There have been far too many headlines lately regarding a dangerous phenomenon that has become all too common. Police Officers caught in the act of treating suspects in abusive, inappropriate and lethal ways without any reasonable provocation. This shocking problem has existed for some time, but as technology increases and video is difficult to avoid, it is now only making it to the general public. Instances like these have inspired horror, anger, protest and, in many cases, retaliatory violence against random officers. The people all across the United States are losing their trust and faith in their police forces and are more and more reticent to seek their involvement or help. The problem is a very real one and one of the ways suggested to rectify the problems of “bad” policing behaviors and actions is to require all police officers to wear active body-cameras at all times when in the field. Not everyone supports the idea of requiring such cameras for a number of reasons. However, after reviewing all of the available research it becomes clear that the implementing of mandatory body-cameras for police officers is an ideal and ethical solution. Body-camera requirements would reveal positive and negative police behaviors, hold officers accountable for their actions, would reveal the number of honest officers that exist on larger numbers and it might aid in the expediting of court cases.
The purpose of police officer is supposed to be embodied by the motto, “to protect and serve.” Unfortunately not all officers, especially, in the modern era, take that purpose to heart. All too often some people become police officers because they like the authority and control they can gain over others. This attitude is often reflected in how they treat their routine traffic stops to a face off with a dangerous offender, which is unfortunately, all too often, not very well. They have become aggressive and abusive in situations that do not require such responses. Phillip Zimbardo, in 1971, conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment, which took volunteers, split them into two groups for a social experiment. Half would be playing prisoners and the other half the guards of a mock prison. Several guards began mistreating the prisoners and asserting their powers over the “prisoners;” other guards began to follow suit. “Everyone and everything in this prison was defined by power” (Zimbardo 738). His research added credence to the concept of “power corrupts.” When the person who is corrupted has a badge and a gun, there is definitely a call for concern and change. Hence the body-cameras are the most effective and non-cumbersome means to accomplish such a goal.
Not all police officers are committing these abusive and threatening behaviors and approaches; In fact, the majority of police officers are dedicated, honest and committed to doing their job properly and follow the standards and codes as they should. Those who defy their social responsibility to the people and are a threat to the general public are a minority within law enforcement. However, since the nature of the acts of these abusive officers have resulted in the deaths of people, including minors, without provocation it cannot be ignored or left unaddressed. Two of these significant instances that have inspired critical attention are those of Walter Scott and Mario Woods. Walter Scott was shot in the back and killed after he attempted to flee from arrest in a routine traffic stop. Scott did not have record of violent crimes, but a few civil issues. When he ran the officer shot him and did not rendered aid. When officers arrived he said he was threatened, the suspect had taken his tasar and he felt threaten by Mr. Scott. However, a bystander video proved that the officer was lying and his shooting of Mr. Scott was uncalled for and he was prosecuted. Mario Woods was surrounded by police officers on a San Francisco, California, street. He had a small knife, but was never close enough to cause harm. He did not lunge or aggress towards the officers. In fact, he appeared in an altered state and ignored the officer’s instructions. With onlookers watching all the officers opened fire on Woods, in hail of gun fire, he was dead. Video taken from the scene, again, by bystanders, showed that Woods may never have been a threat to the officers enough to warrant that kind of response of police. In an article, written for Time Magazine, titled “The Shooting Of Mario Woods Brings Ferguson To San Francisco, Activists Say, “it was explained that “this was a person who was shot multiple timeshe did not put officer’s lives in danger” (Steinmetz 1). He was not a murder suspect, just an argumentative and noncompliant one, whose crimes did not warrant a death sentence. Those that oppose the concept of requiring officers to wear body-cameras argue that it is not the best solution to this modern policing problem. They have three specific reasons for their position.
Much of the opposition comes from within law enforcement fields. They argue that being under surveillance at all times could negatively affect active officers when working. They may be worried about being criticized and questioned when they make professional decisions that it could cause individual officers to second guess their decisions in situations where quick thinking could mean their own life or death. However, it is not their good decisions in question. As explained in the article, “Brutal Reality: When Police Wear Body Cameras, Citizens Feel Much Safer,” in 2015, discussing that it is bystanders proving that police officers are not always honest about events and it is, “video after amateur video contradicts law enforcement” (Feige 1).
The intention of the cameras is to identify officers whose behaviors and interactions with the public is not appropriate, unethical or potentially dangerous, However, body-cameras will not aid in that capacity because the officers are aware of them. Officers will be on their best behavior negating the reason for implementing the cameras. In the article, “When Cameras are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body-Mounted Cameras on Police,” the author explains that,”eliminating any possibility that an officer could invade the recording of abuses committed on duty” would be incredibly difficult (Stanley 1). There may never be a way to guarantee that officers and other members of law enforcement cannot alter the recordings. One of the greatest issues that many have involves the “cover-up” mentality of police forces. If one officers behaves badly, then others may hide the problem than work to solve it. Another famous study, in 1963, discussed in the article, “Obedience to Authority,” which detailed an experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram, showed some interesting results. In this study participant were broken into two groups, one would be teachers and the other learners. If the learners got answers to the teachers questions wrong, the teacher would be expected to give an electrical shock to the learner. While some had a difficult time with causing others pain, many easily conformed to the tasks. The authors explained, “we can take ordinary people and make them show a degree of obedience and conformity” (Parker 720). Meaning that the internal culture of the police department can lead, otherwise non-violent and honest individuals, to participate or join into the conformity of what others are doing around, even if that behavior is unethical.
Since those opposed to body-cameras believe that it will be detrimental to officers and will not be effective it would be an expensive waste of time. They often argue not from a ethical position, but an economical one. The cost of the equipment, the training in the use of this equipment and such a department staffed to conduct the monitoring of potentially hundreds of cameras at any given time depending on the number of officers in a given shift would be far too costly (Stanley 1).
There is pretty much nowhere that anyone can go in most public places, in this day and age, where you are not be monitored or recorded. Security cameras, traffic cameras and random cell phones are watching all of the time. Police departments have already adopted the regular use of dash-cameras on police cruisers, so there is no good reason that police body cameras would not be a natural extension of that technology. If cops are doing things wrong, then it stand to reason we need to have visual proof of it. Supporters of enforcing police to be outfitted with body-cameras argue major 3 major points as well.
A video has no opinions and takes no sides; it simply reflects the truth in the most clear and unbiased way. That said these body-cameras would be beneficial to the public, suspects and officers. In the case of suspects it would show any abuses that occurred. For officers it would protect them from false accusations of abuse, which also occurs, simplifying the issues. Finally it would show the people that the police forces are being proactive to improve police behaviors and show just how many officers are not behaving badly. A California study, in the 2013 article, titled “Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras,” showed that in locations where body-cameras have been implemented there has been a “39 percent reduction in use-of-force incidents by officersalong with a 87 percent drop in civilian complaints” (Wing 1).
Every allegation against the police must be investigated and reviewed. This is true when the allegation are founded or not. This can affect the process of meeting the needs of justice as a whole, making law enforcement’s purpose even harder to do in the long run. This can complicate and lengthen court proceedings. In an era, where the court systems are overwhelmed and prisons overcrowded, the cameras could provide the kind of proof that would eliminate a lot of paperwork and precious time and unburden the court system and benefit the criminal justice system by saving them time and monies in the long run (Stanley 1).
Those who oppose body-cameras have their beliefs, but the research and studies into the issue is proving, by and large, to favor the inclusion of mandatory police body-cameras. Even if police body cameras cannot catch behavior it does not see, especially when officers are on their best behavior, but then it may act as a determent. An article for Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, titled “When Cameras are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body-Mounted Cameras on Police,” the author explains that body-cameras will have a profound effect and will, “impact the behavior of members of the public and individual police officers” (Freund 93). If police officers are doing their jobs correctly, ethically and in accordance to the law then they should not fear the inclusion of body cameras. The lack of support by many law enforcement agencies gives an impression that there is a lot to hide. The implementation of mandatory body-cameras could, again, be the ideal witness to interactions between the people and the police. It could protect both suspects and the public, but, also, the officers as well. If body-cameras had been requirement then cases like, Mario Woods, Walter Scott and all of those like them, would perhaps never have happened. Those members of police departments who have committed abuses cannot be undone, but it is a serious issue needing to be proactively addressed. Mandatory body-cameras is the ideal solution to the problem.
This is the 21st century and technology plays an important role in the modern society. Police body-cameras are ideally a resilient and not cumbersome option; it would not directly interfere with the officer’s function. It clearly offers and unbiased eye on events that occur. If police officers are entrusted with the power are abusing that power, then it places the public in danger and must be addressed. Asking officers to wear such a camera that, both, monitors and protects them, then its implementation seems like the most logical solution; really it is common sense. Supporting body-cameras for law enforcement is the best way to improve police behavior, simplify some court cases and lead to immense cost effectiveness in the long run. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
WORK CITED
Barack, Ariel, W.A. Farrar & A. 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. Print.
Feige, D. “Brutal Reality: When Police Wear Body Cameras, Citizens Feel Much Safer.” Slate
Magazine. (2015): 1. Web. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/police_body_cameras_cops_commit_less_violence_and_complaints_are_real.html>.
Freund, Kelly.”When Cameras are Rolling: Privacy Implications of Body-Mounted Cameras on
Police.” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. 49.1. (2015): 92-135. Print.
Parker, Ian. “Obedience to Authority.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum.” Ed
Laurence Behrevis and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. Boston, Longman. (2011): 712-721. Print.
Stanley, Jay.”Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, A Win For All.”
American Civil Liberties Union. (2015): 1. Web. <https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all>.
Steinmetz, Katy. (2015).The Shooting Of Mario Woods Brings Ferguson To San Francisco,
Activists Say. Time Magazine. (2015): 1. Web. <http://time.com/4151979/mario-woods-shooting-san-francisco/>.
Wing, Nick. “Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras.”
The Huffington Post. (2015): 1. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-body-camera-study_us_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56>.
Zimbardo, Phillip G. “The Stanford Prison Experiment.” Obedience to Authority. (n.d.): 732-
746.
