or officer abuse by citizens these strategies pose some social risk. Police officers may not have access to a full range of social acceptance in some instances just because of the inflation attached to the events in other areas of the country. If the policy department publicly decides to speak ill of a policy to record all police interactions for any logical reason, there may be public backlash and labelling toward the Tempe police and those who support them. Theories abound in the media about the police supporting each other even when violating the law. Even though the Tempe police use body and dash cameras, rejecting more monitoring could seem suspicious to the public.

Even though every police department are planning to have cameras on each officer by the summer of 2017, it is a lofty goal. Another disadvantage is that the cameras will show more than just facts. In the article, “Police Body Camera Show More Than Just the Facts” written by Eileen Sullivan, a Seattle man was arrested in January and though he has yet to be charged with an offence, his arrest was captured on the police officer's body camera along with his full name, phone number, and birthdate. Additionally, there is another issue that comes into question such as police officers failing to

A big controversy now a day is with police brutality. There are hundreds of people dying each day due to some association with police officers. This position is not necessarily about who’s side to pick, it’s about the use of body cameras on police officers. These cameras would solve a lot of stories of he said she said. Especially with all the hate going around these days. People could be lying about certain incidents and the world may never know because there is no footage between the bystander and the officer face to face.

One potential problem lies in the ability to tamper with the recording equipment. If an officer has access to turn the camera on and off, the potential exists to essentially “edit out” unwanted portions of the encounter by turning the camera off. The same holds true for cell phones. With the ability to edit videos online, a person that wishes to show the “victim” in the most positive light edits out anything that would throw a negative light on the victim’s actions. Also, the angle of the video can vastly affect the perception of the viewer. How many times has a video surfaced in the media depicting the negative aspects of an encounter? Then, at a later date, a complete copy of the video or a video from a different angle surfaces and reveals that what was originally thought to be an episode of unwarranted use of force turns out to be a volatile encounter where the officer’s safety was at risk. Additionally, when the media highlights negative videos of police encounters, it raises citizens’ distrust of officers in general, regardless as to whether their local department was involved or not. This increased level of distrust, particularly in minority communities, can serve to heighten an officer’s unease about entering the community, even when responding to a call for service. This distrust increases tension between the officer and the community which can

Today, police discretion is a very important aspect to the criminal justice field. There are different substances where discretion is not discipline enough or not monitored enough even though having discretion is not always bad. There are still ways to abuse it and today police officers have their own way of using police discretion for different situations. Discretion can be defined as someone having the power or authority to make a decision based on what they feel should be done in a certain situation. Police officers are taught how to handle certain situations according the law. But when the officer is on duty no one is there to make sure that they are making the right decisions that follow the law and according to the law, there are not set guidelines in the law for police discretion which give the police officer an advantage. Discretion is used by police officers when they are facing a decision with a bunch of results that could handle the situation but the officer has control to pick which result they would want to choose.

These cameras have the capacity to capture audio and video recordings when an officer encounters an individual who is assumed has broken the law. The BWC has brought up national attention in which its purpose is to improve policing as well as improve citizen and police relations and reduces police use of force. This program is not just only happening in New York City but has spread across the country. However, BWC does have its pros and cons like cost, right to privacy concerns, and safety for the citizen as well as for the officer. BWC policies have to be fair and practical in understanding and legal. When implementing such policy it must be transparent for officers understand the purposed of the policy and the goals of

“If officer and citizens are being watched, we are both more liable to do the right thing” (Josh). If a police pulled you over and you noticed a camera on them, would it change your future actions? Many people say it would, and I agree. People tend to change their attitude and whole demeanor if they know they are being videoed or watched. That is why I think police officers should be forced to wear a body camera at all times while at work.

Hello LaJuanda! I agree with you on the fact that the majority of citizens are private in their lives, and being in the wrong place at the wrong time could result in them being recorded during a police encounter. When I worked patrol, I was always cognizant of the fact that people are being recorded during an embarrassing and low point in their life, especially if they were being arrested. I also used that to my advantage because I knew what they were saying was being recorded and will be used as evidence down the road. It also stayed in the back of my mind that my actions were being recorded as well and would definitely be used against me if they came into question. I have several letters that were sent to me from people that I arrested

In the first part of the following essay I will be analysing the Police Statement and the reasons that the Jurat has to be included in a statement. I will be making reference to current legislation, NSWPF operational guidance and other reference material contained within the 201415 PPP232 Interact Site.