Cassy Rymas
In the field of law enforcement, there are many controversies. Some that get solved and some that never do. The one I'm most interested in lately is police body cameras. Should they be allowed? Are they a violation of privacy? These questions are what make this topic a hot debate.
 |
| body camera from google images |
People who are against body cameras have many good, valid arguments. All of these came from my criminal justice textbook. The main ones being the fourth amendment and expense. One body camera alone cost over 1000. For a whole department, they are looking at plans of 2.1 million! That’s a lot of money, causing a raise in taxes. With this, police cars already have a camera, they're constantly rolling when they stop. Officers point their car towards the suspect, therefore catching the encounter on camera already. The only difference between the car camera and the body camera would be that the body camera would record the police officers’ actions more in depth. However, this can be seen as a violation of the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment protects the right to privacy. Now if the body camera always must be on, it will record every action. How would you feel if your every move was recorded? Pretty violated? Yes.
Now the main argument for having them is to stop police brutality. Many people confuse this with the use of force. The definition of use of force is the amount of force necessary to detain a suspect. This is when a cop pushes a drunk person into the back of their car and they end up falling, or when a cop shoves someone's head down to get into the car, this is completely legal. Now, police brutality is the abuse of use of force. Meaning when they pull their gun on someone who is not a threat, this is punishable by law and not legal.
 |
| the use of force model from my textbook |
Many people see the fact of an officer being on their own, with no supervision for the majority of their work day making it necessary for a camera. I can see this argument because having a camera would mean someone can watch over them, which I don’t know about you but when your parents are watching you, you probably wouldn't do the same actions you would if they weren’t. Also, the camera on the vehicle sometimes is too far away to catch the situation in good detail. Meaning that if a suspect runs and the cop chases and the suspect ends up dead. They ran out of the view of the camera, so law enforcement should take the word of the officer. Due to the fact that they are bound by law to always uphold the truth. A body camera would record no matter what the suspect causes the officer to do. If the cop runs, the cameras coming with him/her. This could be a good thing for both the defendant and the cop. A lot of the time cops are accused of a killing being of racist factors. Whether this is true for some, it’s not true or all. A body camera would shed the light on the truth of the matter. There for showing the cop had all the right intentions in the killing. The way this helps the defendants is if the cop does something wrong and violates their rights, they now have proof. As I said before a cop is bound by the law, to tell the truth, this means in the eyes of the law a cop’s word means more than a citizen. So, if the cops say they didn’t do anything wrong, your word saying they did, isn’t gonna do much. If you had the recording then no one’s word matters, only the recording does.
What do you think, should police have body cameras? Think about if you were a cop and your every move was recorded, would you like it?
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/01/11/police-body-cameras-five-facts-technology/21616039/
https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/technology/pages/body-worn-cameras.aspx