Introduction.2
Discussion.. 3
Cons of Requiring Body Cameras 3-4
Pros of Requiring Body Cameras 4-5
Institutional Police Abuse and Corruption. 5-6
Racial Elements & Police 6-7
Technology & Police.. 7-8
Nothing to Hide 8
Walter Scott & Officer Michael E. Slager 8-9
Police Resolving Problems 9-10
Making Changes 11-12
Conclusion. 12-13
References 14-15
INTRODUCTION
Law and order is an issue that all civilizations past, present and future have faced. All people try to find the most ethical, moral, philosophical and effective means to establish laws, enforce those laws, punish the guilty and provide justice for the victims of crimes committed. For generations law enforcement officers have been the bridge between the public and the American criminal justice system. There was a time when the authority and duty of police was respected, people taught their children to trust police and believed them to be honest and honorable. Unfortunately in the last few decades those opinions of the police have changed. Faith in the police has waned after a numerous stories involving police abusing their power, mistreating citizens and, most recently, resorting to opening fire on suspected offenders with little or no provocation or imminent threat. These issues of police brutality and deaths at the hands of police is proving to be too common and it has made many Americans fearful of the police, do not want to interact with them and teaching their children to run away from police and not towards them. This lack and fear is legitimate and real, enough witness videos have been uploaded to the internet to prove that a problem is present. However, while the number of crooked or abusive police officers is probably far higher than many would like to believe, they do represent all police officers in the United States. There are still good cops, officers who are honorable, have integrity and believes fully in their duty to “protect and serve.” One of the solutions has been implemented are dash-cameras installed into police cruisers, which records most of the officer’s activities throughout their shifts, especially, during traffic stops. Many feel that more surveillance is necessary and feels it should be necessary for all officers be required to wear body-cameras. Some Americans see this measure as the most logical solution, while others disagree and do not feel that such persistent monitoring is as beneficial as it is being presented to be. After reviewing the quality sources it becomes abundantly clear that measures, like body-cameras, are the necessary step in order to deter negative police behaviors and, ideally, restore the faith in police in the United States.
DISCUSSION
The reality of the 21st century it is common to install surveillance cameras and businesses and private homes. You are being recording when walking around a shopping mall; there is a perpetual possibility that most Americans are being seen on cameras all over their town and cities and do not even realize it. That said it is the presence of cameras on cell phones and the constant potential for bystanders of crime to record information. So body-cameras required for law enforcement is not such an outlandish consideration. It is the videos of, both, private citizens and police dash-cameras that brought the serious issues of police abusers and violence to the forefront of American conversations, as explained in the article “We're Not Seeing More Police Shootings, Just More News Coverage,” for CNN News. (McLaughlin, 2015). The behaviors of some officers have been reprehensible in some cases and have lead to protests, riots and some lethal attacks on random police officers. Again, there are two sides to the debate regarding how to address the problem. In order to discuss these perspectives of the divergent sides it is best to address them individually.
Cons of Requiring Body Cameras: For those who are opposed to the implementation of police body-cameras, they argue specific points that make the suggestion that body-cameras are not nearly as beneficial as some would like to believe.
The cost of implementing body-cameras is very high. The surveillance software needed and the staff to monitor the images on a large scale is simply too costly and will likely not resort in the kind of change that is hoped for. The purpose of the recordings may indentify a small percentage of police officers that may behave badly whether on camera or not, as explained in the article “Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement.” (National Institute of Justice, 2016).
When someone feels that their every move is under scrutiny they may be distracted and likely to second guess their own ability to do their job and may lead to inaction that is harmful to the police, offenders and innocent bystanders (Stanley, 2016).
As discussed in the article, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies In Place, A Win For All,” for the American Civil Liberties Union, the opposition argues that this technology will be of little use if police are aware of the cameras, it will not catch their real behavior. The thing they may do when they do not know they are being watched is important as well. Also, it will have little effect, if police have access to turning the camera on and off and access to delete or erase data they do not want shared (Stanley, 2016). For every technology that is created the means to infiltrate is, also, discovered.
Pros of Requiring Body-Cameras: Those who support the implementation of body-cameras for all officers who are interacting with the public believe that it may be the only way to encourage change and deter, if not eliminate, dangerous, excessive use of force and violent or lethal actions of the police without provocation.
First and foremost, the uses of the cameras present a witness that is unbiased. The camera does not lie. It is a tool that could be incredibly beneficial to police, the public and offenders. In verifying instances where police have behaved inappropriately, vindicating officers who are falsely accused of abuses against suspect or offender. It will inevitably lead to less violence between civilians and police and there will likely be less complaints of police abuse when there was none, as explained in the 2015 article, by N. Wing, titled “Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras,” for The Huffington Post.
It will force law enforcement to hold their officers accountable; far harder for officers to lie to their superiors and far harder for superiors to sweep such behaviors under the rug (Stanley, 2016).
It could actually help to expedite court cases and legal proceedings, which would benefit the United States on many levels, including the value of body-cameras (Stanley, 2016).
As discussed in the article for Slate Magazine, “Brutal Reality: When Police Wear Body Cameras, Citizens Are Much Safer,” shows proof that while many officers have negative attitudes and behaviors, not all cops behave in such ways. It could potentially, again, restore Americans faith in their police forces (Feige, 2015).
There are many Americans who believe that this kind of monitoring is pointless because they feel that the corruption and abuses committed by some police officers is an institutional phenomenon. Police officers have covered for other officers (McLaughlin, 2015). This happens even when the questionable actions are committed and caught on camera. In 2014, the case of Laquan McDonald in Chicago, shared with America how that “cover-up” persists. McDonald, an African American teenager, refused to comply with police officers as he walked down the center line of a Chicago street. Several officers were already on the scene commanding that McDonald stop and get on his knees. It is believed that McDonald did have a small knife in his possession but he never raised it in a threatening matter. This is when Officer Jason Van Dyke arrived on the scene. Within a few seconds of his arrival, as McDonald passes the officer, with a several foot distance between them, he began firing. Hitting McDonald multiple times and dropping him to the ground. When McDonald raised his head, the officer reloaded and continued firing. Despite a complete disregard to the unforgivable behavior of Officer Van Dyke the other officers present tried to cover for the horrible actions. However, the video showed a very different scenario and this information could not be hidden or delete. The dash-camera video helped to convict Van Dyke for murder; he is now in prison, as detailed in the 2015 Time Magazine article, by K. Steinmetz, titled “The Shooting of Mario Woods Brings Ferguson to San Francisco, Activists Say.”
While police abuses could happen to anyone many feel that there is another motivation for the behaviors of many American police officers throughout the United States. Many feel that the law enforcement has absorbed the negative behaviors and have learned to tolerate it. Some point out that after looking at the number of cases where excessive force, illegitimate brutality and death, in many cases, have a disturbing factor in common. More often than not, these situations happen between African-Americans and other ethnic minorities, more so than their Caucasian counterparts. They argue that racism is just as much institutionalized as the occurrences of police violence. The application of racial profiling by police is a huge part of why police are immediately more suspicious of minorities (McLaughlin, 2015). Racial profiling teaches officers to use statistical data and the similarity of behaviors common to an ethnic group that then stereotypes the entire ethnic group. In simpler terms, the police are taught to believe that an African American is more likely guilty of “something” and therefore are a threat just by their presence. This is something some officers use to warrant and justify the use of unnecessary or excessive force (Feige, 2015).
Americans are living in an era where technology is paramount and dominates all the aspects of people’s careers, education, and entertainment and as a part of most people’s day-to-day lives. That technology makes it so much harder to lie, misrepresent evidence or behave abusively towards some people, as explained by A.J. Goldsmith, in the 2010 article, “Policing's New Visibility,” for the British Journal of Criminology. In 2015, a video from a woman who used her cell phone to record the interactions between Mario Woods and several police officers in San Francisco showed the unnecessary force it living color. In the video it shows Woods on a sidewalk slowing pacing back and forth, he was apparently under the influence and may have had a small knife. When the police arrived they were prepared for any dangers the suspect might commit. However, the cell phone video shows a very different scene. As Woods paced, he never moved near to the police, if there was a weapon it was too small to be seen and his behaviors were highly uncooperative but not threatening. The officers kept their guns trained on the man, as bystanders encourage him to just lie down on the ground. Still he did not threaten anyone, especially not anyone holding a firearm. One would expect the officers to employ the aid of pepper spray or a tasar to subdue the suspect, however instead, as he wondered towards the camera one officer began firing and then all of the officers began firing. Woods was hit with more than 20 bullets (Steinmetz, 2015). They made every attempt to make certain that the man could not possibly survive. This man’s crime did not warrant a death sentence. It would be, after watching the video, impossible to justify the barrage of bullets fired upon by multiple officers, even those standing behind him, where his threat level appeared very low. Again, many argue that this level of abuse and brutality has always existed it is just the development of video technology that has made it impossible to hide, as explained in a 2008 article for Criminal Justice and Behavior, by J.P. McElvain & A.J. Kposowa, titled “Police Officer Characteristics and the Likelihood of Using Deadly Force.”
Many people in America have presented the logic, that it law enforcement officers have nothing to hide and do not anticipate doing anything “wrong” then they should not fear wearing the body-cameras. To refuse only makes the people believe they have something to hide, which only makes people more suspicious and less trusting. Law enforcement officers have a great deal of power in their element that many take advantage and abuse their position in some of the most horrifying ways, but remains an all too common occurrence in the America’s modern era (Stanley, 2015). If people’s lives are being ended in some of the cases then it is far beyond time to address the issues. Body-cameras are innocuous, not cumbersome and should not interfere in officers ability to do their job. In fairness, the police do have a right to use force, engage in non-lethal options, like tasars and pepper spray, and may resort to the use of their firearm if and when the offender makes himself a danger to bystanders or the officers themselves.
Unfortunately, many officers would defy appropriate procedures and option to use excessive or lethal force when the situation does not necessarily warrant it. South Carolina presented another stunning example of these negative behaviors. Walter Scott was pulled over by Officer Michael E. Slager, for a broken taillight. Mr. Scott had had a criminal record relating to mostly to unpaid child support and not showing up for Family Court hearings. The man struggled with the officer and the officer deployed the tasar, injecting electrified wires into Mr. Scott. The two broke apart and Scott ran. As he ran through a grassy lot the officer fired continuously at the man as he ran away. His bullets hit Mr. Scott eight times, one shot entered his heart. The officer called for backup and explained that he fired shots because the man had taken his tasar and was now a threat. That, however, is not what the video of a bystander captured. Scott was running away not aggressing when the officer fired. The officer was seen picking up the tasar by his car, walking over and drop it next to where Scott fell (Feige, 2015). The man had no weapons and was running away; how could he possibly be an immediate threat, warranting gunfire, as he ran from the scene?
Police take on great responsibility and place themselves at risk and that is admirable without question. But that does not mean that their behaviors and actions can be overlooked when they are wrong; they must be held accountable for their actions. That being said American police forces need to contribute to resolving the problem. Agreeing to support the investment and requirement of body-cameras worn by officers would be a huge step toward improving the problems and reforming the attitudes and perceptions of police officers when they are on duty, as discussed in the 2013 article, by M.D. White, “Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras: Assessing the Evidence,” for the United States Department of Justice. Again we are being recording each and every day, in some case, down every street driven, in line at every drive-thru window and every store they enter from sun-up to sundown. More so, it is common practice for businesses to use camera surveillance to monitor employee behavior to make certain they are treating customers well, are not stealing from the register and not taking merchandise from the business. That said asking police officers to be monitored while they do their job is relevant and recommended, as explained in the 2015 article, by A. Mateescu, A. Rosenblat & D. Boyd, titled “Police Body-Worn Cameras,” for the Data & Society Research Institute. Officers are not committing theft of company supplies, their misbehaviors are actually costing lives; given those facts, body-camera monitoring seems paramount and necessary. As detailed in the discussion presented in the 2015 article, by M. Feeney, “Police Body Cameras Raise Privacy Issues for Cops and the Public,” for the Cato Institute. There is no privacy issue, as described in the 2015 article, by K. Freund, titled “When Cameras Are Rolling: Privacy Implications Of Body-Mounted Cameras On Police,” for the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. Officers on duty are no different from any other employee who is on company time; it is therefore entirely legal and enforceable, as it would be for any other employee.
Of course many police officers most opposed to such a requirement argue that it would be problematic in certain law enforcement situations. For example, officers who are working undercover and must directly interact with the people under suspicion. If they are found to be wired or outfitted with a camera then the undercover officer’s life could be placed in danger and could lead to failure to make arrests in some very serious cases or take down task force targets, for example officers investigating gang activity or undermining domestic illicit drug activity (Mateescu, Rosenblat & Boyd, 2015) It should be made clear that the problem with police are not generally identified with “sting” activities it is uniformed officers that patrol neighborhoods and city streets. Plain clothed officers and those working undercover could be exempt in special cases. However, such body-camera technology has been implemented in Las Vegas, Nevada, and the results have been positive and have been beneficial. As mentioned in the 2015 article, by C. Lochhead, titled “ACLU Praises Las Vegas Police Body Camera Policy,” for the Las Vegas Review Journal, was described as being successfully balancing transparency.
In the 2015 article, titled “The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” for the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, by A. Barack, W.A. Farrar and A. Sutherland, the authors favor accepting, requiring and implementing mandatory use of body-cameras by all police officers because it will be highly beneficial in restoring the faith in police and allowing “good” officers to be acknowledged and eliminate stigma and suspicion from police forces across the country. It would be ideal if law enforcement did not need body-cameras, or dash cameras, or any kind if monitoring. Unfortunately, that is not the world of the present and maybe it never was. If greater training and psychological evaluations are used to weed out officers who may become a problem; then perhaps a time will come when eliminating the need for monitoring and body-cameras altogether. But ,again, that is not the reality that America is living today. D.A. Harris, in the 2010 article “Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices ('Head Cams') as Tools for Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance,” for the Texas Tech Law Review,” discusses how body-cameras many deter bad behaviors, encourage the following of procedures, like adhering to Fourth Amendment rights, and make the interactions between civilians and police more beneficial and respectful. Body cameras is not the only way to change the relationship of the citizens and the police. In Columbia Heights a community near Minneapolis, began a program to that within four years earned national attention.
Officers are required to spend, at least, 10 hours a month on community policing (Abbey-Lamberts & Erbentraut, 2015).
They must engage in activities that do not necessarily relate to law enforcement, like officers who can teach a CPR class or volunteering to serve food at the homeless shelters (Abbey-Lamberts & Erbentraut, 2015).
Many have argued that the relationship with the police must be established in the minds of youths. Officers should involve themselves in school programs that allow children to sit and eat with police; instead of fearing them (Abbey-Lamberts & Erbentraut, 2015).
Combining these actions with more proactive measures, like body cameras, will changed how police are perceived and treated within their communities (Stanley, 2015).
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the American people have a right not to fear the police, those who offend the law should not worry that even the pettiest and most foolish of crimes could end in being beaten or killed and, finally, police officer’s should not have to fear retaliation by angry Americans, even though they had nothing to do with the cases that have fueled the anger. That said some kind of intervention is called for and reforms are needed to end the abuse of power by police and excessive use of force, as detailed in the 2015 article, by T. Linneman,” titled “In Plain View: Violence and The Police Image,” for Eastern Kentucky University. Dash-cameras have proven to be beneficial and body-cameras, which are far more accurate in showing events, beyond what happens at the front of the police cruiser, are highly recommended and a seemingly logical solution. Police officers are physically well-trained, they carry non-lethal, but entirely unpleasant, weapons and, of course a loaded gun. If officers across the country are abusing their power, abusing Americans and optioning to use their gun, a gun they are trained to fire accurately. This means that they are more likely to hit what they are aiming for over the average citizens. So these officers who have taken lives chose to take a lethal shot in order to stop a suspect or offender, whether they survive or not. There are many changes that could lead to tangible results and meaningful progress and the implementation of body-cameras could be a huge contributor to that positive change.
REFERENCES
Abbey-Lamberts, K. & Erbentraut, J. (2015).The Simple Strategies That Could Fundamentally
Change How Communities View Their Police. The Huffington Post. 1. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/community-policing-police-trust_n_6607766.html.
Barack, A., Farrar W.A. & Sutherland, A. (2015). 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). 509-535.
Goldsmith, A.J. (2010). Policing's new visibility. British Journal of Criminology. 1-33.
Harris, D.A. (2010). Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices ('Head Cams') as Tools for
Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance. Texas Tech Law Review. 43. 357.
Feeney, M. (2015). Police body cameras raise privacy issues for cops and the public. The Cato
Feige, D. (2015).Brutal Reality: When police wear body cameras, citizens are much safer. Slate
Magazine. 1. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/police_body_cameras_cops_commit_less_violence_and_complaints_are_real.html
Freund, K. (2015). When cameras are rolling: Privacy implications of body-mounted cameras on
police. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. 49(1). 92-135.
Linneman, T. (2015).In plain view: Violence and the police image. Eastern Kentucky University.
1-24.
Lochhead, C. (2015).ACLU praises las vegas police body camera policy. The Las Vegas Review
Mateescu, A., Rosenblat A. & Boyd, D.(2015). Police Body-Worn Cameras. Data & Society
Research Institute. 1-40.
McElvain, J.P. & Kposowa, A.J. (2008). Police officer characteristics and the likelihood of
using deadly force. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 35(4). 505-521.
McLaughlin, E.C. (2015). We're not seeing more police shootings, just more news coverage.
CNN News. 1. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/us/police-brutality-video-social-media-attitudes/.
Stanley, J. (2015). Police body-mounted cameras: With right policies in place, a win for all.
American Civil Liberties Union. 1. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
Steinmetz, S. (2015).The shooting of mario woods brings ferguson to san francisco, activists say.
Time Magazine. 1. Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://time.com/4151979/mario-woods-shooting-san-francisco/
White, M.D. (2013). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence. Office of Justice
Programs; The United States Department of Justice. 1-60.
Wing, N. (2015). Study shows less violence, fewer complaints when cops wear body cameras.
The Huffington Post. 1. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-body-camera-study_us_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56.
National Institute of Justice. (2016). Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement.
NIJ. Retrieved March 3, 2016, from http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/technology/pages/body-worn-cameras.aspx.
