The Pros And Cons Of Body Cameras

As a further result of the strained relationship between law enforcement and the general population debate about the potential use of police worn body camera’s erupted not only in the United States but across the globe including

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

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.

Police body worn cameras are recording devices used by the officers when they are on patrol, which are used for the deterrence of excessive use of force (Ariel et al. 510). The body cameras present a different frontier in the prevention of excessive force since they record the real images the police are watching. The devices are now advocated as useful tools for policing the force. The Department of Internal Affairs often relies on its footage to understand the circumstances surrounding the usage of the excessive force or a complaint on the police behavior. The tools, which are an extension of dashboard cameras, are often worn on the chest and can present the point of view of the officer as they are patrolling or tacking a criminal.

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

When police officers wear body cameras, less complaints are filed, use-of-force situations decrease, and training opportunities are gained. In 2012

Police body cameras are becoming more common in major cities around the us, and are meant to lower aggression and complaints brought upon the department's. Though the cameras are only becoming a big topic there have been many studies and debates in whether or not the cameras should be mandatory for all departments. The main and most talked about disadvantage of the cameras is the questions it raises about privacy of cops and the public. On the other hand one of the upsides are how much they will help in court cases by lowering costs and time spent. When in court the cameras can either show is it is a case of police brutality or if the cop handled the situation properly.

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

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.

“The San Diego Police Department says that since officers began wearing body cameras nearly three years ago, there have been significant decreases in misconduct allegations and high-level uses of force” (Garrick 1). Along with reducing use of high level force by 16.4% (Garrick 1), body cameras can help prevent serious crime from happening or creating excessive tension. As Rachel Idowu said, “At some point, Boston could have a Ferguson [a killing at the hands of police]. Let’s put the cameras on to prevent that from happening. Rather than be reactive, let’s be proactive” (Marcelo 2). Body cameras also help maintain order by reducing the number of allegations made. According to a report done in San Diego, misconduct allegations decreased by 43.1% from 2013 to 2016 and more serious allegations went down 47.4 %. (Garrick 1). All of these factors are due to police body cameras, which help maintain order in

Several studies, such as those done by Barak Ariel, et al. have demonstrated a very strong connection between the use of body-worn cameras and reduction of complaints (Ariel et al., “The Effect”) (Ariel, et al., “Contagious...”). There is also an argument to be made for the relationship between the police and their communities. If the departments invest in things that make the public feel safer, such as body-worn cameras, then they will in turn be safer, as their communities will not feel threatened by their presence, but protected.

For the past several years the push for police to wear body cameras has greatly increased. Body cameras are small video and audio recorders that can be worn by police officers to capture all encounters the officers have with citizens. Large cities and counties across the nation have been testing body cameras among several police departments to see if they can actually improve the way police and citizens interact with one another. Over the course of the past several years evidence has shown that the tests seem to be rather successful. Evidence has proved that in many cases the body cameras have made a significant impact on how some police officers deal with certain situations and behave toward citizens. Even the citizens who know they are being recorded have either changed the way they interact with the police or will not make false accusations or false complaints toward officers. In Rialto, California in 2012, the test of body cameras showed a decrease in officers using force and complaints of police brutality (BloombergView). When officers are aware that they are on camera they tend to follow the rules more. The same can be said about citizens, when the officers tell them they are being recorded, they change their behavior and sometimes begin to act more rational. Currently, the relationship between the police and citizens is rough. Citizens have trust issues with many officers, and officers are now scared that they may become targets of police hatred. Hopefully, with the

In some cases, the incidents were captured on camera and in other instances they weren’t. Body-worn cameras are the public’s popular choice to potentially be the solution to preventing officer-involved shootings. These devices can help by reducing police use-of-force, reducing citizen complaints against officers, increasing transparency and accountability, and increasing the likeliness of prosecution of guilty officers. There has been a lot of talk about implementing body-worn cameras in the media. In addition to the United States, there has been talk about their implementation in the United Kingdom as well. The College of Policing in England and Wales suggests that body-worn cameras will help to restore the public’s confidence in justice regarding police misconduct (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015). Despite these great promises, a lot more research needs to be done on body-worn

Excessive force from police officers has been a concern for many areas in the U.S. in recent years, resulting in protests and unnecessary deaths. A handful of incidents in places such as Ferguson and Baltimore have left many in America distrustful of law enforcement procedures and how some officers handle potentially dangerous situations. One solution proposed to this issue is to equip police officers with body cameras to record the actions of officers. Frank Scalise, author of his book on police body cameras, explains, “Body worn video in a police environment is a relatively new technology. Because of the great potential value in its use, both police agencies and communities are exploring implementing programs.” This idea can seem perfect at first, but others have concerns. Some argue that there are no formal policies for these cameras, and many are concerned with how expensive they are. However, if these challenges can be overcome, the potential benefits of police body cameras are significant in the areas of gathering accurate evidence at crime scenes, resolving the expenses of public complaints, improving officer training, and reforming the way officers act towards citizens.

Body cameras are attached to an officer’s uniform and, although it isn’t a popular solution, the results so far are promising. There are concerns involving privacy of officers and civilians, but this should be overcome considering this involves the lives of thousands of Americans who are victims of police brutality every year. One particular study highlights the outcome of body cameras, “In particular, a year after the Rialto, California, police department began requiring all officers to wear body cameras, use of force by officers fell by 60% and citizen complaints dropped by nearly 90%” (“Excessive or reasonable force by police?” 6). Although price is a concern, the effects clearly pay themselves off in the long-term. The advancing technology has also been able to capture cases of police misconduct, for example the case of Eric Garner, who was captured on camera being tackled, choked, and then killed by officers despite his repeated cry of “I can’t breathe.” This was highlighted in the article, “Police Misconduct,” where it is stated that police and cellphone cameras have helped officers keep themselves in-check by strengthening their accountability (“Police Misconduct” 2). The officers who attacked Garner then had to take responsibility for their actions, and were punished. Body cameras remove some of the immunity that officers have, and they’re no longer above the law. Also, on the part of the citizens, body cameras help to strengthen their accountability as well. In the use of body cameras, citizens behave better, officers behave better, and citizens are less likely to file petty complaints against officers with cameras (“Excessive or reasonable force by police?” 6). The idea of body cameras is beneficial on both sides, and if implemented around the country could preserve the well-being of