Body Worn Cameras for Policy Officers

Of greater significance in this case is the issues that arise from domestic security where controversies arise as police officers interact with the public. Particularly, complaints against the police regarding police brutality, racial segregation by police and nature of evidence are key considerations while addressing the subject of body worn police cameras (Gaub, Choate, Todak, Katz, White, 2016). Following the mentioned complexities of the police operations, this essay seeks to champion the universal adoption of body worn cameras for police officers by highlighting the key pros. For scholarly purposes, the essay shall highlight the cons of adopting body worn police cameras to strengthen the stance that indeed, police officers should be required to use body worn cameras. Benefits of Body Worn Police Cameras It is imperative to note that police officers do not enforce personal agenda but enforce laws meant for the public.

Therefore, in addition to improving transparency, the devices will boost trust in the police agency among members of the public (Gaub, Janne E. , et al. Reliable Review and Evaluation of Officer Decisions Accountability requires verifiability of all the undertakings by an agency. The whole essence of officer appraisal is to determine their commitment to ethics and code of conduct. However, given the fact that most officer duties are always in the streets with no mechanisms of unbiased recording of accounts of engagement with the public, achieving actual accountability becomes a challenge. Whereas this case involved recordings of racial slur by the officer in question, some are fabrications which the police body worn camera can help avert (White). The records from the body worn cameras give detailed accounts of the encounter between the police and the public.

In the event that police officers are accused of malpractice in line of duty, the recordings will be able to ascertain the true nature of events and help subvert false claims against officers. This will have an effect on the efficiency of the courts since the video evidence will attract early guilty pleas instead of escapism through blaming the conduct of police on false allegations. Such efficacies will contribute to the reduction of crime rates as already achieved by some states by almost 7. Credible and Tamper Proof Evidence for Court Proceedings Oftentimes, criminals have walked scot free for circumstantiality of evidence. Criminal lawyers have often found it easy to challenge human account of events in court thereby making it difficult for the prosecutor to put away criminals from the streets.

The cameras will give tamper proof, credible and irrefutable evidence that will boost the security of the public (Crow, et al, 590). Challenges arising from the nature of evidence range from the manner in which evidence is obtained, to the nature of evidence itself. Admissibility of evidence has oftentimes been a line of defense since the law requires the police to obtain evidence with a search warrant. The overall effect therefore will be reduced aggression towards officers and improved safety of the same officers (Jennings, Lorie, and Mathew, 551). Concerns of the Body Worn Cameras by the Police All public policies regardless of how beneficial they are to the target population are subject to ethical scrutiny. The adoption of body worn police cameras as stated in the preamble is not devoid of such ethical scrutiny.

Debates have been held regarding the constitutionality and ethicality of the adoption of the body worn police cameras. The pertinent issues arising from such debates include privacy concerns and compromised witness willingness to testify. This follows two conclusions drawn from the analysis of the factors above as illustrated below. Cost-Benefit Comparison Given the weight in absolute terms and relative terms of the reasons for supporting the use of body cameras versus against the use of body cameras by the police, it follows that the benefits hold much more grounds and are of immediate security concerns than the implied costs and reservations. For instance, the security of the greater majority must always take precedence over the privacy concerns of a few individuals (Martinez, Claire, and Chiu).

Furthermore, the improved security and reduced crime rates will help limit the need for witness protection since the problem of witness protection is subset of insecurity. These two instances negate the concerns and it follows therefore that the police should use body worn cameras while on duty for optimal discharge of police services and officer safety (Jennings, Lorie, and Mathew, 555). Furthermore, the reservations, legitimate as they may appear, are isolated cases one whose solution lies in the adoption of the cameras. The privacy question in this case is a non-entity considering the fact that the recordings of the police body worn cameras are only revealed to the public where there is a security interest by the public itself. It therefore follows that at the end of the day, actual privacy will not be breached.