The Pros And Cons Of Body Cameras

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

The use of body cameras can provide insight to the officers not only to the public. Body Cameras show more evidence than dashboards because dashboards are in a patrol car which could be farther or closer to the problem. “Supports using them, and his administration has pledged millions of dollars to local departments”(Obama). If they use dashboards there will be no guarantee that the public will be able to see the footage. Sometimes you aren’t able

If police wore body cameras the people could see what goes on in their day, not just the ugly parts that the media shows. Police officers are just people like everyone else, but they have a job and that job isn’t the most appealing. But not all of them are evil. If they wore body cameras, we could see their interactions with other officers and the public. We associate the police with being pigs and bad people, but it’s

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

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).

There have been various situations in which police officers have been falsely accused. Obviously not all police officers are committing misconduct, so the ones that are not would have nothing to hide while wearing a body camera. The purpose of these body cameras are to find out the the truth of what occurs during a one on one encounter with an officer and a citizen. These body cameras would force officers and citizens to be on their best behaviors because now they know they are being recorded and that tape can and will be used against them.

A fairly common recommendation for reducing police misconduct to increase use of body cameras. By recording police-citizen encounters, police supervisors, judges, reporters, and others can get objective evidence of what happened instead of self serving hearsay. Body cameras have been the talk of many police departments among the United States. But not everyone has tried it out or used it yet, as we can see. Body cameras should be used because citizens are being innocently killed by police, officers are being falsely accused of wrongdoing, and it allows for physical proof of evidence.

Does the body camera decline police brutality? Are body cameras more effective in urban or rural areas? Could these cameras decline corruption in policing? These are a few of countless questions that might be brought up about this newly relevant issue. Without even undertaking exploration on this subject you could question a sample of individuals these burning questions. I think that they would agree that it is a necessary evil when dealing with criminals. It’s logical to assume that your every move is being documented and you are theoretically always being “watched”, in saying that one will in turn do their career to the best of their capabilities. Its elementary science that the independent variable being the camera. The dependent variable is the logged evidence which is

Body cameras on police officers in this day and age should be required for all departments. Body cameras should be worn to not only protect the officers but also the civilians that come into contact with police officers. It can give valuable information on what happened during an interaction between the public and law enforcement. This can protect the citizens from abuse by the police, as well as give necessary information into officer related shootings. All states should require their branches of law enforcement to require body cameras while on duty.

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

Officers nationwide are trusted in court, as they swear to uphold the constitution and are professionals who act upon the law. A body camera is simply put in place to support the officers claim. If a peace officer is reported, instead of taking their word, body camera footage can be checked over to see if the officer acted in the wrong or right. Several causes can be false accusations again police officers. With the body camera in effect,

Moreover, to stop the crime and police brutality, body cameras would not be a bad idea if they were to be taken a step forward. Nancy La Vigne writer of “Body Cameras for Police Could Be One Smart Step” talks about supervisors monitoring the cameras in case an altercation were to happen (6). Nancy also talks about body cameras invading constitutional rights of the citizens. Vigne writes, “Body cameras will capture not just an officers actions, but also those of the citizens with whom they interact – or even individuals walking by or in the background” (Vigne). Nancy’s point is that with the body cameras and civilians being recorded, should the citizens know they are being recorded. Another solution for the body cameras to be able to work would be for the cops to have no access to the cameras.

There are three main points supporters argue in this debate of why police should be mandated to wear body cameras. First, supporters state that police body cameras can help solve police brutality. The first police department in the United States to implement police body cameras was in Rialto, California, and according to Al Jazeera America, "The department saw an 88 percent decline in complaints against officers and use of force incidents plummeted to 60 percent" (Demetrius and Okwu 2). These supporters think if we were to implement police body cameras for all police departments in the United States, then these effects on police brutality could be attained nationwide. Second, supporters believe that body cameras will punish corrupt police

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

While body cameras can benefit police tremendously, they can also cause concern for