Body Worn Cameras

Body Worn Cameras

            Many police departments around the world are deploying and implementing body-worn cameras at an increasing rate. Body-worm cameras are one of the modern technologies that can change how police conduct their duty. The move to use body-worn cameras aims at civilizing the police while increasing accountability among the police. However, there is an issue raised concerning police body-worn cameras. The critics of the cameras argue that vital privacy and also surveillance-related concerns will be revealed to the public and may display the weakness of the police departments. The body-worn cameras are significant in gathering essential information and then store it in the form modifiable not only to processing but also analysis. When compared to other cameras, body-worn cameras are essential since they are mobile and can be carried into private homes or any other place that the police choose to go and hence record what they can hear and see. Body-worn cameras are beneficial to the police departments in that information is recorded as it happens as well as improving accountability among the police, although they pose a significant privacy risk towards the entire police department.

Since the issues of introducing Body-worn cameras emerged, it has always been a controversial issue. For instance, according to statistics, since the year 2000, the police department in countries like Australia, England, Brazil, and the United States has been introducing body-worn cameras (Otu, 49). The police officers have been against the camera police although the authorities have maintained that the cameras have to be worn. Since the introduction of the policy, the cameras have created a sense of increased power among the police. Furthermore, cameras in the police department have also created additional responsibility not only in agencies but also to individual officers. Even though the implementation of Body-worm cameras has always been controversial, many departments are accepting it without the will of police officers. Furthermore, statistics have indicated that there had been high-profile civilian deaths who are at the hand of police officers. Some states demanded that body worm cameras be mandatory to police.

Body-worn cameras have come in handy to curb police misconduct and at the same time providing clear accounts of the action of officers. The government of the United States budgeted about $US 75 million, which was to be applied in 3 years and purchase 50,000 cameras to be used by police (Lippert & Newell, 114). The cameras were to be used by law enforcement officers on duty to record their interactions with citizens. A study conducted in England to determine the impact of body-worn cameras concluded that the video which can be filed by the camera could be a proper piece of evidence. Therefore the cameras can be helpful in a situation where it was challenging to capture evidence in written form. Similarly, cameras are excellent in the instance where violence has emerged.

According to a report from the United States Senate subcommittee, American citizens could not trust the police department any more considering the death of individuals who are responsible for killing. Therefore, restoring public confidence in the police after numerous cases of police killing citizens. Lawmakers and witnesses who were members of the subcommittee affirmed that it was essential for police on duty to put on the cameras (Otu, 56). Implementations of such a policy can be substantial since police behavior when handling suspects can be monitored. Those with lousy misconduct can be judged according to law. Notably, such measures can lower the high-profile cases of police killing citizens.

One of the reasons citizens are supporting the implementation of body-worn cameras in the police department is the fact that they can increase police accountability, transparency, and trust. Even though there is no empirical evidence supporting that the implementation of cameras improves police officers’ accountability and transparency. However, according to random control trial studies, they affirmed that cameras in the police department are essential since they decrease the use of force by police (Lippert & Newell, 114). In the legal justice system, police body cameras will give not only visual but also audio evidence hence verifying what happened in a situation. It will be helpful in a condition where police have been falsely accused of misconduct that he/she didn’t commit. For instance, in Texas, a police officer was charged and fired after body cameras provided evidence that he shot and killed unarmed youth (Ariel, Farrar, & Sutherland, 531). Scholars are also concerned if this can be a long-lasting solution since there is a possibility that the cognitive awareness of officers of the presence of cameras can fade over time. Hence, it’s a realistic consideration.

Body-worn cameras are also essential since they increase the possibility that police officers will not only behave ethically but also procedural manner. Primarily, according to scholars, humans normally behave better when they know that they are monitored. Furthermore, there even scholars who have affirmed that humans are subjected to change their behavior when they know they are studies. Hence, indicating benefits of civilizing police officers. Such a conclusion is not new to the research arena since there are also promising studies affirming that the behaviors of police when wearing cameras change. In most cases, the interaction is not only respective but also polite and results in ethical action. To affirm if this is true, it is the responsibility of the government to survey and interview members of the community. It included people who have had any interaction with the police equipped with cameras. Hence, identify the impact of cameras on the accountability of polices.

Moreover, the police are viewed as a body governed by transparency and accountability. Citizens will have more trust in the department if the departments show efforts to curb irresponsible behaviors. The police badge generally represents the expectations of the citizens from the department. Furthermore, the camera in the badge shows the acceptance of the department to be held responsible for the activities undertaken by the police officers. Generally, the implementation of the policy depends on the trustworthiness of the police officers. Officers may decide to switch off or on the camera when they do not want to be recorded. Also, a police officer will not allow the camera to record evidence that will be used against the police officer.

Figure 1 A police badge

Police body cameras are also essential in the community since they can be used as a tool for learning, and thus, why members of the public support them. Mainly, a video that has been recorded by body cameras can be helpful when used not only to train existing but also to a new officer. It can be how to perform their duties when they encounter a difficult situation with the public. For instance, since 2012, the police department of Miami has been using body cameras to train its recruits. The policy of using cameras is applicable when the department records a scenario in training; afterward, they analyze it together with students and recruit (Lippert & Newell, 114). Additionally, according to a survey conducted in Landon, it concluded that about 92% of the public are supporting body-worm cameras (Ariel et al., 250). More so, they are further willing to pay extra taxes for local police to be equipped with the cameras. Citizens are eager to pay additional fees since they are assured that police officers will be doing the right thing when they have body cameras.

Although body cameras are essential in improving police accountability and transparency, they have limitations. Precisely, the field of view of cameras might be short and hence cannot capture all the activities taking place during the interaction of police and citizens (Ariel, 729). When such a situation emerges, it creates a challenge not only to the investigators but also to the police department. Therefore, it becomes a hindrance to interpret and evaluate the evidence captured by the camera. Since there is a potential of misinterpretation of the recordings. Similarly, there are possibilities that video footage could produce misleading pictures. For instance, a suspect might not be recorded while trying to reach a weapon. In such a scenario, it could be interpreted that the police were acting without justifiable reason (Otu, 49). Moreover, for the case of night encounter, the cameras might lack the capability of recording a clear image and hence, reliable at night. It indicates that the police might be using excessive force at night but different at night. Therefore, the police department cannot be trusted due to a lack of transparency.

Precisely, as stipulated by the police departments of many countries, polices are mandated to file a report after every encounter they come across a citizen. In a situation where they are using body-worn cameras, officers have adequate time to view the footage of all the contacts of the day before they file a report. Police do this to ensure that what they have documented is accurate (Ariel et al., 250). When they are reviewing the document and find they broke the law somewhere. They usually have the opportunity of fabricating the encounter. Thus, their statement might be inaccurate about the event that had happened previously. Notably, this is one of the reasons why the public should not trust body-worn cameras. Police might not be accountable or transparent as the mounted camera might suggest.

The main reason against police body cameras is the fact that they invade the privacy of citizens, expose witnesses, and victims. In such a situation where privacy exposed, the relationship between police and public is damaged. Primarily, upon mounting police with body cameras, they will be mandated to record any situation they encounter (Lippert & Newell, 114). It can lead to public exposure of private medical conditions and victims of rape and domestic violence, and witnesses who do not want their identity to be revealed. Precisely, it common in some state in the United States which allow the public to accesses footage. Primarily, according to a study conducted in Carolina, it concluded that when citizens know that they are recorded in all-time, they encounter police, without considering the context. It can become a challenge since it not only damage the openness but also bring up barriers to critical relationships. Similarly, a study conducted in Canada affirmed that witnesses become reluctant to talk when they release that police are mandated with body-worn cameras. It happens even in a situation where the device has been switched off. This is a clear indication that also though body-worn cameras improve the transparency of the police department. On the other hand, they have a negative impact since cameras expose the privacy of victims and law enforcement agencies.

Police body cameras raise substantial privacy issues; precisely, law enforcement agencies are also concerned about security. Cameras are also exposing their privacy to enemies in a situation where they are very vulnerable. Therefore, for police body cameras to be entirely accepted in public by all parties without concerned with privacy issues. Lawmakers and scholars must play a role in determining and evaluating a situation where cameras can be used and not used. If the case is not assessed, the body cameras will damage the relationships built by officers with the community. Additionally, the witness will prefer to remain silence not to be recorded. Thus, police officers should be guided by policies that give specific parameters where it can be recorded.

In sum, Body-worn cameras have come in handy to curb police misconduct and at the same time providing clear accounts of the action of officers. Body-worn cameras are beneficial to the police departments in that information is recorded as it happens as well as improving accountability among the police, although they pose a significant privacy risk towards the entire police department. According to a report from the United States Senate subcommittee, American citizens do not trust the police department any more considering the death of individuals who are responsible for killing. However, resistance has been faced on the move to implement the camera policy. The main reason against police body cameras is the fact that they invade the privacy of citizens, expose witnesses, and victims. In such a situation where privacy exposed, the relationship between police and public is damaged. As a citizen, you should support the implementation of the body-worn camera policy so that authorities can be in a position to know when police officers are reluctant to follow the policy.

Works Cited

Ariel, Barak, et al. ““Contagious accountability” a global multisite randomized controlled trial on the effect of police body-worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police.” Criminal justice and behavior 44.2 (2017): 293-316.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854816668218

Ariel, Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland. “The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial.” Journal of quantitative criminology 31.3 (2015): 509-535. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10940-014-9236-3

Ariel, Barak. “POLICE BODY CAMERAS IN LARGE POLICE DEPARTMENTS.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, vol. 106, no. 4, 2016, pp. 729-768. ProQuest, https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1902638002?accountid=7113.

Lippert, R. K., & Newell, B. C. (2016). Introduction: The privacy and surveillance implications of police body cameras. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), 113-116. Retrieved from https://libproxy.library.unt.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1802200604?accountid=7113

Otu, Noel. “Police body cameras: Seeing may be believing.” Salus Journal 4.3 (2016): 49.

http://scci.csu.edu.au/salusjournal/wpcontent/uploads/sites/29/2016/11/Otu_Salus_Journal_Volume_4_Number_3_2016_pp_49-64.pdf