BODY CAMERAS TO BENEFIT POLICE AND CITIZENS
There is a sustained perception by minority groups such as African-Americans that the law enforcement officers treat discriminately. This has increased incidences of police involvement against the demographics. However, the introduction and use of body cameras come as a panacea towards bringing to an end the unprecedented cases of police brutality and use of excessive force. In addition, civil suits concerning police brutality launched by African Americans are expected to reduce the involvement of body cameras. According to the H.Res.16, the wearing of body cameras by local law enforcement agencies while serving the communities encourages transparency and protects both the officers and the citizens. There is a necessity throughout the country to see to it that incidents of police brutality against the black community reduce. Nationwide efforts to reduce police brutality cases have increased and local law enforcement departments are committed to ensuring full execution of body cameras. Most of the departments agree that there should be increases in disclosures were appropriate and safety measures in place in instances where body cameras and wearable technology is employed.
A poll conducted by Isaac Simpson regarding how to solve the problem of police brutality against African Americans came up with twelve main propositions (Jennings et al., 24). Examples of these propositions include a reduction of use of excessive force, improvements in the use of non-lethal weapons, self-policing, better pay, and the enforcement of stricter requirements. Besides, it was suggested that media sensationalism be ended and that the Black Lives Movement joins in helping to solve the problem.
The perception of most Americans is that the police department is wrought with racism and discrimination against minority groups. Empirical evidence shows that crime levels are higher in densely populated communities and inner cities dominated by minority groups and low-income earners. The problem is more pronounced in the inner cities domiciled by a majority of African Americans.
Critics oppose the idea of body cameras because of the expenses that are associated with the procurement, installation, and maintenance of body cameras. According to Ariel et al., because of the recent economic downturn, federal state budgets have been cut. Therefore, for some law enforcement agencies, with the budgets cuts, it is untenable to increase the expenses from the implementation of body camera project. Since most departments are already under tight budgets, the initiative for the introduction of body cameras will be a costly affair especially for police departments that lack sustainable resource generation.
Even through wearable technology is not the only way of eradicating violence against African Americans, it is an effective way of significantly reducing brutality and aggressive behavior by the police. Both supporters and critics of wearing body cameras agree that people may avoid engaging in incorrigible behaviors especially when they voluntarily know that they are being filmed. This argument is supported by statistical evidence and empirical research.
Most departments that use body cameras for the police have noted improvement in the interactions between the police and citizens. For instance, in Rialto, California, the Wall Street journal reported that there was 60% decline in the use of excessive force by the police after implementation of the body cameras. In additions, complaints against the law enforcement officers dropped by about 90%. The statistics justify that the use of body cameras may help reduce police brutality and strengthen prospects of community policing. It should be noted that complaints significantly dropped because the devices helped to reduce unfounded complaints by the public or the police feared being filmed while using excessive force. Cameras can, therefore, help police department manage security, back evidence and reduce brutality.
My point of view is that body cameras do benefit both the citizens and the police departments. I understand that there are constructive criticisms, but being aware that fellow community members are not harmed by police is a great relief. I am also happy to note that the police are also protected against malicious lawsuits and public lynching of character especially those officers who are dedicated to service.
In conclusion, both the citizens of all races and the police departments benefit from the use of wearable technology. This is because the police and citizens are forced to do what is right whenever they realize that they are watched or recorded. In addition, the recorded content provides evidence to solve cases that involve complaints against police brutality. However, critics argue that use of body cameras infringes on privacy rights and is an expensive venture for local police departments. Nonetheless, proponents suggest that there should be total disclosure whenever an officer is using the body camera in order to avoid overstepping other people’s rights.
BODY CAMERAS TO BENEFIT POLICE AND CITIZENS
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Ariel, Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland. "The effect of police body-worn cameras on the use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial." Journal of quantitative criminology31.3 (2015): 509-535.
“H.Res. 16 — 115th Congress: Supporting local law enforcement agencies in their continued work to serve our communities, and supporting ” www.GovTrack.us. 2017. January 15, 2017, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres16
This resolution supports the police in their works of service and their use of wearable technology so as to protect self and the citizens, and to promote transparency. It was assigned on 3rd January 2017 to the congressional committee.
Jennings, Wesley G., Lorie A. Fridell, and Mathew D. Lynch. "Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement." Journal of Criminal Justice 42.6 (2014): 549-556.
This journal discusses the perceptions of the police on wearing body cameras. The study was encouraged by the recent increase in the media’s attention of the issue and the adoption of the cameras.
Wasserman, Howard M. "Moral Panic and Body Cameras." Wash. UL Rev.92 (2014): 831.
This source talks about the moral concerns that are associated with the use of body cameras in the society. The author argues that the success of body cameras is depended on the mutual support of the technology from the public and the local police officers.
White, Michael D. "Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence." Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(2014).
References
Ariel, Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland. "The effect of police body-worn cameras on the use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial." Journal of quantitative criminology31.3 (2015): 509-535.
“H.Res. 16 — 115th Congress: Supporting local law enforcement agencies in their continued work to serve our communities, and supporting ” www.GovTrack.us. 2017. January 15, 2017, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hres16
Jennings, Wesley G., Lorie A. Fridell, and Mathew D. Lynch. "Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement." Journal of Criminal Justice 42.6 (2014): 549-556.
Wasserman, Howard M. "Moral Panic and Body Cameras." Wash. UL Rev.92 (2014): 831.
White, Michael D. "Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence." Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services(2014).
