References
Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens' Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509-535.
Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., Katz, C. M., & White, M. D. (2016). Officer Perceptions of Body-Worn Cameras Before and After Deployment. Police Quarterly, 19(3), 275-302.
Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 549-556.
Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., Lynch, M., Jetelina, K. K., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. M. (2017). A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the
Across the country a growing number of legislative departments have been debating about the pros and cons of police body cameras. This paper will further explore benefits, as well as the downfalls of using such devices. This paper will also look at specific cases and examine whether or not body cameras were helpful in various situations. It will examine if they were a deterrent in cases dealing with police brutality and domestic violence. It also looks at how they could be misused and assisting some officers in covering up their corrupt behavior.
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
In today 's society, one highly debatable topic is whether or not law enforcement agents should wear body cameras. Most cameras used by law enforcement agencies across the country record audio and video, therefore, the cameras see and hear nearly everything a law enforcement officer does. There are many advantages to law enforcement personnel using body cameras while on duty because it holds the officers accountable, is used to document the contact made between the officers and the victims and/or suspects, supports the “use of force” action, keeps the officers and citizens honest, and the videos can even be used for training for other officers.
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
I selected an article about police body cameras. The article cited several studies, as well as the authors’ ideas and thoughts. The article, titled Police Body Cameras, is part of the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, and prepared by Matthew Feeney in 2015. The theme throughout the article is that the use of body cameras will reduce police misconduct. Although we all hope this is the case, we must also look at the other issues involved with the wearing of body cameras. In an effort to gain citizen buy-in and obtain their opinions, they conducted surveys. Interestingly enough, most people did not want the officers to record them, unless it was during an enforcement encounter, such as a traffic stop or arrest situation.
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).
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.
The dispute of police body cameras truly hit the media hard this week. Blasting from the headlines all citizens were aware that Michael Brown was lethally shot in Ferguson, Missouri. This prompted officers to become fortified with body cameras. This technologically progressive world that we live in today has shaped a world of tweeting, posting and uploading. It’s about time that police departments take advantage of the tools accessible to them, especially with the advancement of equipment. The move forward in technology will help to alleviate speculation on any misconduct perpetrated. There now will be hard honest evidence of any crime committed against a police officer.
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.
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
At the beginning of the study, police commanders were apprehensive, they felt that body-worn cameras might cause officers to center their time on dispatched calls, instead of networking with citizens. This was found not to be the case, suggesting that body-worn cameras allow officers to record suspicious events on the street before starting contact with a suspect. This could give more explanation and confidence to initiate encounters. Overall, officers are actually more active when wearing cameras, without aggregating their use of aggressive strategies that threatened the validity of the organization, like unwarranted stop and frisks and misdemeanor arrests (Stanley, 2015). Monitoring police behavior and demonstrating accountability are in the community’s interest as well as police departments’. Achieving this will require great attention to the transmission of recorded information honestly, as conflicting stories may come into play regarding how the content of officer recordings are conveyed to the
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.
In today’s world, body cameras are being worn by more than half of the police officers in the United States. Many people will say that body cameras are invading their privacy and they will cause bigger issues, but others will say that the body cameras are an improvement and will help everyone out in the long run by resolving the issues. Body cameras will prevent incidents of police brutality and improve law enforcement. They should be worn for the police officer’s safety as well as the citizens who are interacting with the police, so that way the footage will show what really happened in a situation.
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
This article describes how the increase of body cameras will help reduce police misconduct by recording police-citizen encounters, and serving as evidence of what happened. This article also talks about the complications that it contains. One of the complications are the privacy concerns, many people say they don't want their police encounters to be all over social media. It also says that body cameras are not the only thing that will make officers behave, it says they also need reforms of use-of-force policy and training. Even though there are many privacy concerns experts have said that those concerns can be resolved with the right policies. This is a great article to use because it appeals to