Pros And Cons Of Body Cameras

Over the course of the last 10 years has anyone noticed the claims of police brutality? Throughout the years there has been over controversy whether law enforcement should have to wear body cameras. There has been a history of police officers involved in shootings. In some situations, a lack of evidence leads to an officer getting in trouble. Here’s the solution: police need to wear body cameras to provide the truth of these incidents. Police officers should have to wear body cameras to get a more accurate count of an event. Body cameras can help get a clearer image of what happens out on the streets. In order to provide key evidence to an incident the body camera should always be “on”.

Police body cameras bring out the truth of

The article “Justice Department Allocates $20 Million for Body Cameras” by Christina Beck it states, "These grants will help more than 100 law enforcement agencies promote transparency and ensure accountability, clearing the way for the closer cooperation between residents and officers that is so vital to public safety” (Beck). This shows how the use of these devices can help ensure the cooperation of citizens. It also oversees the actions of the officers and whether force was necessary. This article contributes this idea by stating, “Some existing laws that govern what information is released to the public are on the chopping block, as states try to strike the balance between a citizen's rights to privacy and making officers answer for their actions” (Sullivan). This shows citizens have the right to privacy, meanwhile is an officer uses unnecessary force they may have some questions to answer for their chief or Sergeant. In addition it also says, "What started as an effort to capture or prevent bad police behavior, I think now we're starting to see the realities of it capturing true human suffering,"(Sullivan). This can hold the “bad cops” accountable for their actions. It can prove whether a police officer was in the wrong by using unnecessary force or potentially instigating a problem with a potential crime suspect. Citizens have the right to privacy, however, police departments need to make

In the article, “How Police Departments are Ensuring The Use Of Body Cameras”by Gretel Kauffman says, “Other agencies, such as the Los Angeles Police Department, plan to eliminate any chance of an officer failing to record by using new cameras that begin recording automatically when a patrol car siren is turned on or a gun is removed from its holster”(Kauffman).This is a good idea since no police department wants to have to clean up the mess if another officer purposely turns off there camera .In the same article it adds “Now, the department requires officers to turn on their cameras in most circumstances and has established disciplinary measures for those who don't” (Kauffman).Because these devices have the capability to capture so much it is necessary to discipline the officers that refuse to turn it on at a scenario where force may be necessary. Onboard with this statement another source says, “Body camera policy critics say that in order for such programs to be effective, cameras must be on at all times” (Beck). When these body cameras are on then if an officer is questioned about a certain response it can clear up a misunderstanding. There is no need for police to be disciplined if they turn their cameras on. Despite the fact police officers can turn their body cameras of. This is wrong however because the officers can face consequences if they are turned