Thesis statement: Police should wear body cameras because playing body cameras could improve the public’s view of police by showing the human side, help to provide evidence when a person may not be able to, and it protects the officers and public both. Cameras Imagine there is a huge case going on where a police officer is coming under question on if dealt with a potential suspect in the correct way. Now think about the money being used to provide lawyers, a judge, a jury, etc., to handle the high profile case. Now there is two possible outcomes, there was police misconduct and abuse of power, or the police officer did everything correctly and by the book. Either way there needs to be something that can protect the public from police misconduct and also protect law enforcement from dealing with false accusations that can tarnish their reputation.
Body camera will be very useful to support a case. Having a video for a case will be a great evidence to prove someone is guilty or innocent. Not only its very helpful towards a case but it will also show the police officers behavior towards other people. It will also help citizens attitude and behavior towards the officers or people Even though it will invade their privacy but this will help maintain a good condition towards the
However, I believe that police officers should wear body cameras because it prevents excessive force and discrimination, allows to harness the technology, and is a tool for evidence gathering. First of all, some police officers think that body cameras could affect police moral and recruitment. However, it prevents excessive force and racial discrimination. When police officers are using body cameras they have on mind the recording, so they will be conscious to behave; as a result, the excessive force and discrimination could decrease. As the author mentions that Researchers “found that officers who wore cameras used force less often…” (3).
A major benefit for having body cams is the fact that it will decrease the force used by Police Officers. For the past couple of years there has been many videos of Police Officers using excessive force against innocent victims, especially with African Americans. “The notion has been around for a while. But since August 's fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri -- for which witness accounts varied widely -- it 's gained traction to become part of the national conversation about police conduct.” (Brandon Griggs 1) People have been recently protesting against Police Officers because of the excessive force people have seen them use recently in viral videos. Some Departments have been using body cams and have seen some significant results.
Civilians have options to reduce police violence such as building a coalition, monitoring police through use of film and auditory methods, and educating communities. These methods can help accomplish their goal without using violence and jeopardizing more police and civilian lives. The civilians are also allowed to record video footage of police interactions while staying in bounds of legality. The video footage can be used as evidence for either side to assure justice is served. It can be agreed upon that civilians would like to see a decline in coercion and the “inappropriate use of police force” (Harmon).
“Police must be routinely and randomly tested for steroids and other illegal drugs”("17 Solutions To). If officers are more routinely checked for drugs that could affect their mind or make them act differently, then incidents of excessive force could be prevented. If any tests were to be made then they must be random and unannounced so that the officers would not to be able to prepare or flush any drugs out of their body beforehand. If officers happened to be under the influence of any kind of drug then it could change their decision making process and could make them make bad
In absence to definitive proof, eyewitnesses’ accounts often act as vital evidence to the police and judges in their decision to prosecute a suspect. Eyewitnesses’ memories which constitute knowledge of the crime could be distorted or forgotten if is not retrieved at the right time and with appropriate methods (Stelfox, 2012: 90). As much as the
They allow people to get a true insight into what really happened in these uncertain events. Body cameras protect the public and prevent instances of police brutality, and they also protect men and women in law enforcement from false accusations and provide
Police Body Cameras Should be Taken Into Consideration “In Rialto, California, a police department has been using body mounted cameras and recording what happens between officers and the public. The use of force by officers declined 60% during the first year the cameras were introduced and citizen complaints against officers dropped by 88% (Safety vision). This statistic proves the debate of police body cameras or not. Though these cameras have a big price tag, they are a piece of equipment all officers need to wear in order to maintain a more clear picture of what happens in an incident. Most normal people tend to have better behavior when they know they are being watched or recorded (Erstad).
The presence of police officers and security officers may also prevent potential offenders from committing criminal acts (Dickenson, 2012). CCTV will also shorten the time the security personnel will take to locate the potential offenders and thus limits the time the perpetrator has to commit the crime and also get away. The rapid response of the security personnel may deter offenders or may mean that the offenders may get caught in act (Ratcliffe et al, 2009). The implementation of CCTV in public places can prevent property crimes by increasing perception of being caught through natural surveillance, formal surveillance and through shaming. It was found that property crimes were reduced by 23% in the area under examination by CCTV in a study of San Francisco (Dickinson, 2012).
So many lives could be saved and so many police officers’ careers could be saved through the utilization of this idea and the reaping of its benefits. Whether it captures a citizen attack on a police officer or whether it captures a case of police brutality, the great possibilities outweigh the potential cons of police body cameras and make them a risk worth taking. Whether one takes the side of the citizens and believe the police are typically irrational or one takes the side of the police and believe they are only doing their jobs to the best of their ability, the incorporation of body cameras to the controversial police force would be extremely beneficial for
The use of a body camera is very important in many different instances such as recording a crime, making a statement about an event that just occurred, or as evidence against suspects. By publishing the recorded video to the public, it could potentially violate personal privacy; keeping it private raises concerns about the deceitfulness of the police ("Police Cameras"). This is why body cameras are extremely controversial in our society. Even though body cameras can potentially seem like an invasion of privacy to the public, they can help with clarifying evidence and showing the humane side of the police force. Body cameras are a vital piece of equipment for law enforcement and play an essential
Including new policy that could help prevent this action of police brutality against unarmed individuals by increasing police training on de-escalating situations verbally before becoming physically aggressive. Change in policy could enforce more penalties for officers who carelessly do not recognize the difference between their Taser and gun or the difference between a suspect walking home with candy wearing a hoodie from one walking from a crime scene wearing a hoodie. Public relations could increase community activities or involvement that include the police force in a positive
The second main point of argument that the court listened to was based on the precedent case of Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969). In Chimel, it was ruled that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the body of a person and the immediate area, to remove any weapons for officer safety. It is also reasonable to seize any evidence found in order to prevent it 's concealment or destruction. The Chimel case also was the base to the Search Incident To Arrest doctrine. On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody.
Consequently, people are suffering injustice and some are even losing their lives simply because people holding a “badge” believe they have more power than someone who doesn’t hold one. But there are many options to incorporporate to help minimize or completely stop Police Brutality. Everything could be solved and settled in a courtroom. Police Officers should be required and be mandatory to wear a video camera on their chest to capture every incident the encounter. “Video recorded by body cams protect any