Category: Body Camera

Police Body Worn Cameras or BWC’s have been a vigorously talked about point in law requirements over the previous five years. Because of prominent police utilization of power occurrences, for example, the passing’s of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice, it has called for expanded cop responsibility and straightforwardness from legislators, political activists, the media, and people in general on the loose. “The data collected by body-worn cameras could be subjected to various software applications that would further law enforcement interests, not accountability concerns. Body-worn cameras could incorporate license plate reader or facial recognition technology” (Joh, E, E. 2016). In December 2014, President Barack Obama made a team on 21st Century Policing alongside a $75 million speculation to purchase 50,000 BWC’s for various law requirement organizations over the United States.

Those that support the BWC’s express that the utilization and execution of this program will, increment cop responsibility and straightforwardness, improve cop direct and resident conduct, diminish outlandish grievances against officials, increment official and resident wellbeing, decline utilization of power episodes, aid criminal indictments, encourage official preparing, and assemble trust between the police and their networks (Smykla, Crow, Crichlow, and Snyder 2015). By a similar token, there are likewise various investigations that have indicated worries with BWC’s and quick usage of such a program. There have been safety concerns communicated for the officials as well as for the residents and actualizing a BWC program without suitable enactment may have disadvantages. The individuals who have been uncertain to BWC’s argument situations in which official’s experience casualties of residential, maltreatment or rape, and what kind of security concerns apply to unfortunate casualties in a those type of states.

As of May 2015, 10 states have laws set up identified with BWC’s and open divulgence and security issues-Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont. While there has been expanded network purchase in with the idea of growing BWC’s, there has not been any information on Law Enforcement order staff impression of the point (Smykla, Crichlow, Crow, and Snyder, 2015).

The presentation of the body-worn-camera has been an issue to the public since its underlying execution. While a great part of the attention has focused on the impression of general society, it is normal for information that the nation openly discernment plays an enormous job in the improvement of administering teaching for law authorization organizations. This marvel is all around recorded and examined. To this date there has not been a lot of examination into the view of the officials associated with developing utilization of this innovation and refining the accepted procedures and benchmarks for it. “Until now, the most commonly cited study on police body cameras had suggested that cameras did indeed have a calming effect. That experiment took place in 2012 in Rialto, Calif., where officers were randomly assigned cameras based on their shifts. Over a year, shifts that included cameras experienced half as many use-of-force incidents (including the use of a police baton, Taser or gun) as those shifts without cameras. The number of complaints filed by civilians against officers also declined — a stunning 90 percent compared with the previous year” (Ripley, A. 2017).

BWC’s presently give a spotlight into those brief instant choices, and the justification behind them. There are additionally cases where officials feel their occupations may be in risk on the off chance that they choose to utilize ‘an excessive amount of power’ and that the BWC won’t support them. This represents a genuine hazard to the official who presently opens themselves up to physical mischief, or not quelling a suspect appropriately in this manner making a hazard to the general population everywhere out of dread of repercussions due to the BWC film. Officials have likewise been found to skip steps in the utilization of power continuum. In light of the utilization of BWC’s officials are likewise hesitant to utilize voice directions which are important in deescalating a circumstance. This is finished by giving a firm legal request or through dangers of physical power, for example, the utilization of a taser, oc splash, physical bring down and so on. Many police organizations have taken an ‘out of the crate’ approach with regards to the preparation of their officials. There has been a solid push lately for Crisis Intervention Training. The Crisis Prevention Institute out of Milwaukee, WI is one of the pioneers in peaceful emergency mediation preparing and verbal de-heightening. The utilization and unwavering quality of this program shifts from organization to office, however there are numerous choices on the table, for example, less deadly ammo and a solid spotlight on verbal de-acceleration.

In spite of the fact that police brutality issues have stood out as truly newsworthy for quite a long time, the issue is still unresolved. Most Police Agencies over the USA have received the BWCs that is the Body-worn cameras to expand responsibility and straightforwardness of the police to the networks. “A police officer shoots an African American man to death due to his suspicious appearance; wearing a black hoodie, with earphones plugged in his ears and hands in his pocket. A mother is shot in her home dying at the hands of the police because her son is a suspected criminal”. These are some of the headlines made in the media almost every single day with the assumption being that they were presumed guilty at first sight, or their physical appearance (Alang, McAlpine, McCreedy & Hardeman, 2017).

The acknowledgment of BWC’s by cops has been blended. Some accept they approve of it since they are not doing anything incorrectly. Others trust it gives an interruption into their obligations and won’t enable them to be as viable. At that point there are other people who trust BWC’s will expand official wellbeing. We built up before, that BWC’s give a target reality into police/resident experiences. In any case, the primary advantage is improved conduct and results for the benefit of the residents and the officials (Gramaglia and Phillips, 2017). A significant worry for officials have been that bosses will utilize BWC’s to screen their action without a particular explanation behind doing as such. This has caused uneasiness among officials, for instance officials have become ‘hazard unwilling’ and are composing more passes to abstain from being addressed was to why they let somebody abandon a ticket, this is because of the capacity to audit BWC’s (Gramaglia and Phillips, 2017).

Be that as it may, some cops are against the new change as they feel it is an invasion of their privacy. In a way, they demonstrate some protection from setting up BWCs in their stations. Be that as it may, zones that have executed this arrangement have succeeded in easing the tension that exists between police officers and society. Despite the fact that a few networks and police divisions have had differences on the body-worn cameras, the outcomes are clear from those utilizing it that it benefits both the nearby network and the law authorities.

Officials in the field need to feel that the presentation of new innovation, for example, BWC’s are valuable and not inconvenient to their prosperity, that it will really make their employments simpler. A territory that contributes essentially to the reason for BWC’s in giving official security is proof in court. We can quite often expect that BWC’s will decrease the occurrences of attacks on cops. Typically the presence of the camera alone is sufficient to de-heighten the circumstance. In any case, should that not be case, there is clear proof in court to arraign the person for the ambush. As indicated by thinks about, BWC’s have demonstrated to do the accompanying when it relates to security, diminish grievances against cops to almost zero, lessen the examples of utilization of power by about half, and decrease ambushes on officials by about 66% of episodes preceding the utilization of BWC’s (Ariel, Sutherland, Henstock, Young, Drover, Sykes, Megicks, and Henderson 2017). The issue of climate BWC’s give wellbeing or decline resolve is a split issue about down the middle.

One significant advantage of this innovation is that it furnishes law requirement with a reconnaissance device indicating ongoing data that the officials utilizes while on watch or when in contact with people in general. In this manner, it advances effectiveness, forestalls violations and advances official wellbeing and the general population (Smykla et al., 2016). Individuals are grasping the innovation since it favors them and in this manner, around 33% of the police divisions in the U.S. have actualized the utilization of body-worn cameras.

Research by Wallace. Et al. (2018) shows that cop are not threatened by tying the cameras on them. Rather, they bring about making more captures, some superfluous and giving references contrasted with a benchmark group with no body-worn cameras. In any case, a few areas have detailed a diminishing in grievances made on police fierceness. Another Issue with actualizing body-worn cameras arrangement is the significant expense of getting and looking after them. These cameras need a great deal of capacity and are dreary. The implementation needs to recover, audit and discharge the recordings; hence getting trying for the division to adjust the running of the BWC program and securing the residents. The camera innovation offers the open the desire for understanding severity, however the support is high since they request to see recordings of each capture occasion and now and again request DNA proof during the preliminary.

Specialists accept that actualizing this innovation will help in giving a faster goals to the protests and claims that residents make towards law implementation (Koen, Willis and Mastrofski, 2018). Residents ought to have confidence, trust and trust in bodies liable for their security; in any case, with the supposed unnecessary utilization of power and different wrongdoings that the police submit, they have lost that. This innovation will help authenticate the realities in this manner illuminating the discernments that cases of maltreatment by the officials are tended to. “Body-worn cameras may lead to a faster resolution of citizen complaints and lawsuits that allege excessive use of force and other forms of officer misconduct. Investigations of cases that involve inconsistent accounts of the encounter from officers and citizens are often found to be “not sustained” and are subsequently closed when there is no video footage nor independent or corroborating witnesses” (Chapman, B).

Body-worn cameras have a colossal ramifications for the protection privileges of the residents, particularly when recording nakedness, interviews or other touchy issues. These cameras are of high goals and subsequently have clear pictures and sounds; people in general is worried about their protection. During the usage of these cameras, it is prudent that the law authorization balance security contemplations of the residents with the requirement for straightforwardness of official tasks (Costin, 2016). This proposal will direct the official on when to actuate the camera, individuals who can get to the video film, where and who to keep the recorded information and different choices. Individuals have the dread that police may film touchy circumstances since they reserve the privilege to record inside private homes which can be humiliating. The best approach when an official is recording is to incorporate every one of the records made on experiences identified with law authorization and during their administration. Remarkably, they ought to deactivate the cameras after the director supports or after the finish of the experience. Residents reserve an option to realize that the information gathered is just available to the correct individuals.

People in general reserve the option to recognize what comprises the body-worn camera arrangement. In this manner, the law requirement authority ought to furnish general society and officials with the rundown of explicit exercises involving the innovation. Officials require security as much as they are ensuring the network. The experience appears to be hazardous, unreasonable or difficult to utilize the cameras; officials ought not to hazard and recording is certainly not an absolute necessity. At times, officials are the people in question, yet local people think that it’s difficult to accept.

Police officers must discover the harmony among straightforwardness and micromanagement from the public with regards to the choice to actualize body-worn cameras, notwithstanding breaking down the right authority frame of mind to reveal this program as well as get a responsibility from police officers in the field. As we have seen through the various examinations and research, there are new desires pushing ahead to adequately police in the 21st century.

Overall, society will never be fully content with the demands they make or desire from the police force. They may want to have all interactions recorded to attempt to show the misjudgment a cop will use in the heat of the moment. Or when the police officer is doing everything correct within the footage, it is only because they are being recorded and micromanaged. Regardless, this is something that is required for a police officer to do their job, and will overall help them out a lot more in the long run.

Should every cop have tiny video cameras? I think, they should, because you will be able to go back to the footage in case you need something to be proven. Also, to see how the problem started at first. Officers wearing tiny video cameras benefits the citizen and officers because everything is being recorded the moment you interact with them. So, when people see that your being recorded by a police officer you will know to not act crazy with them, nor will the officer act to be ‘tough’. Police body cameras can encourage people to behave better and not act crazy. Also help a decrease in violence, use of force incidents, and attacks on officers on duty

The pros police body cameras can provide voice audio and visible evidence that can be looked at by the higher ups and can confirm what happened in any kind of situation. For example, according to The New York Times ‘Police Officer Who Fatally Shot 15-Year-Old Texas Boy Is Fired in Texas’ the police officer was fired and charged with murder after body camera footage was looked at and saw that everything the officer said in his statement counter his initial statement in the shooting of the young teenage unarmed boy. Another example is in Baltimore, a police officer got suspended and two of his colleagues were placed on leave after being caught. Due to the fact, they were wearing body cameras and saw that they planted fake evidence at a crime scene. Also, the videos recorded from police body cameras could be very helpful for new recruits and used to train new and existing officers in how to perform in certain situations that they may encounter with public. Wearing body cameras can be useful for certain situations, like when they are doing the sobriety test, they won’t have to take notes down while they are trying to watch the suspect. According to the book ‘Introduction to Policing’, “it’s hard to write notes about a field sobriety test when you have to watch someone attempt the test and count the number of steps he or she is taking. In the past officer had to juggle a flashlight and a clipboard while never taking their eyes off he suspected drunk driver”.

The cons of an officer not using a body camera, officers that don’t wear body cameras decrease their safety, which can really affect their mental health. Some people may respond in a bad way or even violently just because they are being recorded by a police officer. People that usually respond in a negative way are usually on drinking, using drugs or suffer from mental health problems. When a police officer is wearing body cameras, they are invading the privacy of citizens, exposing victims and witnesses that were present in a crime. Officers that are recording encounter people, which can lead to a person privacy being exposed, like medical conditions, victims of crimes such as domestic violence or even rape, people who witness something are put in fear, because the criminals might want to get revenge.

Police officers should be required to turn off their cameras off when they encounter with people that are naked. Officers wouldn’t want to look at another person’s body and the higher ups wouldn’t want to look at that too. Also, officers should be allowed to turn off their cameras when the person they are interacting with gives them permission to turn off or asks them to turn it off for certain reasons. Another example is when officers should turn off their cameras is when an officer talks to a witness and the witness doesn’t want to be involved or known by criminal. The witness wouldn’t want be in fear after he or she just snitched everything that happen in a crime scene. According to the website FindLaw, a police officer is allowed to turn off their cameras when a “witness or victim refuses to provide a statement on camera, or if a recording would interfere with his or her ability to conduct an investigation, the officer may turn of the body cam”. Which I completely agree with because let’s say you are being questioned and you say something that you were unsure about. When higher ups go to investigate and noticed that something wasn’t right. It will make you look like you’re covering up for the person and trying to throw them off. That’s why I think when your being questioned by a police officer, you should be allowed to tell them to turn their body cameras off because you don’t want to be recorded end up saying something that can get you involved in the crime.

As you can see these are my thoughts about police officers using body cameras. Also, when they should be allowed or required to turn off their cameras. When officers use body cameras it benefits them in certain situations like I said sobriety test, it makes it easier for them and it allows them to stay focused on the suspect. But there should be a limit where you can record certain things and know when to know to turn off your camera. The use of body cameras is to reduce less crimes and less police abuse.

It seems that every time we watch the news, we hear about another officer involved in a shooting. The topic I intend to discuss today is that police officers should use body cameras. I want to start off by stating that throughout years and still today, many victims have fallen under belligerent injustice from officers. Victims such as Michael brown, Trayvon Martin, and Freddie Gray have all been fatally shot and unfairly killed by officers. Officers abuse of their title and commit erroneous actions such as using their gun at the wrong time, using racial slurs, using violence, using wrong tactics, etc. which only provoke the victims. They do this because they think that just because they have a so called ‘title’ they can do whatever they feel like doing with the protection of the law, but that is not the case. There have been times where officers are not convicted as guilty due to ‘insufficient evidence’. Isn’t this alarming and enraging? Where’s the justice for those victims? Where’s their rights? However, this all could be prevented had there been body cameras worn by the officers. Sure, there are some lucky cases where there’s an actual video to show, however that’s mostly because bystanders are there to record. Police officers need to wear body cameras to increase the safety of the public and the officer, and to use the video surveillance for learning/training, and to improve accountability to prevent false accusations.

A major concern is public safety and officer safety. A solution to help with this problem are body cameras. Police body cameras need to be in for the reason that they can have the effect in an increase for safety of the public and officer. It is most commonly seen that when presented in front of a camera, a person changes his or her actions for the camera. For example, whenever you’re being recorded by your friends some of you might stop doing whatever you’re doing to not get posted… this is self control. In terms of a officer, he or she will straighten themselves in a situation during they’re on duty. This will prevent any forsaken actions taken by any cop. That reminds me of a personal example. A few months ago a young cousin of mines got into a fight with someone else, and a cop aggressively and forcefully pinned her down to a car two times, leaving her with bruises. She showed no resistance to the arresting and yet she still got dragged by a cop. He did this because to his luck, there was no one to record what he was doing. If he had a camera on him, he probably would’ve not touched her in that way. These body cameras can encourage good behaviour and calm down actions from police officers. This is an example of how body cameras can increase safety of the public. Actually, a study taken in CA (which was one of the first states to enforce body cameras) showed a 50% reduction in storming mistreatment made by an officer. Moving on, a way that the cameras can secure the safety of the officer is that it would make any criminal hesitant due to being recorded directly.

Body cameras can also serve as a tool for training/ learning for future officers. The video surveillances can be used in training to train officers in what to do in a presented situation. If the surveillance video shows an incorrect action taken, the training can help stop that action from happening again. Basically, they can be served as a prevention source. Future cops can learn from mistakes taken by other cops that way wrongful actions can be lessened and prevented.

Don’t you sometimes feel a bit nervous around police? Well, in a world with body cameras you won’t have to be nervous around police at all! Police should wear body cameras at all times and they should be turned on while on duty. Body cameras prevent violence, hold officers accountable if they act inappropriate, and show the human side of policing. Here are the reasons why police should wear body cameras at all times.

The first reason why police should wear body cameras all the time is because it prevents violence. If police wore body cameras they would not be as aggressive towards suspects that they arrest. According to a study by the University of Cambridge, “When police wore body cameras while on duty there was a drop of use of force by over 50%”. This means, police will be on better behavior thus, less violent.

The second reason why police should wear body cameras all the time is because it holds police accountable if they act appropriately or inappropriately. In a court case legal professionals could use footage from a body camera to decide whether the policeman did something wrong or right in the case. According to the New York Times, “In the Ferguson case, Officer Darren Wilson fatally shot Michael Brown. Officer Wilson thought that Darren had robbed a convenience store but had no evidence”. The Department of Justice report states that it was unclear whether Wilson or Brown attacked first. Legal professionals had no footage of the shooting happening so it was hard to decide whether Wilson was innocent or guilty. This illustrates that without proper evidence it is very difficult to decide whether a police officer was acting appropriate or inappropriate. Therefore, as stated above police should wear body cameras at all times.

My final reason why police should wear body cameras all the time is because it shows the human side of policing. Footage of police activities show that police are human and not just people going around arresting people. If police wore body cameras all of the time, then people would think better things about the police. According to littlerockfamily.com, “Children in Little Rock Arkansas appreciate Officer Tommy Norman. While on duty, he stops and plays, sings, and mentors children while on his route”. Not only is he a police officer upholding the law, he is also an important member of the community. Everyday police officers put themselves at risk like when Officer Gary Michael was fatally shot in western Missouri during a normal traffic stop for speeding. If police officers wore body cameras we would see how caring they are and how they put themselves at risk for our safety.

While body cameras have many positive benefits, there are also downsides to body cameras. Body cameras might be considered 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. An Illinois lawsuit states that, “10 police officers claimed that their body cameras never turned off after some time and it recorded them going to the bathroom”. If body cameras are always recording they might be considered an invasion of privacy.

In addition, it may not be practical to have cameras recording and on constantly. For example, if a police officer was dealing with a difficult situation and their body camera failed they would not be able to capture the moment. If the cameras are on constantly then the cameras could run out of battery or storage space. It may not be realistic to leave the camera on because sometimes it’s not reliable.

Despite the potential problems including privacy concerns and battery and storage problems, police should wear body cameras all of the time and they should always be turned on. It will help the society when controversial cases come up having to do with the police. It will also prevent violence and people will think better of police. Even though there might be challenges in getting body cameras for police officers, it must remain a priority.

In 2017, 1,129 people were killed by police, and only 12 officers, (1%), were charged with a crime related to a shooting death. Out of these 1,129 people killed, 718 people were suspects in nonviolent offenses. Police need body cameras so we can charge them for what they have actually done. All police officers should wear body cameras because they can be used to train younger police, police complaints drop, and it will provide evidence of misconduct that can be used by investigators and lawyers.

When police wear body cameras, younger policemen and women can use the footage for training. When younger police are in training, they can use the footage to become better at their job. In the popular newspaper, “The Economist”, it states, “The footage can be used in training officers that need to learn from their superiors’ actions”. This, in theory, can help with police misconduct. When a new officer joins or is starting to train to get into the force, footage can help. They can look at what past police officers have done and how they have acted in certain situations and figure out how to handle that situation (“Why the police should wear body cameras”). Also, if something was to happen and people in the force failed to do something, they could look at the footage and see what went wrong and correct their mistakes. When an entire police force fails a task, you will need a way to show what they did wrong. You can take this footage, show the force, and train them to not do it again. This is a lot like when someone messes up a play in football. Rather than not correct it, the coach will take the game film, show the team, and then proceed to practice to make sure that that thing that went wrong never happens again (“Why the police should wear body cameras”). So in theory, people can use footage for training and to become better at their job.

Police cameras should also be mandatory because it will drop police misconduct reports. When given cameras, police will most of the time act better. In the news site “The Economist”, it states that some 2,000 officers were given cameras while on the job. During this time, the number of police complaints dropped by 93%. When police use these cameras, it is a proven fact that the police complaints drop. Police will act better because they know that if they were to do something wrong, they would have footage of it (“Why the police should wear body cameras”). This will also begin to stop police brutality and save lives. Wearing these cameras will also save lives and stop brutality. These cameras will be on the officers at all times which means they know they are being monitored. This will cause them to act better towards people. Cameras will be a guaranteed way to stop most police misconduct and brutality (“Why the police should wear body cameras”).

These cameras can also be used as evidence for investigators to use. It will provide evidence of misconduct for lawyers and police investigators to look at. The “NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board” reviews almost 5,000 cases of misconduct every year. Many of these cases were recorded by diverse sources like surveillance cameras and cell phones. Only in rare cases do any sort of body cameras record these because not many officers at all have these. This footage could really help investigators see what happened in a case of misconduct (Maya Wiley, Time). In cases where police wear body cameras, the police have mostly gotten charged for their crime. In Balch Springs, Texas, 15-year-old Jordan Edwards was shot and killed as his car was driving away. This officer had a body camera on at the time of him shooting the young man. The police department had the video that showed what happened was inconsistent with the officer’s statement about what had happened. Thanks to body cameras, three days after Jordan has killed the officer who shot him has been incarcerated. These cameras didn’t save Jordan’s life but it brought justice for the family as the officer was charged with the crime he had committed (Maya Wiley, Time).

Police officers should always be required to wear body cameras. This is very important because we need to see what the police are doing to people and bring justice if needed. These cameras will save lives and cause police to act better when on the job as they see that are being monitored. When a police officer wears a camera and commits a crime, investigators will have evidence of what they have done and it will be easy to handle the situation as it was in the case with Jordan. Cameras are very important and they can help police officers and our lives as well.

Work Cited

1. Wiley, Maya. “Police Brutality: Body Cameras Help Citizens and Police.” Time, Time, 9 May 2017, time.com/4771417/jordan-edwards-body-cameras-police/
2. J.D. “Why the Police Should Wear Body Cameras.” The Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 19 Oct. 2016, www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/10/economist-explains-10.

So, 717 people have been shot and killed by police in 2019. Look at that number again, 717. In 2019 alone, 717 people, who may have been breaking the law but nonetheless, lost their life by the hands of a police officer. 992 people were shot and killed by police in 2018. There were only 23 days in 2018 where the police didn’t kill anybody. Police should be required to wear body cameras, it should be mandatory. If a police officer is doing their job correctly, they wouldn’t have a problem wearing a body camera. Police officers wearing body cameras have the potential to save lives, could potentially help everyone, the police, the victim, the civilians out of some situations. The truth? It is absolutely terrifying to be scared to the people who are supposed to be protecting us. Police should be required to wear body cameras to help reduce lives lost. Body cameras can hold police responsible for their actions and resolve cases quicker.

Police body cameras are small cameras, worn on an officer’s chest or head, with a microphone used to capture sound and pictures which can be used for live footage. Police body cameras are used around the world, they made their way into the United States in 2012 has a trial run in California. By 2015, 95 percent of large police departments reported they were using body cameras because of the high number of police shootings. Former President Barak Obama implemented a program, Department of Justice’s Body-Worn Camera Policy, which helps supply police stations with the needed equipment. The program spent over 58 million dollars between 2015 and 2017. According to the National Institute of Justice, there are over sixty models of police body cameras for purchase in the United States. The cameras provide an independent record of police-civilian encounters. Forty- five states and the District of Columbia have legislated how body-worn camera data is addressed under open record laws.

Police officer convictions are increasing but cop killings roughly remain consistent, unfortunately. Police have killed over 14,000 people in the last thirteen years. Although the body cameras have been in the spotlight lately if they would have been in play a long time ago maybe some of these deaths could have been avoided. Aaron Dean fatally shot 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson, on October 12, 2019, as she played video games with her nephew. He was called for a routine check because a neighbor was concerned because her door was open. He was in fact wearing a body camera which helps prove the case in transparency. Ms. Jefferson is able to receive justice for her wrongful death because the video on the camera proves she was murdered in cold blood. With the help of the footage from the camera, the judge recently found the officer guilty. In the case of Alton Sterling, which happened in Baton Rouge, LA on July 5, 2016, he landed into an altercation with the two officers on the scene which ended in his death. The footage from the body cameras shows how Mr. Sterling was resisting arrest but also shows the officer shooting him twice. Although in this case, the judge found the officers not guilty, the evidence is there to be seen and to be analyzed to be used in court. Police are supposed to be the people in law to make us feel safe, not make us feel scared. The body camera helps to ensure the safety of everyone involved in the situation.

Police body cameras have many upsides to them. They can ensure the safety of the public and the police by using audio and video which can be saved and used later. Majority of people act in different ways when it is known they are being watched. If a civilian knows an officer is wearing a body camera, they may act different to ensure they are not doing anything law breaking. The civilian will be less prone to attack or use violence toward a police officer. If a police officer is wearing a body camera, it may cause them to become more aware of their actions. According to a study in California, found a 50 percent reduction in the total number of use of force incidents by police officers when body cameras are worn. Body cameras can improve police accountability and protect officers from false accusations. In Texas, a police officer was fired and charged with murder after body camera footage was released contradicting his statement in the shooting of an unarmed youth. In Maryland, three police officers were suspended after their body camera footage showed them plating fake evidence at crime scenes. Body camera footage can truly make or break a case. Police body cameras make a great tool for learning. For example, if someone is in training to become a police officer, they can have the potential officer wear the body camera so they can use the footage to look back. The body cameras can be used to ensure the potential police officer is being trained correctly.

There are always two sides to everything, so body cameras are no acceptation. Police body cameras can negatively affect their physical and mental health. Some civilians may respond in a negative way to knowing they are being filmed, especially people who may be intoxicated or suffering from mental health problems. According to the European Journal of Criminology found that assaults on police officers were 14 percent higher when body cameras are in use. Police officers have to wear plenty of equipment such as escape hoods, mace, flashlights, batons, radio, handcuffs, and their gun so adding another item for the officers to wear can physically be hard and make their uniforms heavier than they already are. The body cameras can malfunction which can cause electric shock from damaged equipment. Police officers have one of the hardest, toughest jobs. It can already be mentally exhausting, so knowing you are being watched constantly can make an officer on edge. Police body cameras can also invade the privacy of citizens, expose victims, and witnesses of crimes. Recording police-public encounters can lead to the public expose or private medical conditions, victims of rape or domestic abuse, or informants. A study in Oklahoma, states that potential witnesses were reluctant to talk in the presence of a body-worn camera, even when the device was switches off because they feel like their privacy is invaded.

In conclusion, police body cameras are a necessary evil. They have their pros and cons but they can be very beneficial when it comes to justice being served. It makes it easier to prove the situation instead of speculating. The facts are right there in the footage. Many cases have been solved because of body camera footage. Police officers should be required to wear body cameras for a few reasons, reduction in complaints, improved behavior, a clear picture of what is going on, and increased transparency. Many people have lost their lives on account of police shootings so wearing body cameras could help police officers be more aware of what they are doing. They can be a very expensive cost, but they could potentially save lives. If police officers and citizens are being watched, we are both more liable to do the right thing. The truth about police body cameras are yes they can be a pain, yes they can cause problems, yes they invade privacy but they make police be more transparent, make police be held accountable for their actions, and make it more likely for everyone to receive the justice they deserve.

There has been an immense amount of controversy surrounding the notion of utilizing body cameras by police services across North America. The topic of body cameras and the discussion surrounding its use and effectiveness has risen in light of several incidents of excessive force by police officers, some of which have resulted in fatalities. This negative perception of the use of cameras is largely due to the fact that citizens consider it to be an invasion of privacy but also the substantial costs associated through equipping officers with the actual cameras themselves in addition, to implementing the necessary infrastructure required to support it. However, despite the attention that has been drawn against the use of cameras, the benefits of body cameras and their recorded footage outweigh the negative aspects. Cameras on officers allow for the actual series of events to be recorded from the start of the interaction to the end which can protect both the officer as well as the victim, it can act as a deterrence for crime and misbehavior and it can also be used as an educational tool for both police services, officers and the public.

The implementation of body cameras across all police services in North America can prove beneficial as one of its primary abilities is recording all police activity but more specifically police and citizen encounters. Whether it is for a traffic stop, domestic violence call, or something more serious such as a hostage situation, the full encounter from the second police make contact to when they first arrive on scene will be recorded in full. This evidence can prove to be very useful in cases of lawsuits against police officers where they are accused of inappropriate actions since it can eliminate any uncertainties. In a domestic violence call, officers usually arrive on scene after or during the incident that is occurring, which means that they often do not have sufficient details on the situation or the events that occurred. As such, it is imperative for police officers to collect as much evidence as possible when initially responding to a domestic violence call (Puchalaski, 2019). In situations like this, the body camera footage is simply just evidence that is admissible in court. There is no harm in equipping officers with body cams as it can simply be a passive form of collecting evidence as they actively deal with the situation. The encounters are recorded and stored, which means that officers do not need to spend time recording notes from the individuals involved and can work diligently in resolving the situation. The footage can also be extremely useful for citizen claims of police misconduct as it can be reviewed and any misconduct during an encounter will come to light. One of the main benefits of having body cam footage as evidence in court is in situations where there is inconclusive evidence supporting an accused officer’s defense. Jurors may then use the footage, along with all of the other evidence presented, to make a carefully considered evaluation based on the applicable law rather than in the court of public opinion where while the outcry may be valid justice cannot properly be done (Puchlaski, 2019). Thus, the city and police services will save a lot financially from lawsuits against them as body camera footage can provide evidence supporting their innocence. Additionally, in today’s society and the rise of smartphones with recording capabilities, incidents in public especially those involving physical actions by police officers are almost always captured. One drawback to viewing an incident from the perspective of a bystander is that they don’t always record an interaction between the officers and a citizen instantly. Police and citizen interactions occur on a daily basis and therefore seeing another stop is not alarming to a regular citizen. It is, however, the use of violence or an escalating situation that usually acts as the signal for them to begin recording the incident. Recording the incident from the middle of an encounter can paint a drastically different picture from the actual events that occurred as well as omitting the beginning of the encounter. This is where body camera footage on police officers proves to be useful as it will be able to record both the video and audio perspectives from beginning to end in situations where officers have resorted to violence. This will combat the biased perspectives of bystander footage and help counter any false narratives that develop because this footage is often spread across social media at a rapid rate which can negatively affect police legitimacy even in cases where they have committed no wrongdoing. On a smaller scale, complaints against officers can also be resolved more efficiently through the revision of footage. Another alternative purpose for police body cameras is their ability to act as a deterrence for crime and misbehavior. The act of being recorded especially by police officers often changes the way that citizens act as they are aware that their actions are being recorded. This can lead to calmer interactions between officers and citizens but also reduce crime in areas with police presence. Complaints filed against police officers are central to policing, not only because scholars consider them a proxy of police-public relations and police misconduct, but also because of their organizational importance is given the tremendous costs associated with these cases, particularly in an era of austerity where many agencies are on the verge of bankruptcy (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 2015). Fewer complaints mean less lawsuits filed against police services which results in less of the city’s financial funds being allocated in settlements. Police forces that are on the verge of bankruptcy usually suggest that budget cuts are necessary if they are unable to obtain additional funding. This can lead to reduced police presence and the availability of technology which can hinder the success and ability for officers to effectively patrol, control, and respond to crime in their region. This ties in with the fact that citizens are not the only ones being recorded as in an effort to increase accountability, and transparency, law enforcement agencies are adopting body-worn cameras at an extremely rapid pace (Voigt et al., 2017). Ideally, this means that the behavior of officers also changes for the better as they want to avoid any misconduct such as excessive force, unlawful stops, and racial profiling which can lead to complaints and if severe enough, threaten their careers. There have been several cases across North America of police officers being corrupted and committing unlawful actions that can be considered an abuse of power. They are expected to treat all citizens fairly however, incidents involving officers committing racially driven violence and the planting of evidence have surfaced. Blacks report more negative experiences in their interactions with the police than any other group (Voigt et al., 2017). Body camera footage has captured police misconduct on several occasions which revealed the innocence of citizens accused of crimes but also combated against corrupt officers abusing their power. The findings from a rapidly growing body of research show that body-worn cameras can produce a range of positive outcomes, including reductions in use of force and citizen complaints (Wallace et al., 2018). Both of these factors are beneficial to both citizens and police in terms of better treatment for citizens and a greater respect for law enforcement due to their ability to perform their duties in a non-forceful manner. In addition, accountability is enforced with the cameras which will help combat corruption. A study conducted on the Orlando police department revealed that Body-worn cameras are effective in reducing response-to-resistance incidents by 53.4% and serious external complaints by 65.4% (Jennings, Lynch, & Fridell, 2015). These statistics provide a positive direction for the implementation of body cameras and highlight some of their various benefits. The use of cameras by law enforcement agencies have already proven to be useful with the implementation of cameras on police cruisers. The cameras in police cruisers usually capture a general angle of an interaction but through the addition of cameras on officers, agencies will on benefit from the additional personal angle of interaction as well.

Body cameras on police officers can serve as an important learning tool. Police departments are constantly trying to educate themselves and evolve which, allows them to be more effective in terms of assisting and their impact on the community. Especially after the series of high-profile shootings and incidents of excessive force such as those of Michael Brown and Eric Garner that have headlined the media, body cam footage allows for the perspective of the officer to be viewed. These videos have directed a sometimes-damning spotlight on incidents that might previously have been accepted as justified uses of force, giving urgency to demands for social change and reform within police departments (Morrison, 2017). This footage can place an emphasis on police accountability but also the utilization of these videos as a method of learning and evolving from previous mistakes which is extremely beneficial for the agencies, officers, and the public. Reviewing every incident from the officer’s actions to language and approach to the situation can be used as a positive or negative example, especially as a training tool for new recruits and existing officers. Additionally, footage obtained from body cameras can also serve as an educational tool for the public. In a situation of a traffic stop, for example, incidents that are recorded can teach the public on how to behave appropriately when interacting with officers. This can further help reduce situations that escalate to threatening statuses for officers which can result in shootings or excessive force. Due to the realistic nature of these videos, as they are from real situations as opposed to staged interactions that police services often release, they can gain a stronger reception from the public. Overall, the footage obtained from cameras can serve the purpose of educating both parties involved. Seamless interactions between citizens and police officers can result in an increase of police legitimacy and reduction in formal complaints as well as lawsuits. In the long run, being able to rid officers who commit police misconduct by holding them accountable of their actions will be more beneficial to all police services across North America.

Body cameras offer several benefits to police services, officers, and the citizens. From being able to protect officers from false accusations and claims which can result in notable financial savings, to protecting the accused and revealing cases of police misconduct, it will only strengthen the legitimacy of police agencies across North America. The financial savings from false accusations can further be reinvested back into agencies in order to improve their ability to serve and protect the community. The additional evidence it provides can also combat the often biased witness views on incidents that occur but also serve as a valuable educational tool for both existing and officers in training. Additionally, it can also further educate the public on how to deal or behave in situations where they are interacting with officers with the overall goal being a reduction in the use of excessive force and misconduct. In the long run, all parties benefit from implementing the use of body cameras on officers due to the valuable nature of the footage that can be recorded and the transparency it provides for the public. Overall, the positive impact of body cameras is a turning point in the evolution of policing as it holds the ability to drastically improve and regulate the actions of officers which can reduce the amount of high-profile incidents of police misconduct which damage the reputation of police agencies.

References

1. Puchalski, A. J. (2019). Does what happens in Vegas really stay in vegas: The potential impact of the las vegas massacre on domestic hotel security and individual privacy rights in home-like places. Duquesne Law Review, 57(2), 325-381.
2. Ariel, B., Farrar, W.A. & Sutherland, A. J Quant Criminol (2015) 31: 509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3
3. Voigt, R., Camp, N. P., Prabhakaran, V., Hamilton, W. L., Hetey, R. C., Griffiths, C. M., … Eberhardt, J. L. (2017). Language from police body camera footage shows racial disparities in officer respect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(25), 6521–6526. doi: https://doi-org.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/10.1073/pnas.1702413114
4. WALLACE, D., WHITE, M.D., GAUB, J.E. and TODAK, N. (2018), BODY‐WORN CAMERAS AS A POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DEPOLICING: TESTING FOR CAMERA‐INDUCED PASSIVITY. Criminology, 56: 481-509. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12179
5. Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480-486. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.10.003
6. Morrison, C. M. (2017). Body camera obscura: the semiotics of police video. American Criminal Law Review, 54(3), 791+. Retrieved from https://link-gale- com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/apps/doc/A497179272/AONE?u=uniwater&sid=AONE&xid= e927b9d1

Police departments are becoming more and more integrated with technological solutions as they look to fight and prevent crime from different angles. One source of technology that has become popular among today’s law enforcement is body-worn cameras or BWCs. In this paper, I will summarize 8 research articles that have discussed views on body-worn cameras by not only those in law enforcement but also those incarcerated. Both the pros and cons of having body cameras are discussed within these articles. The problem that the articles describe is not necessarily one that requires a solution, but more research to be done on the topic of body cameras and how they impact the public and the police.

The work of Katz, Huff, and Webb study the Phoenix Police Department and 969 officers are on the force. Out of those officers, 780 were present when the survey was given out and only 569 of those officers who were given a survey agreed to take it. The officers were told that the survey was voluntary, and they had to sign an informed consent paper to be aware that the survey would be linked to their employee records. The dependent variable for the study was taken by having 120 officers out of the original group of those who were given a survey and asking them to wear a body-worn camera. Of the 120 officers, 49 agreed to wear a camera and were assigned to a volunteer group as 99 of the other officers declined to wear a camera out of the 120 original officers asked. The independent variable consisted of asking the officers a series of questions that pertained to the use of body cameras and their perceptions of the use of the cameras in their own line of work and in dealing with the public. 125 officers were examined in the study and the authors used data to create the percentage that led to the control variable in the model.

Bivariate analysis was also used in using officer demographics and their viewpoints on body cameras to test for the relationships between the two. T-tests were used to examine officer views on cameras, activity levels, and self-reported attitudes on the original survey given. A multivariate model was also used to account for the bivariate findings. The bivariate results show that officers with a higher level of education versus those without have a higher level of support for wearing and using body-worn cameras than those with less education. Those who were in the volunteer group of officers were more likely to have an advanced degree than those who refused to wear a body camera. According to Katz, Huff, and Webb (2018), there were differences between volunteer officers and those who refused to wear the cameras regarding on how they saw the cameras impacting citizen behavior, with a mean of 2.6 compared to 2.4 on a scale from 1 to 4. They did not find differences of value in the rest of the areas, therefore the authors Katz, Huff, and Webb (2018) conclude that the significance is focused on the demographic areas of the study. The multivariate results showed the same result as the bivariate as that the officers who had a higher educational level were more likely to want to wear the body cameras versus those officers who refused to wear the cameras and had less educational attainment. The same went for whether or not the officers felt that citizen behavior was impacted by the camera use, officers who had more support for the cameras or who were in the volunteer group showed more support for the cameras impacting their relationship with the community versus those who were in the group that refused to wear the cameras.

The conclusion of this study was that the demographics of the officers, including their educational level and perceptions of citizen impact on body camera use, were the most significant in the variables. Official levels of activity by the officers and the use of force with the cameras showed no significant results. The study had a limitation to it as one department was used and therefore could not have a solid set of findings without being altered when other departments were added. The implications this could have with other studies is that the use of the body-worn cameras in other departments and the views within those departments may result in better policies being made if there are officers who are more receptive to the technology. Officers who are of more resistance to the cameras would result in an opposite effect with less compliance with policy and working towards better goals of the camera use.

Taylor and Lee conducted a study in Australia to analyze the viewpoints of inmates in four Australian states and within those prisons. 907 interviews were done and used the Drug Use Monitoring programme in Australia to use the information from detainees for their study. Trained interviewers conduct interviews with the inmates within 96 hours after they are arrested. The survey was split into two parts, the first involved questions about demographics, drug use, and history, while the second part asked the inmates about their views of police body cameras and their experience with police using the technology. They used a Likert scale to measure the responses from 1 to 5. The interviews were split into two periods in 2015, one was done in the summer and the other was in the fall. The four Australian states that were included were South Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australia. According to Taylor and Lee (2019), 75.9 of police inmates agree that it is a good idea for police to wear body cameras, and the older the inmate the more likely they were to agree with the use of body cameras for police, with no differences between male and female data, they concluded (Taylor and Lee, 2019). Answers for the views on body cameras were as follows: evidence, accountability, and fairness were the best things about police body cameras. The main reason for disliking the cameras was that it portrayed an invasion of privacy on the inmates.

The modification, misrepresentation, and manipulation of police body camera footage were also reasons inmates had issues with the use of body cameras. With the manipulation of footage, inmates said that they felt the police could turn on and off the footage whenever they liked to show themselves in a better light and that they were. On the other hand, inmates felt that it could help capture any police wrongdoings if they acted in an improper manner. As with the issue of manipulating the footage, inmates had concerns over the police modifying the body camera footage after they got back to the station and after arrest. There have been reports that the cameras are easily doctored and there are vulnerabilities in the system that make it easy to modify the footage. Inmates believed that the police could use the information from the cameras could be fixed to where the evidence shown in court is given to the liking of the police and not shown the whole information of the situation and arrest of the inmates involved. The conclusion of this article is that inmates of four Australian states felt that police use of body cameras were a good idea because of accountability of the police and getting the evidence with the footage. The potential for recording police use of force and any questionable behavior by the police. The answers to the interview questions primarily came up as being afraid of police manipulating the footage and as Taylor and Lee state, the police officer can become a producer of the footage and can be used against the inmates versus helping the arrest to be documented for use in court as evidence, Taylor and Lee (2019) concluded. There is still a lack of knowledge on understanding the impact and effect the body cameras have on those involved being filmed with the cameras.

Smykla et al. start out their article by reviewing studies on the perceptions of body cameras from leaders in law enforcement. They first did a literature review on previous studies which looked into the use of body cameras and the viewpoints of those in the law enforcement communities as well as scholars as to why there is a push for or against the use of body cameras. They then reviewed 6 levels of studies that show the impact of body cameras on crime and police officers’ perceptions on the body cameras. However, few of the studies showed the public perceptions and complaints of the body cameras, therefore, needing more review. The current study conducted by Smykla et al. consists of looking at the perceptions of body-worn cameras of law enforcement leaders in Sunshine County. For some background information, the leaders of the Sunshine law enforcement community would meet once a month to discuss concerns, and the researchers then administered a survey to those leaders to find out their perceptions on the cameras in their community. The response rate was 67% of those who received the survey and agreed to take part in the survey. Twenty-nine items were used to find command reception to body cameras. Survey questions were based on previous studies done and discussions with the leaders. The questions are divided into 8 parts and a Likert scale was used to determine how they felt about each question. A total of twenty-four surveys were returned to the researchers. The researchers used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. According to Smykla et al. (2015), the findings show that half of the law enforcement leaders were supportive of body cameras. A majority felt there was no impact on citizen interactions by having the cameras. There was a consensus that not many leaders felt that officer effectiveness on the job was affected by the cameras, according to Smykla et al. (2015). Most believe there will be a positive impact on evidence with the cameras.

With those who had been in law enforcement for less than twenty years were more likely to be in disagreement with the idea of body cameras versus those who had more years of experience. Non-whites were more likely to be against body cameras than their white counterparts, and lower educational attainment showed less support for cameras than those who had higher education. Females were in disagreement when asked if body cameras would help citizens with police legitimacy. There was a general overall positive consensus on the idea of body-worn cameras. As for the impact of future research, there needs to be more done in larger sample sizes and perceptions pre and post-survey need to be documented to correctly have insight on the views over time.

Goetschel and Peha conducted a survey with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to see their perception of body cameras within their department. Questions were administered on a Likert scale with the responses going from one to five and respondents were also asked how familiar they were with using body cameras. A lieutenant within the Bureau emailed the survey to officers and they were told the survey was voluntary and no personal identifying information would be given out. There was a consent form that needed to be signed before anyone could take the survey as well and respondents could stop taking the survey at any time. In-person interviews were conducted to obtain information that may not have been fully captured in the survey results with officers who had experience with body cameras before. Again, an email was sent out by the lieutenant to ask officers if they were willing to be interviewed. The response rate of the surveys was 21%, and according to Goetschel and Pena (2017), the average age of respondents was between 41-45, and had an average experience of 11-15 years on the job. Most of the respondents were in operations, followed by investigations and administration. Most did not have hands-on experience with body cameras, Goetschel and Pena (2017) concluded. Most of the city has low support for body cameras it was shown. As for the in-person interview results, officers said that they were concerned on how to implement discretion and not all citizens experience body cameras in the same way. The officers expressed concern for safety with the cameras with a component on their device, the wire, and thought it could hinder their ability to perform their duties if in the way. Officers also felt that there was more training needed with the body cameras because so many didn’t know how to properly use them. Legal barriers were another concern and officers felt it affected their ability to use the camera.

Limitations in this study included no randomized trials with pre and post-body cameras, and the low response rate of the survey even though there was a large sample size to start out with. The interpretation of the questions regarding experience with body cameras needed to be more concrete instead of having multiple reasons for the answers to the questions. If there were a set amount of what counted as experience the officers wouldn’t be as confused when answering the questions and the data would have been interpreted better without risk of being skewed or having errors. There was low agreement on benefits of the body camera on some areas as well. There needs to be more consensus as a whole in order to interpret the results with more accuracy with the dataset.

Barak implemented a study following the Denver Police Department and their use of body cameras within the department. Body cameras were given to all frontline officers in one district for six months but not to any other officers in the rest of the city. Access to data from the department was given to the researchers and were granted access to eighteen months of various data from the department. The treatment district was compared to five other districts in Denver and the use of body cameras was compared against the other districts. The researchers used the variables use of force, citizen complaints, arrests and citizen-initiated calls for service for 911. As for the data analysis, Barak used adjusted odds ratio to look at the difference between variables and descriptive statistics to summarize the data. The results show that use of force and arrest were reduced, but complaints against police were increased after implementing the body cameras. The possibility for a complaint for use of force when body cameras were not present became higher compared to when the cameras were present. 911 calls for service were increased in the treatment area but varied everywhere else. Officers felt that the cameras would lead to more lawsuits on their part and wished they could have more time to review their footage of the body camera and also to delete footage just like photos from a cell phone if they so wanted to without repercussion.

Barak (2016) suggests that police become more accountable for their actions when using the body cameras therefore the number of complaints go up not because there is an incident but rather more of a confidence of citizens that they can report something and have a better chance of having it taken seriously because they have actual footage to back it up instead of their word against the officers, Barak (2016) concluded. This had the same effect on other parts of the study as well, as arrests were down because the body cameras impact the officer’s discretion in dealing with people. A more randomized controlled trial is needed for future tests because the current study is just an experiment and needs to be clearer in its outcomes.

Brucato’s article took a different approach in which he discusses the use of body cameras and their history and use in policing. Starting out he describes how the public has been only introduced to how police use excessive force and the videotaping of police since the incident of Rodney King in the eighties. Before this incident, there has been no major media that has shown the country the actions of police, questionable or not. After the emergence of the Rodney King video, the United States has been exploding with technology that has allowed the public eye to get a first-hand look at the daily workings of police and police in turn having more lawsuits brought against them and accountability brought into question. Officer body cameras give viability to the public and the departments using them, and as Brucato (2015) states, the officer’s point-of-view is the primary focus of the technology of the body cameras. Citing the US Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor in 1989, “the reasonableness of a particular use of force case must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene”, Brucato (2015) concludes. Reasonableness means that in the current situation, the officer feels that he or she has the reasonable need for using force in that instance in respect to what he or she is experiencing on the scene.

There has been an increase of not only officers having their own body cameras to record citizen interactions but citizens themselves having cameras out to record the police. These interactions are seen by thousands moments after they happen by the user uploading it to the web, making the need for privacy and accountability in police encounters even more difficult. The officers who seek to have privacy with body cameras get scrutinized by the public because they feel that they are hiding evidence but the public who wishes to have privacy is given that opportunity. The legality of the system gives police the reasonableness also gives them perspective of handling the encounter they have with the body cameras. Discretion is therefore used in those moments as the act of reasonableness is a difficult definition to hold up in court, with the court itself not having the experience of the officers and only relying on the testimony of witnesses to give them the background information of the event in question, leading them to assess the situation based on what they feel a reasonable officer would think and do in that moment. It brings up the issue of the officers wanting to be above the law when wanting to have more flexibility in how they want to use their body cameras versus how the public wishes they would use them according to their standards on how police should conduct themselves.

Recently, there has been a lot of tension between the police and the public. There have been numerous reports of police members abusing their power by discriminating against civilians, and there has also been numerous attacks on police by various outraged groups. In order for the police to be successful in their duty, they need to be trusted by civilians and competent enough to do their job regardless of their own personal feelings. The service and civilians would desperately like a solution to this problem, but right now nothing has worked. However, experts believe that body cameras could be the solution to these problems. Three arguments people make for the establishment of mandatory body cameras for all police officers are it helps promote trust between police officers and civilians, it provides video evidence of arrests and it discourages potential attackers from engaging with police officers. For these reasons, the establishment of body cameras for police officers should be mandatory.

The first reason body cameras should be mandatory for all police officers is that it helps promote trust between police officers and civilians. Recently, there have been many conflicts between the public and the force. From allegations that police officers have been abusing their power to serve their own agenda to peaceful demonstrations turned violent, the mutual trust that should be there between the 2 communities has been strained. Many experts believe body cameras can re-establish this trust. A recent study done by the Journal of Quantitative Criminology says that when police officers wore body cameras, “the number of complaints filed against officers dropped from 0.7 complaints per 1,000 contacts to 0.07 per 1,000 contacts”(Ariel, B). This shows that when police officers wear body cameras, they monitor their actions as they are aware that any infringements will be recorded. Even more impressive, a year-long study from 2014 to early 2015 “conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge of nearly 2,000 officers across the UK and the U.S., [found that] the use of body-worn cameras was associated with a 93 percent reduction in citizen complaints against police” (Police body cameras are not a public safety panacea). While the first statistic is a relatively minor shift in complaints, this one is not. The cause of the massive difference between the two statistics may be the locations, as the U.S is known as one of the leading areas in police distrust. These statistics help demonstrate that if body cameras were established for the police in North America, more trust would be garnered between the two communities, and better policing can be done as a result.

A further reason why body cameras are becoming a highly debated topic is their potential impact for court proceedings. Court cases are usually a long and tedious process, but that is the way justice must be handled to ensure a fair ruling. However, there are cases where an unfair ruling was reached because of a lack of significant evidence or accountable witnesses. Many think that the solution may be body cameras, like the magazine India Safe, which is quoted as saying that “the use of body-worn cameras is expected to reduce the time for investigation, court time and various costs associated with criminal proceedings” (Body-Worn Video Surveillance in Law Enforcement), and there is a lot of evidence supporting this statement. In a lot of cases involving police disputes, there is a small amount of physical evidence to convict either side. This is partially why cases involving police discrimination on civilians occasionally lead to unresolved solutions. However, in a recent court case, there are accusations that two police officers murdered a helpless homeless man. While this case could have lead to a stalemate as the police officers would be the only ones testifying, this case is different; one of the officers was wearing a body camera. In an article dissecting the case and the implications, body cameras can have. “David A. Harris, a professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh, said that with the video evidence, ‘it becomes impossible to deny some of the very basic facts.’ He added, ‘That means you start an investigation on an entirely different foundation.’”(Rojas, R). The addition of the body camera adds significant evidence to the case and will lead to a more just solution.

Body cameras can also be used as evidence in cases where acceptable proof is scarce. As mentioned previously, there is usually little evidence for cases involving police officers breaking the law. While a reason for this is that the officer in question is usually the only one left able to talk about the incident, another reason is that the same officers, coworkers, and possible friends, would be responsible for gathering the evidence. This conflict of interest could lead to a lack of evidence or none at all. Without evidence, the case relies solely on the testimonies of those involved, where one or more people testifying may be lying. This is part of the reason why many argue that police officers rarely get proven guilty. While this is a pretty big accusation, there is significant proof that this is a reality; Patrick Davis, executive director of the watchdog group Progress Now, in regards to the case involving the shooting of the homeless man is quoted as saying: “Without [body cameras], the officer would have faced another rubber stamp investigation and he-said-he-said grand jury reminiscent of Ferguson” (Rojas, R). He refers to the case in Ferguson where a police officer shot an unarmed, surrendering black man, and in his trial, the police officer is freed of all charges. Further proof of this comes from a study where almost 2,000 officers across four UK forces and two US police departments were given body cameras. Author Danny Shaw from the BBC writes that “The availability of footage of an incident has also helped police secure convictions, particularly in domestic violence cases where victims are sometimes reluctant to cooperate” (Shaw, D). Domestic abuse cases are notoriously hard to prosecute because both parties involved are usually reluctant to testify; the abused because of the psychological problems caused by being in an abusive relationship, and the abuser simply because they do not want to be found guilty. However, with the undeniable evidence that body cameras provide, it becomes all the easier to prosecute difficult domestic abuse cases, and difficult cases altogether.

Furthermore, body cameras can be used to discourage potential attackers from engaging. This applies equally to both sides, as police officers know that their every move will be recorded and civilians know that their actions could be used to convict them in court. As written in securityinfowatch, a magazine dedicated to the advancements in security, ‘The jolt of issuing a verbal reminder of filming at the start of an encounter nudges everyone to think about their actions more consciously. This might mean that officers begin encounters with more awareness of rules of conduct, and members of the public are less inclined to respond aggressively,’ (Police body cameras are not a public safety panacea). Multiple sources reinforce this statement, ranging from Dr. Ariel, from the Cambridge Institute of Criminology saying ‘Once [the public] are aware they are being recorded, once they know that everything they do is caught on tape, they will undoubtedly change their behavior because they don’t want to get into trouble.”(Shaw, D), to India Safe writing that “the technology is perhaps most effective in actually preventing escalation during police-public interactions, whether that extends to abusive behavior toward police or unnecessary use of force by police.” (Body-Worn Video Surveillance in Law Enforcement). While these quotations paint body cameras in a positive light, they prove little without statistics to back them up. Statistics for body cameras are relatively scarce because they there has only been a few trials around the world; however, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology recently did a study where they assigned experimental shifts for officers wearing the body cameras and control shifts for officers without. When going over the information the study provided they “found that the likelihood of force being used in control conditions [without cameras] were roughly twice those in experimental conditions [with cameras]” (Ariel, B.). This statement has massive implications, as it implies that civilians were engaging less frequently and that the officers did not use unnecessary force. This statistic proves that body cameras will bring down the amount of force being used by both officers of the law and the people they’re supposed to protect.

In conclusion, the three arguments people make for the establishment of mandatory body cameras for all police officers is it helps promote trust between police officers and civilians, it provides video evidence of arrests and it discourages potential attackers from engaging with police officers. While the statistics for body cameras are in short supply because their is only a few cases where they have been established, the few gathered provide substantial evidence and confirm the expert’s beliefs that body cameras will benefit the service. There is a clear divide between police officers and the public, and with that divide, police officers can not efficiently protect the public. Body cameras can help heal this fracture, and both sides can rely on the other again.

Sorry, but police body-worn cameras (BWCs) are not the panacea to police performance. Rather, what was thought to prevent the police’s abusive use of power is turning into the means of reinforcing their authority and eroding the citizen’s privacy as it pairs up with facial-recognition technology. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, nearly half of the law enforcement agencies had acquired body-worn cameras by 2016. Compared to the 25 percent of BWC utilization in 2013, the statistics from 2016 reflects the rapid implementation of BWCs. Regardless of how beneficial the cameras may be, its integration with advanced technology makes it a powerful surveillance tool which bring about alarming ethical concerns such as the invasion of privacy and freedom. Sadly, too often are these ethical drawbacks completely neglected and only the alleged benefits of BWCs are highlighted. While the implementation of body cameras in law-enforcement agencies serve a good intent to increase police accountability and transparency, the lack of appropriate laws and regulations to ensure proper use of the fast-developing technology make the BWCs a double-sided sword. Especially since police officers stand on the intersection of law, justice, and society, there is an urgent need for the law-enforcement agencies and the firms that develop the BWCs to assess the ethical costs of the tool while the legislative branch must develop a counteracting friction to prevent the technology contorting from beneficence to undisguised domination.

The U.S. police officers are well-known for their lethal force, and there are far more police shootings and violence in the US compared to other developed countries like Japan and Germany. This disparity between police force is partially explained by the fact that brutal crimes involving gun violence is much more common in the US. Unfortunately, this powerful force of the law-enforcement agents also makes police brutality one of the hottest political topics in America. Following the Ferguson protests in 2014 that occurred in response to the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager who was killed by a white officer, the Obama administration granted $23.2 million called Smart Policing Initiatives to expand the usage of body-worn cameras in law-enforcement agents. The goal of the expanded implementation of BWC was to raise public trust by increasing transparency.

As body-worn camera industry expanded, tech companies have been joining the camera with advanced technologies like facial-recognition and artificial intelligence. However, the use of facial-recognition technology with BWC contradicts its original purpose. As mentioned earlier, BWCs were developed in response to police violence cases as a tool to ensure transparency and better police performance. Using facial-recognition technology inverts this original intention of the community oversight of the police into the police oversight of the community. Facial-recognition technology enables each officer to act as ‘sophisticated surveillance mechanisms’. Anyone passing by a police officer will be scanned and cataloged in a database, which will then be used for the identification of bad actors. The technology creates a surveillance dragnet that converts every citizen into a suspect at all times. Fred Turner discussed how people dreamed the rise of the internet as a means to defeat authoritarianism while it ended up creating a more sophisticated era of authoritarianism. Likewise, what we dream to be the tool to end police brutality may end up contributing to the creation of the Oceania in 1984.

Despite the ethical concerns, companies are racing to bring this dreamed surveillance equipment into reality. A group of over 40 civil rights and liberties groups wrote a joint letter to Axon, the nation’s biggest maker of BWC, expressing their ethical concerns regarding the company’s products. The letter pointed out real-time facial-recognition technology as the chief concern, emphasizing the well-documented fact that facial recognition technology disproportionately affects people of color and women. Bringing in a technology that is biased towards certain groups of population is surely unethical without doubt. Axon announced its decision to accept the recommendation of its ethics board and the joint letter and said that facial recognition will not be used in its devices, “yet”. Being the industry leader with more than 200,000 Axon cameras being in use in the country, Axon’s rare move highlights the increased ethical concerns of the tech industry. Notwithstanding, Axon is just one of the many companies developing BWCs, and Axon itself has only postponed but not banned the use of facial-recognition technology. The industry must be extremely cautious in bringing the facial-recognition equipped cameras into the market without proper safeguard to mitigate the potential negative consequences being in place.

Furthermore, facial recognition technology puts political freedom at threat. The ongoing protests in Hong Kong well demonstrate how the police use of facial-recognition can chill free speech and political movements in public spaces. With the fear of being recognized as being involved in the heated protests – as it could lead to negative consequences like job loss – people are forced to censor themselves. Addressing such ethical concerns, San Francisco became the first city in the US to ban the police use of facial-recognition technology, followed by other cities like Berkeley and Oakland. As Hopkins states, “facial recognition is a fundamental threat to society”, that can be lethal to our democracy.

Our rights to privacy and political freedom as the citizens of the US must never be subject to any trade-off, even if it is for the better performance and transparency of our own law-enforcement agencies. The apparent benefits of new technology make it alluring to implement, but as technology outpaces laws and regulations, the law-enforcement agents must be more careful regarding the potential impact beyond the intended purpose of practicing transparency and accountability while the legislative process must speed up to meet the requirements of the First and Fourth Amendments.