Body cams and their impact on police misconduct
Body cams are widely used by police officers. The cameras are essential for reducing misconduct by police personnel while on the job. The video footage from the cameras aids in comprehending the various processes that the police run into while doing their jobs. (Mateescu & Rosenblat, 2015).
Benefits for police personnel
Due to the rising level of misconduct among operating police, the strategy is present in the majority of developed nations. But wearing body cameras by police personnel is a topic of intense debate. The government, the supervisors, and the individual institution all value the policy. Use of these cameras enables the police who cannot maintain well-stipulated conduct level to have every reason to improve their behavior with an idea of keeping their positions at work. The supervisors also benefit from the use of these body cameras (Harris, 2010). Their job is made much easier as they do not have to go to every station where their team is working to find out the activities they undertake. It is the best method of solving a problem, as the supervisor will clearly see the challenge unlike in their cases where directors tend to think that the policy is pretending. Through this process, the camera acts as an evidence through the captured recordings. The government also benefits out of the use of body cameras. The budget of employing and hiring supervisors huge cuts down, as in this case, even one supervisor can be in a position to take charge of ten team members (Jennings et al. 2015). However, the need for implementing this policy is much high among the developed nations as compared to the developing country. Developing countries need to step up employment opportunities rather than stepping them down as the policy of body cameras advocates for few employment chances. The overall and primary objective of the policy is to reduce the significant cases of misconduct that exists among the police officers.
Background of the policy
Regarding the recently publicized law, enforcement encounters in a country, several discussions exist on the use of cameras to bring about peace and proper interactions between the police and the public. Most individuals have different opinions concerning the success of using and implementing the process of wearing body cameras when the police are on duty (Drover and Ariel, 2015). Despite the various implications that the police present concerning this policy, still, a good number of countries are using it as a form of bringing about the required level of peace within the working area. In several occasions, moreover, the developed countries, these cameras help to replace the vacant positions of supervisors due to low birth rates that result in a low population rate in a country (Ready and Young, 2015). The cost of maintaining the cameras is, however, insignificant. For any country to implement this policy, they have to understand and compare this service with other police requirements. Despite the fact that this innovative idea is gaining popularity, it is much complicated in the realization of its use and application in society. The cost of the cameras can reduce with the increased rate of innovation and technological inventions. In the process, the prices will go down to a level that is much affordable to the parties involved. It is evident that cost the primary hindering factors that reduce the capacity of camera adoption (Harris, 2010). The use of these body cameras also significantly depends on the level of awareness and training granted to the police on how best to operate the cameras for them to achieve the desired results that are elaborate and precise, to make smooth the interpretation process. Different groups including political, racial and demography support the use of body cameras in a variety of ways. However, more research on the policy will help in improving its implementation in the future. Nevertheless, countries like the United States of America have implemented the system.
Theory applied in developing body cameras
Developing body cameras among the police involves multiple approaches that facilitate its interventions. Pathway and crime prevention theory is one such kind of argument. During the development process, it is important to understand the process of assimilating and developing the theory to a level well expected by the end consumers (Ready and young, 2015). The method helps in executing factors that will ultimately reduce and prevent the occurrence of crime. During the development process, the approach finds out the various channels that will assist the execution process as well as minimize the capacity of the policy to cause further crimes rather than preventing crime cases. Moreover, it ensures that in the usage process, no police will indulge in misconduct activities and go unpunished (Drove and Ariel, 2015). It is important to understand that without implementation of this theory in the developing stages, the policy will end up being fruitless and not able to achieve its desired goals and objectives. The development phase is a vital period that needs keen interest before the policy becomes for public use. It helps in reducing the loopholes available as well as improve areas that show various weaknesses.
Failures of body cameras
As discussed above, it is clear that the primary objective of wearing the body camera policy among the police is to improve behavior and eliminate misconduct among the police officers. However, from the regions and countries that have implemented the use of body cameras, research indicates that the policy is not effective as required (Mateescu & Rosenblat, 2015). Most of the body cameras have high implication measures. The indiscriminate release of body camera footage leads to a destructive influence on victims and crime cases. The ineffectiveness also comes along with a reduced level of training granted to police officers on the various processes and procedures of using the cameras to achieve its desired objective and needs (Drover and Ariel, 2015). Therefore, the use of body cameras is not conclusively effective in improving the behaviors of the police and the citizens as well. The manufacturers of these cameras need to design such kind of cameras need to strike a balance with the desire of holding police officers accountable for their actions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear that body camera usage among the police officers benefits many people including the law enforcement department as it helps in reducing the level of misconduct among the police officers. Most of the developed countries are using this policy in comparison to the developing nations. The difference exists in the employment step-down factor of the cameras with the jobs required in those countries. The developing stage of the policy includes the pathway and crime prevention theory that helps in eliminating the loopholes involved. However, despite the various research and adoption of innovative technologies, the body camera policy is still ineffective in most nations.
References
Drover, P., & Ariel, B. (2015). Leading an experiment in police body-worn video cameras. International Criminal Justice Review, 25(1), 80-97.
Harris, D. A. (2010). Picture This: Body Worn Video Devices ('Head Cams') as Tools for Ensuring Fourth Amendment Compliance by Police.
Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando police department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of criminal justice, 43(6), 480-486.
Mateescu, A. C., & Rosenblat, A. (2015). Police body-worn cameras.
Ready, J. T., & Young, J. T. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police–citizen contacts: Findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ. Journal of experimental criminology, 11(3), 445-458.
