Do police officers really need body cameras? In what ways could it help solve a criminal case. If they should have body cameras would it be necessary for all officers to have them? If they had body cameras they would be able to prove people wrong if the others were lying about what the police officer did. People do not believe the police anymore.
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).
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. That is why body worn cameras need to be mandatory for all police officers to wear because it protects the public and the police officers that are wearing them. A couple positive outcomes police officers wearing body cameras is how they can lower police officers misuse of authority and also lower false complaints against officers as well. These are two
As people continue to respond to the killing of Michael Brown and the issue of police brutality. Many citizens of the United States say that putting body cameras on police would be a good solution. What people are trying to say is that the police do need cameras because for all the misleading and confusing stories. Americans want cameras on police to prevent any mix-up. Police brutality is a very serious issue and there are ways to resolve the issue.
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.
Furthermore, when information sharing is increased it allows greater access to data on sex offenders. This would help law enforcement to promote justice by having equal access to information. However, at this stage there is not enough research to show to what extent this will impact the justice system’s efficiency. Members of the public can protect themselves Proponents for sex offender registers claim that they provide an effective preventative tool because, if people know where offenders reside, those in the community can protect themselves from the risk that sex offender pose. The supposition is that by knowing a sex offender resides in your community, the community can take steps to prevent being victimised.
Many people do not understand that police use this tactic for their own protection, but they do know that at times they use it when they do not need to. In the case like Eric Gardner in New York, use of force was required because he did not want to be handcuffed and there was a superior comparison physically to the cops. According to the magazine when should cops use force it states, “once things get physical, officers have little choice but to jump in as quickly as possible (Moskos, 2014).” The use of force can be judged proportionally by what happens before the act because if officers allow people to get physically, it will not only put the officer in danger, but also those around. Eventually, there are other strategies to use rather than the use of force. According to the magazine daily news it suggest, “the NYPD Patrol Guide encourages the use of pepper spray for noncompliance (Moskos, 2014).” It seems like it is a less lethal technique, but it is actually still dangerous because people may be allergic to the acidic substance and might end up dying.
Unfortunately, there are cases where some people went to jail and weren’t necessarily suppose to go to jail. But who truly knew if the officers or witness were telling the truth about the incident? That’s why body cameras should be mandatory for all police officers. It will force the suspects to not lie and enable the judge to have direct evidence in court, rather than comparing both stories and trying to put two and two together. Body cameras are useful devices that show what exactly happened moments before the crime or accident took place.
The training can aim at ensuring that people engaging in excessive drinking do not drive themselves at home. The problem with this approach is that there is not enough number of designated drivers. However, having ample parking space and taxis may be a smarter solution for combating drunk
Second, treating camera as if it as evidence. With these two steps it is possible for state and local law enforcement to maintain the Integrity of photographs. First with cameras in which law enforcement use have special software on them allowing them to be used but not allowing the photographs to be edited and anyway otherwise the file will be destroyed. The software however is not perfect because given the time somebody put