The August 2014 shooting of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown by a policeman sparked more than protests and riots. It also sparked a discussion regarding ways to hold police personnel more accountable for their actions and to monitor their behavior. One of the solutions proposed to do just that is to outfit police with body cameras. Body cameras are small wearable cameras ‘which are fitted to the officer’s uniforms to record all police interactions with the public’ (Triano 412). This paper argues that police personnel should be outfitted with body cameras because having their behavior monitored could improve police behavior or prevent police misconduct; offer concrete evidence in criminal or civil cases, particularly where police conduct has been called into question; and could restore public trust in the police.
Nancy La Vigne, Director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute, writes that the use of public surveillance cameras by police has had a positive effect on the behavior of the public by ‘reducing crime and aiding in investigations.’ It seems safe to conclude that if police officers likewise were being filmed, their own behavior would be positively affected. Neill Franklin, a former narcotics cop and commander of training, observes that since the beginning of the ‘war on drugs’ there has been a significant increase several forms of police misconduct. Franklin further states that during his time as a training commander, recruits were taught ‘to conduct themselves as if they’re being followed by a video camera 24/7, because we know that they ‘ like most people ‘ behave better when they believe they’re being watched.’ In other words, body cameras on police officers would serve a dual purpose: to remind them to conduct themselves as they should in service to their communities and to deter them from behaving in ways which are harmful to their communities. In the heat of the moment, it can be difficult for even the police to maintain their cool; having the body camera can be a reminder of the importance of keeping their cool or engaging in misconduct, since the body camera would provide evidence of the misconduct.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Cops on Camera/Cameras on Cops".
The ability of the body camera to provide evidence of misconduct represents another reason body cameras on police officers would be a great idea: the cameras can record all interactions between police and citizens objectively. The recordings could be offered as evidence in criminal or civil cases. Unlike civilian recordings which could be manipulated or ‘taken out of context to reflect negatively on law enforcement officials,’ the footage shot by body cameras and dashcams is ‘in the hands of law enforcement at all times and is admissible under the rules of evidence’ (Triano 414). In other words, it would be difficult for a police officer to manipulate the recordings made by the dashcam or the body camera, making those recordings more reliable in a court of law. Franklin echoes this by noting that cameras ‘are extremely useful in gathering and maintaining a record of evidence’; this also makes them very useful at ‘protecting police from false accusations of misconduct.’ Citizens do make complaints against police officers, sometimes for legitimate reasons, but sometimes their complaints or accusations are false. It is important to protect police from such accusations, and body cameras offer that protection.
Sometimes the complaints against police officers are false because people don’t trust police and wish to give them a hard time. Trust in the police in general has waned over the years, and events like the Michael Brown shooting have made the situation worse. Franklin points out how the increase in police conduct has resulted in ‘a tremendous decrease in public trust in law enforcement generally.’ This is why he argues that using ‘an objective, transparent monitoring system’ like body cameras is a good idea: it allows police officers to show the public that they ‘believe no person should be above the law, particularly those sworn to uphold it.’ In other words, by allowing their every mood to be recorded, they are putting forth a good faith effort to show the public that police who misbehave are the exception, not the rule. Furthermore, by allowing themselves to be recorded, they are giving the public a chance to see how situations actually occur, offering meaningful evidence of their actions. This could restore the public’s trust in police.
One of the most significant arguments against body cameras has to do with privacy. La Vigne points out that in such surveillance there is a chance of violating constitutional rights because the cameras will record both the officer’s actions and the person or people with whom they are dealing. This raises many questions about whether cops should inform people that they are being recorded; what rights to privacy could be violated, or how should rights to privacy be protected? These are legitimate questions. It is true that the public might be willing to be filmed if that filming will improve police conduct and reduce police misconduct; but it’s also true that the public likely would prefer ‘less abusive policing and less surveillance of its everyday, innocent activities’ (Slobogin 998).
Despite the concerns regarding privacy, it seems that body cameras offer many benefits. They can improve police behavior and deter misconduct. The footage can be used as evidence, not just for the cops, since the recordings are objective and present a fuller account of the situation. Finally, the use of body cameras can restore public trust in the police, which benefits everybody involved. Therefore, body cameras for police offers should be implemented.
- Franklin, Neill. ‘Body Cameras Could Restore Trust in Police.’ The New York Times 22 October
2013. Web. 14 October 2014. - La Vigne, Nancy. ‘Body Cameras for the Police Could Be One Smart Step.’ The New York
Times 23 October 2013. Web. 14 October 2014. - Slobogin, Christopher. “Community Control Over Camera Surveillance: A Response to Bennett
Capers’s Crime, Surveillance, and Communities.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 40.3 (2013): 993-998. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Oct. 2014. - Triano, Travis S. “Who Watches the Watchmen? Big Brother’s Use of Wiretap Statutes to Place
Civilians in Timeout.” Cardozo Law Review 34.1 (2012): 389-426. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
