The defendants may not wish to be recorded during these moments, but if they did not wish to be recorded they should not have committed a crime. Body cameras have potential to help, even though they have a few flaws. Police behavior could greatly improve with the assistance of body cameras. The body cameras could be a magnificent idea and could improve the public's view on police officers, as long as they are utilized responsibly. Even though they are a good idea, police cameras do have a few disadvantages that cannot be overlooked.
3. The cons about body cameras are privacy issues and limitations. Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy, as they provide state-owned footage. When police cameras are on, they will capture everyday civilian and police behavior that does not necessarily need to be recorded. Because it is not practical to have cameras play constantly, there must be guidelines for when police should turn their cameras on and off.
Having these cameras will also speed up court proceedings and reducing the cost of court. Additionally, it will protect officers from any false accusations. Secondly, having the cameras will instill trust. On several occasions, people have been killed by officers and the community started to lose trust in them. Now with a camera
“While body camera evidence has already played a role in the disciplining of a few officers nationally, advocates are warning that the technology will not be a magic bullet for behavior or resolution of legal disputes.” Meanwhile the body-warn cameras are known for having evidentiary value. They are useful for resolution of citizen complaints and also yield evidence for criminal prosecution. Additionally body cameras are admirable for those who are training to be a police officer, so they could watch how police- citizens encounters. Although on the other hand this body worn camera can also have limitations for legal complications. “Officer Privacy is also an issue with cameras.
Another example is that it helped citizens drop their complaints. After one year of body cameras, it showed the the complaints from citizens dropped about 90 percent. Body cameras help citizens with controlling their attitude and behavior. Therefore, using body cameras will be a great idea for this country. Body camera will be very useful to support a case.
The British Home Office did a study in 2005 to prove that cameras didn’t decrease the crime or the fear of crime. (“What’s Wrong With Public Video Surveillance?”) This goes to show that the things they think will make a beneficial impact, in fact, do not. About 20 percent of United Kingdom’s criminal justice budget is on video surveillance. “But everyone from academic criminologists to the British Home Office has studied the impact of that surveillance, and has been unable to find any impact on the crime rate.” (“Surveillance Cameras and the Attempted London Attacks”) Government surveillance in this case wouldn’t be the most effective way to spend our money. There is a lot of terrorism in the United States, no doubt about it.
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.
This is why in the article “Police Perspective: The Pros & Cons of Police Body Cameras”, Erstad declares, “...the cameras led to an 87.5 percent decrease in officer complaints “. This demonstrates that by officers wearing cameras people are not complaining much about the officers because they are able to see the footage and see that not all police officers are bad as people made them look. To sum up, Erstad also declared, “This drop in complaints can also lead to a substantial decrease in the time and resources devoted to investigating complaints…” In this case, it demonstrates that by officers wearing body cameras, it can show what really occurs and that way civilians would not start talking or rumoring about things that they are not a hundred percent sure because they were not on the scene to witness what occurred and who was the guilty one. Basically, if police officers wear their body cameras, there would be less complaining and police would be able to investigate another type of crimes and capture the most dangerous criminals who are outside in the streets committing crimes and damaging our community every time they commit their horrendous crimes in our
Why do we need body cameras for every policeman and policewoman.The question is what would the world be like if every police officer had a camera. They are necessary to have on if your a police officer working a shift a night shift or a day shift. The good thing is that if you are a citizen, and they start to act up and try to hurt the police officer it will be record and if they take it to court it will be on video so that is a plus to the ability to wear them. The privacy or invasion of police by the great body cameras worn by the great police. Police worn body cameras blind in with the clothes they wear so that people can not see them on them.
Also, the cameras would record private conversations between authorities discuss amongst one another. The officer could turn off the body camera during private situations but may neglect the thought of turning the camera back on. Not only is privacy a concern with body cameras, but also the property of the footage. Citizens are concerned that the video footage can be modified, obliterated, or improperly stored by police authorities. An agency, other than the police agency, should control the property of the footage.