Body worn Cameras Position Paper

The paper also represents the recommendation that can be used to enable things that can help in working out the way forward. The body-worn cameras have disadvantages as well as disadvantages. The disadvantages attack very vital issues among the peoples of Los Angeles, making it very difficult to implement without much opposition from various stakeholders. Body-worn Cameras The position paper submitted by the chief police of the Los Angeles Port Police Department, Los Angeles County on the possibility of adopting police body-worn cameras and recommendation based on the adoption in September 2017. Introduction Worn body camera used by the police is known as wearable photographic recording, video, or audio system applied in recording events that law enforcers or the police are involved in.

This reason why the victims in domestic violence are repeatedly abused is that either the victim has refused to press charges or the evidence is not enough to build a case. According to Hedberg et al. (650), police record statements from the victims at the scene use the body cameras. Through this, the law enforcers get enough evidence to carry on the case even if the victims later decide not to cooperate. The footage at the scene as captured in the boy cameras will show injuries and immediate reaction at the scene. The heads in police departments are able to use the footage of the individual police officer’s body camera to access if the officers are regularly engaging in constitutional policing.

Cons The body-worn cameras are very expensive and cost the taxpayers a whole lot of money. In the Minneapolis Police department, the body cameras were procured at a very high cost without real accountability (Taylor 130). The high cost of the purchase does not match the benefit of the devices. After witnessing this there are cities debating about purchasing the body cameras, which brings the concern of the real intention behind such debates. The police are also in a position of messing up with incriminating pieces of evidence. The body-worn camera usage is not worth investing in because there are no clear guidelines that describe when the police should not film the cameras. According to Ariel et al 526, the officers also failed to alert the individuals about the cameras when interacting.

The police are not able to terminate recordings even at the request of the civilians when the civilians want to preserve their privacy. The police can also turn the camera off when not on the right side of the law (Ariel et al. The unions like ACLU should, therefore, stop pressing such issues that do not add value but instead champion campaigns against the brutality of the law enforcers. The police should be taken through a thorough scrutiny and those found to be brutal or breaking the law should be used as an example to the others to avoid experiencing cases of the law being broken by the law enforcers. The argument that the footage taken by the body-worn cameras can assist when it comes to taking those involved in crimes where the victims do not want to press charges.