The Advantages of a Body Camera Usage in Police

1690 (4 pages)
Download for Free
Important: This sample is for inspiration and reference only

Few studies reverse the effects, advantages, and negative effects of full-body cameras. But the purpose of this paper is to deal with some of these studies. Dissect the results and reach a general conclusion on what purpose the physical examiner serves to today's law enforcement agencies, governments and the general public. The overall aim of this paper is to determine the scope and characteristics of use of nationwide body wear cameras and the results of studies on their impact on community and law enforcement.

The use of body cameras is a relatively new concept in law enforcement work across the country. Dash cameras are a new technology that has been in use for a relatively long time but is not yet widely used outside the large police department. Technology has developed exponentially over the past few decades, but so have the methods of policing and the techniques used in law enforcement. On the other hand electronics used to maintain relatively uncontroversial security, such as radios for communications and computer technology inside police cars, and cameras mounted on the body of the oatmeal are also controversial at the time as they were introduced for a number of reasons, including privacy breaches, costs and extensive training on law enforcement. Many law enforcement agencies across the country are seriously considering or already using camera technology. While some police agencies mandate the use of technology, some have nothing to do with it. Various opinions on the use of body-worn cameras, i. e. BWC, are very complex, mainly because there are several positions on the use of the cameras. Not simply making these cameras a new essential equipment for law enforcement, but a very complex system involving many participants, and there are many unanswered questions about constitutionality and cost efficiency. Some of the issues surrounding the implementation of the cameras focus on personal privacy rights and whether all interactions with the public should be recorded or, optionally, continued eavesdropping. Many argue that this is an infringement of privacy rights. This is a particularly complicated part of the camera debate on the body. Others argue that the use of technology is an effective way to hold law enforcement accountable, while opponents say it is another way. These concerns will be addressed in this paper by literary support for the sensitive subject of body-yellow cameras and by previous research. This includes articles, news articles, and organizations reviewed by colleagues. A formal study conducted at standpoints, such as a police agency or civic group, and at government agencies such as the Ministry of Justice and the local police department.

First, we should review the general outline of the use of BWC in today's society at a national level. The complexity of the problem is the relative difference between opinions and policies surrounding the use of the BWC in policing. That is, some parts of the U. S. support the technology, and another sector is reacting negatively to the implementation of policies surrounding it. Full-body cameras are a sensitive subject, but they are highly relevant to current law enforcement issues across the U. S. Few studies have been made into the exact number of law enforcement agencies using the technology, mainly because it has adapted to new and current problems. According to the study, Britain tested the use of worn-out cameras in early 2003, but limited research was done in the United States. A 2013 survey of nearly 500 law enforcement agencies found that about 25% used BWC (U. S. DOJ, 2015). The technology has both increased popularity and efficiency since then four years ago. As an emerging technology, BWC has gained trust among law enforcement agencies as studies showing benefits to institutions and communities around the world have spread, resulting in an increasing number of police agencies using it (White, 2014). Currently, an investigation is underway to better understand the number of actual law enforcement agencies that have adopted BCW policies or programs, but that data is not yet available.

In contrast, there are many cities throughout the United States that have established BWC policies and operated them for many years. More specifically, data have been collected on law enforcement in Los Angeles, California and Phoenix, Arizona.

No time to compare samples?
Hire a Writer

✓Full confidentiality ✓No hidden charges ✓No plagiarism

On their use of the BWC. Moreover, studies in California, Texas, Washington, D. C. , Arizona, and Washington are widely viewed (Katz, 2014). We will explain these assessments in more detail later in the paper.

There are many positive and negative perceptions about the use of full-body cameras and dash cameras. Benefits of using the technology include increased police responsibilities, transparency, legality, improvement of citizens' actions and actions against police, swift resolution of complaints, increased evidence of arrests and less complaints about law enforcement. In contrast, the negative effects of body wear and dash cameras include concerns about officers and civil privacy rights, extensive training required to implement such new technologies, data download locations and time limits surrounding downloads (White, 2014).

One example of positive effect on using body camera is the BWC provides hard video and audio evidence in many cases where it may be necessary to review later and provide documentation of specific events that may lead to arrests. According to the study, images from the case could be used by police officers to collect accurate data and properly document crimes, and cases were much less likely to be put on trial. In addition, police officers were able to increase their patrol time because they had convenient videos that could be reduced to fill out paperwork and reviewed for records (White, 2014). This is incredibly beneficial to the police department in that it can reduce the time it takes to record crimes and increase the time it takes to patrol. In addition, it relieves the burden on the prosecution and defense in some cases because it can reduce the number of cases that go to trial and the process that extends before that. Video footage often provides an immediate post-mortem of events, such as the defendant's demeanor or the victim's emotional turmoil, so it has also produced positive results in domestic violence cases that reluctantly target victims (White, 2014).

With all new technologies in the realm of law enforcement, there is a lot of criticism and concern about the Constitution and its policies. One of the most common concerns is that the use of the BWC is an invasion of privacy. Many groups have argued that recording citizens would violate federal and state laws related to reasonable expectations of an individual's. Not only is it federal law, but many states have various rules about when it can be recorded. Many states require mutual consent before recording private conversations. This applies to audio recordings as well as video images. The idea of video-only filming has been proposed in policing, but 10 other people argue that it has betrayed the purpose of providing sound evidence of events or events that occurred during the interaction between police and citizens (White, 2014). In addition, individuals who relate to a particular group may be reluctant, hesitant, or afraid to provide information to the police if they know that their interactions are recorded. Critics also argue that these sensitive situations are very dangerous. Victims need treatment or are traumatized. You can be more stressed out after you find out that they are recorded. Skeptics point out that not only are they concerned about civil privacy, but police officers' privacy may be dangerous.

There was some concern when police officers needed to use the bathroom or were resting, and the suggestion was to use it. I can stop the recording device during that time. But the proposal raises skepticism that police officers will have the ability to arbitrarily block devices, meaning they will have the option to record their interactions. There has been some negative reaction to the implementation of the BWC by police officers, which it claimed would be used as an attempt to find some kind of misconduct and penalize police officers as well as scrutinize every aspect of their duties. Others argued that this was a major change in the work process and should be discussed further before making it mandatory. Also, related public questions surround whether the technology can be corrupt and misleading because of the power that police officers or police departments can have through cameras, such as deciding what to record. Recording and Data Manipulation Many believe that the BWC is simply another outlet for law enforcement to operate the system. Those who do not support the BWC, which is used for law enforcement, stated that 'a worn-out camera starts from a position of distrust' and that wearing a camera does not automatically create a sense of trust between police officers and community members (BJA, 2015).

In the conclusion, besides all the opposing views, already many studies on the effectiveness of the BWC have shown that the technology has great potential to ease law enforcement-social relations, the efficiency of the court system and the overcrowding. The police station, which tested the use of the cameras, saw civil petitions, forced use cases and lawsuits by lawyers decrease. Moreover, video footage collected by police officers wearing BWC provided better evidence of the incident and became an exceptional tool in prosecuting violent criminals here who are hesitant to testify.

Therefore, police body cameras can be a valuable addition to the equipment and technology used by law enforcement agencies across the country, and findings show that they are likely to continue to be used as useful tools for law enforcement. As a result of information found through literary sources, news reports and police databases, the technology has proven to be a very beneficial tool for law enforcement and the community. Full-body cameras can protect both police officers and the public from illegal accusations and provide evidence of what happened. The technology can play a role in accelerating court proceedings, increasing trust among officers and communities, and enhancing the efficiency of the U. S. criminal justice system. The perceived benefits and positive effects of recent studies prove that the body's worn-out camera technology is a breakthrough technology that must continue to maintain modern policing.

You can receive your plagiarism free paper on any topic in 3 hours!

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

Copy to Clipboard
The Advantages of a Body Camera Usage in Police. (2020, November 26). WritingBros. Retrieved July 14, 2024, from
“The Advantages of a Body Camera Usage in Police.” WritingBros, 26 Nov. 2020,
The Advantages of a Body Camera Usage in Police. [online]. Available at: <> [Accessed 14 Jul. 2024].
The Advantages of a Body Camera Usage in Police [Internet]. WritingBros. 2020 Nov 26 [cited 2024 Jul 14]. Available from:
Copy to Clipboard

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

Order My Paper

*No hidden charges