The Pros And Cons Of Body Cameras

"Officers are supposed to start recording “at the initiation of a call for service or other activity or encounter that is investigative or enforcement-related in nature,” and during any other confrontational encounters, according to the police department’s body camera policy.” Police can also turn off the cameras when a citizen requests them too (Fenton). Body cameras on police officers will decrease the amount of police aggression, unarmed deaths, and complaints, as well as improve the documentation of evidence, therefore helping clear up discrepancies in cases. However, there are purchasing, storage, and privacy concerns involved with body cameras.
Body cameras, if worn correctly, will decrease the amount of police aggression, unarmed deaths,
and complaints. In only the first year of body cameras being worn by officers, there was a 88% decrease in complaints against officers as well as a 60% decrease in use of force by police ("Police Body Cameras: Do They Reduce Complaints of Officer Misconduct?"). This proves that body cameras are effective and meet their purpose. "Officers fatally shot 94 unarmed people in 2015, but that number has been lower in the past two years, with 51 killed in 2016 and 68 in 2017"(Sullivan). Since body cameras are proven to decrease police aggression, there will be less unarmed deaths if police were to wear them. “...fatal shootings by police, many captured on video, have fueled protests and calls for reform. Some police chiefs have taken steps in their departments to reduce the number of fatal encounters, yet the overall numbers remain unchanged" ("Number of Police-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2017 Nearly Identical with past Two Years.”). Only 6,000/18,000 police departments use body cameras”(Delong). There are so many unarmed deaths caused by police, many of these officers have gone to trial. If the trials were to have a video of the shooting then it would be easier to see whether the officer used an appropriate amount of force or if the officer was too aggressive.
There will be improved documentation of evidence if police officers wear body cameras as well as police accountability.. Studies show that some benefits of law enforcement wearing body cameras is “better evidence documentation and increased accountability and transparency" ("Research on Body-Worn Cameras and Law Enforcement."). In fact, "video footage has been a key factor in several of the deadly shootings that turned into national flash-points”(Burman). The courts will be able to see exactly what occurred during an incident, and will be able to tell if anyone stretched the truth or lied. Having a video will also encourage both the defendant and plaintiff to be factual when questioned. In some of the 6,000 police departments that use body cameras some officers have been “indicted on criminal charges as a result of actions depicted on body camera" (Fenton). This increases police accountability because it shows that police are not above the laws they are inforcing.
There are some concerns, however, about the privacy, storage, and cost of the cameras.
"Experts have expressed concerns about privacy — noting that the cameras may record people not involved in police encounters” (Burman). This is a fair point but a study was done by the Pew Research Center that showed "...the public...with big majorities telling...that they favor the use of such devices [body cameras]” (Burman). Also some police “departments blocked the release of footage" (Burman). Since the film will not be released to the public privacy concerns should be abandoned. A popular concern about body cameras is the cost, some departments will spend “about $440,000 in its first year of using body-cameras, plus an additional $240,000 every year afterward" (Kotowski). As to the worries about the cost of body cameras it will require money but the benefits outweigh the costs. For instance, “mounted police cameras can’t pick up on absolutely everything an officer sees, the video obtained from these cameras can help paint a much clearer picture of what happened in an incident. Police reports, especially in complex situations, can be hard for juries to interpret or visualize. Video evidence removes a lot of that uncertainty” (Erstad). The money spent, is spent to make the cities safer and making court cases proceed faster, which will save money on that end. Another concern is "departments in larger cities, the article says, can generate more than 10,000 hours of video a week,
requiring some agencies to turn to cloud-based high-volume storage facilities” (Kotowski). Storage will take up lots of space, but "the ability to use the videos as training tools for improving police performance" (Dimoff). Also, if police only turn the cameras on when they approach an incident, there will be less storage, and less people will be seen on the videos, eliminating some privacy concerns.
Police officers should wear body cameras as they will allow video evidence to be recorded, as well as decrease the amount of complaints. ecorded, as well as decrease the amount of complaints. The benefits of police wearing body cameras outweigh the costs. It doesn’t have to occur right away, this can happen over the span of years. Body cameras will bring needed clarity to all investigations, especially police-involved shootings. Police Officers should wear body cameras at all times and should be required to turn them on when ever responding to a call or coming in contact with illegal or dangerous activity, especially in a case where weapons, specifically guns, are present. The body cameras will eliminate discrepancies between testimonies because there will be video evidence. Also, since the public and the police will be watched by the cameras they will all behave better, so there will be less complaints.