Pros And Cons Of Law Enforcement Cameras

Do Law Enforcement Cameras act as an invasion of privacy? The question has been a subject of numerous debates for many years now. Different parties to the debate still hold that the argument holds water while refuting other party's claims. The two parties, in this case, are members of the civil liberty organization on one side and government agencies, especially those interested in security on the opposite side. In the realm of security, law enforcement agencies argue that it is a way of strengthening the fight against crime. On the other hand, the civil liberty organization claims that it is an infringement of the right to privacy. According to Jay Stanley, in Southwest Florida there has been a debate brewing over the

For example, he says that Baltimore is planning to increase their network of the cameras to over 500 while Manhattan is planning to expand its network to over 3000. According to Citron and Gray the Boston Marathon bombing served as a wake-up call for the need to install cameras on our streets, but still the question of their potential to intrude into peoples liberties have not been adequately answered. According to Professor Neil establishing surveillance as a way to fight terrorism is a mistake, and it would be dangerous to our liberties. To him, cameras are expensive and require a big budget for maintenance, and this may negatively affect the city's budget. According to him a camera does not deter crime; hence this cannot be used as an excuse for intruding. According to ACLU as reported by Jay Stanley there was recent research that revealed that 25% of the nation’s 1700,000 police agencies were using body camera with fully 80% of agencies evaluating the technology. According to the ACLU, the country has numerous cases of police violence, citing the case where an officer was recorded on tape choking Erick Garner to death. According to ACLU, law enforcement cameras will greatly decrease these