Why Are Body Worn Cameras Important

Undoubtedly, body-worn cameras for law-enforcement professionals are a good idea, as they have the potential to ameliorate the patterns of racial and social prejudice that has been haunting police and other public institutions for decades. Crime has become particularly pervasive, and the society calls for implementing more robust evidence-based methods of deterrence and criminal justice. Body-worn cameras fit perfectly in this context, providing an opportunity for law enforcement professionals to record cases of crime while also keeping officers responsible for what they say or do in relation to racially diverse citizens and crime suspects. The presence of body-worn camera can be fairly considered as a factor of deterrence for those who plan

Such cameras can create a new culture of surveillance and sousveillance, when visible and hidden cameras serve the same purpose – to create a culture of visibility and control where law enforcement professionals would have fewer opportunities and incentives for persecuting citizens solely on the basis of their racial background. Alexander is right: the racial component has been deeply embedded into most, if not all, operations conducted by law enforcement specialists (180). Police conduct their drug operations targeting mostly communities of color (Alexander 180). Using popular prejudice for African Americans and other minorities as being prone to commit crime, police justify their actions and decisions without even trying to be fair. However, even this bias is not a problem as meaningful as the lack of meaningful check on police actions (Alexander 180). Law enforcement specialists exercise almost complete discretion in their decisions to capture and retain individuals of diverse racial backgrounds (Alexander 180). Body-worn cameras will reduce the opportunities and virtually eliminate the situations in which law enforcement officers can exercise their racial bias. The use of body-worn cameras will create an entirely new culture of visibility and responsibility. Law enforcement

Some researchers cautiously suggest that surveillance may deepen the existing inequities by allowing individuals of power to exercise and manipulate their surveillance authority (Mann 8). These fears are not completely unsubstantiated. They may also underpin the growing scope of anti-surveillance manifestos, performances, and artistic presentations that question the appropriateness of surveillance as a new societal philosophy (Monahan 8). However, as Mann says, counterveillance is not morally right (7). If society wants to avoid any unintended consequences of body-worn cameras and ensure that police officers do not use them at their advantage, sousveillance can become a promising countermeasure that brings the desired balance and guarantees that all parties involved are treated equally (Mann 7). It means essentially two things. Firstly, other individuals should be allowed to use surveillance and sousveillance techniques to record their interactions with the police. Secondly, these same individuals should not be allowed to use camera-blinding technologies that are designed to neutralize surveillance (Mann 7). This is how the body-worn cameras used by law enforcement agencies can live up to their equity promise. It is time for the American society to realize that