The Pros And Cons Of Body Cameras

The past few years have focused on putting law enforcement in the spotlight. With the many cases of shootings leading to racial debates, law enforcement has had the magnifying glass turned on them. Many believe the police are racists who look for any excuse to shoot a minority group. Others just think of the police as “pigs” who are officers only for money. Still others support the police in their actions and firmly believe the officers on duty are only doing their job as they were trained to do. Personally, I have faith in most officers and believe they are doing their job to the best of their ability. Because of these controversial opinions, body-worn cameras are gaining attention from the public. The potential of this technology to change

People in places like Ferguson, Missouri are protesting for justice of cases like Michael Brown. Specifically, the town is protesting the racial bias seen in the case (“Ferguson” 2). The ruling of the case “caused anger in Ferguson as critics said it showed an unwillingness to prosecute” (“Ferguson” 6). Perhaps the usage of body cameras would have brought the justice Ferguson is looking for. However, it does need to be pointed out that there are cases in which body cameras were used and riots still arouse. For example, in the Keith Scott case, “street demonstrations” were started after many felt the officer wrongly shot Scott, despite the district attorney saying otherwise (Blinder 1). The public pushed for the body cameras’ footage to be released. The officer was not charged because the district attorney was able to prove his case (Blinder 2). The use of body cameras may not stop riots from happening, but they will help bring forth the

In 2014, President Obama made an executive order creating the Task Force on 21st Century Policing. He “charged the task force with identifying best practices and offering recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust” (“Final” 1). One suggestion for the privacy concerns is to create an “automated trigger” that would start the camera “on detection of raised voices” or “types of movements” (Stanley 2). Officers would also have to “provide clear notice” when recording so any bystanders or anyone who wants their face blurred later could notify the officer recording (Stanley 4). Part of the expenses that concern people about body-worn cameras is the storing of the footage. A possible solution for this would be to only hold the data for the time needed. For example, if a complaint was made on an officer, the footage would need to be help until the complaint is resolved. The data should only be held for a few weeks unless needed for a case. The footage “should be posted online on the department’s website, so people who have encounters with police know how long they have to file a complaint or request access to footage” (Stanley 4). Footage should be flagged that is involved in a case so it can easily be accessed and reviewed for court (Stanley 4). By flagging the material, it would be easy for concern citizens or officers to find the