One of the core principles of policing is the ability for the officers of law enforcement to perform their duties based and dependent upon the public's approval of their behaviour, actions, and existence. In this age of police brutality and rampant racial discrimination against African Americans and preferential treatment towards the white Americans, it has almost become law for officers of law enforcement to have video evidence of first-hand events whenever they are on patrol, and this has come to be admissible in courts of law as pieces of evidence whenever questions arise regarding police conduct. Therefore, body cameras remain an enhancement of tools for gathering video evidence which has proven effective in certain instances and is likely to play critical roles in the future of law enforcement with an improvement in technologies and innovations.
Body cameras comprise minuscule and mobile devices worn by officers of law enforcement on their helmets, clothing or sunglasses and used to collect video evidence during the interaction between the offices and the public (Jennings, Fridell, & Lynch, 2014). The cameras are very efficient that they can be attached to the officers’ sunglasses, helmet or clothing without drawing too much attention or eliciting feelings of agitation among members of the public. The performance of the cameras is further enhanced by the fact that the footage collected by the cameras is stored in a local storage device and may also be saved in storage based on the web (Jennings et al., 2014). Unlike other forms of cameras officers of law enforcement are supposed to carry while on patrol, the body cameras are not fixed in one place and allow the officers to collect footage wherever they are, even when on the move.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Although initially criticized for their costly budget, by 2016, 47% of all the law enforcement agencies of general-purpose had acquired body cameras (Hyland, 2016). Compared to other evidence collection devices that were used earlier in the forces, 38% had personal audio recorded, whereas 69% had their vehicles installed with dashboard cameras (Hyland, 2016). Therefore, up to 80% of the forces had some kind of device for the collection of field evidence by the same period. Some of the benefits of the acquisition of the body cameras included reduction of agency liability, reduction of civilian complaints, amelioration of the quality of evidence and improvement of safety for the officers (Hyland, 2016). Therefore the cameras were acquired with the understanding of the conditions under which officers operate and hence were supposed to be used as mechanisms of improving operations and streamlining processes.
The use of body cameras stays true to the core principles of policing that stress the need for police operations to have public approval of their service, behaviour, actions, and existence (Chapman, 2019). Since its inception, the technology has rapidly diffused across the US, and members of the public continue to embrace the use of the technology. The use of body-worn cameras results in better accountability and transparency, and this helps in improving the legitimacy of law enforcement operations (Chapman, 2019). Research concerning the use of body-worn cameras remains limited due to the fast pace at which the technology is evolving. This is a good thing considering the fact that an improvement in the camera technologies used means lowering the cost of the subsequent technology and hence access for all officers of law enforcement.
Many communities lack faith in the officers of law enforcement, and therefore the use of body cameras is timely and appropriate in the sense that it provides video evidence of everything that transpires between the civilians and the officers of law enforcement (Wolfe, Rojek, Manjarrez, & Rojek, 2018). This makes it easier to pursue justice without bias, prejudice or discrimination in case there is a need for such action. Reports of police disparities among races abound with evidence of discriminatory treatment of officers of law enforcement against African Americans. Such statements accrue from drunk driving, traffic stops and arrests related to drug abuse (Wolfe et al., 2018). Experts cite systematic problems as well as root causes in the policy formation that are never addressed by legislation. Social media has helped to shine a spotlight regarding cases of racial discrimination, and this has been possible due to the emergence of camera phones (Wolfe et al., 2018). Some victims of police brutality have recorded video pieces of evidence of gruesome police mistreatment and posted them on social media platforms leading to public outcries and questions regarding the intent of officers of law enforcement.
Despite a large number of law enforcement agencies across the US which erase the idea of a typical kind of police department, there are still sentiments of racial prejudices which form part of civilians understanding and definition of the roles of police officers in the community (Wolfe et al., 2018). As opposed to feeling safe in the hands of the police, many people feel unsafe and have to employ other means of protection owing to the many individual video shreds of evidence that abound on the internet. In a bid to counter the effect of the power that smartphones give civilians, it was essential for the law enforcement department to develop countermeasures that prevent civilians from fabricating stories and painting a negative image of the forces (Jennings et al., 2014). Therefore, for every video the public may have, officers of law enforcement have their version of the same to compare and determine the true story of what transpired in the event of arrests.
The use of body-worn cameras makes the citizens respond more readily to police commands out of the knowledge that every event is being recorded. This means an increase in the rate of civility on the part of the citizens and therefore, lower level of complaints lodged against the officers (Hyland, 2016). Even though poor performance on the part of the police may influence a negative public perception of the department of law enforcement, police at times encounter unruly civilians who endanger the officers' lives. Sometimes the police come into direct confrontation with the police, and this leads to an exchange of fire or a shootout that leaves not only the policemen dead but also scores of other innocent civilians going about their business (Jennings et al., 2014). Whereas the law provides for civilians to lodge complaints against the police in the event of brutal treatment, it only allows the law enforcement officers to arrest the civilians. Therefore, in the event that policemen lose their lives on patrol, the footage collected by the body cameras provide evidence with which to prosecute the suspects and launch investigations and criminal action.
Body worm cameras aid the process of justice and assist in hastening the process of citizen complaints against the officers of law enforcement (Jennings et al., 2014). Footage collected may also be used collaboratively as evidence for prosecution and arrests. Most of the cases officers face while on patrol include the excessive use of force. Since the footage is usually captured in a universal cloud system, it is impossible for the offices to fabricate evidence presented. Additionally, the use of these cameras offers exceptional opportunities in training and advance policing, thereby reducing the need for on-the-field training because they provide footage showing the standard procedures that occur on patrol.
Overall, therefore, body cameras remain an enhancement of tools for gathering video evidence which has proven effective in certain instances and is likely to play critical roles in the future of law enforcement with an improvement in technologies and innovations. These cameras offer a number of advantages including the provision of real-time evidence covering the officers of law enforcement and the civilians, offering corroborative evidence for the sake of prosecution and offering outstanding footages showing patrol procedures for the purpose of training.
References
Chapman, B. (2019). Body-worn Cameras: what the evidence tells us. National Institute of Justice, 1 (2), 280.
Hyland, S. (2016). Body-worn Cameras in Law Enforcement Agencies, 2016. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Jennings, W., Fridell, L., & Lynch, M. (2014). Cops and cameras: Officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42 (6), 549-556.
Wolfe, S., Rojek, J., Manjarrez, V., & Rojek, A. (2018). Why does organizational justice matter? Uncertainty management among law enforcement officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 54 (1), 20-29.
