5. Surveillance or law Enforcement

 

        Beginning in the early 1990s dashboard cameras started appearing in most police vehicles in the United States. By the early 2000s body-worn cameras began to appear and by 2014 they became a staple of a police officer's uniform. The publics push for accountability and transparency from police came after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The "The Ferguson Effect" as it has come to be called, is the theory that states that "police have decreased their enforcement efforts due to increased public scrutiny, which has led to more crime." Through the establishment of body cameras, it gives officers a way to ensure that their point of view is documented especially at a time when "citizens armed with cellphones are actively scrutinizing their every move" states Miami Law school. 

    Unfortunately, in many communities across the United States there is growing distrust in police. However, body cameras may be able to help by providing transparency and accountability. In 2014, Arizona State University researchers conducted a study that concluded that officers that wore body cameras "were more productive in making arrests, had fewer complaints against them compared to officers without BWCs, and had higher number of citizen complaints resolved in their favor." A similar study from a Police Department in Rialto, California, found similar results along with a decrease in use-of-force incidents. With the possibility of their actions being recorded and scrutinized by superiors and the public officers were found to be more cautious and more likely to follow protocol. 

    With the implementation of body cameras, it helps to not only hold police officers accountable, but it also provides video evidence from their point of view. Footage from a body camera can be used as evidence in court. Body camera footage could be the evidence that shifts the opinion of the jury being that they can see a firsthand account of the scene or event. However, a defense attorney could easily argue that the footage could have been tampered with or taken out of context. If the video footage was not deemed secure in any way during handling it gives defense attorneys all the ammunition they need against the footage. 

    Although with the good benefits of body worn cameras also comes the bad. As body worn cameras have become more widely used ethical and privacy concerns have started to arise. Often these cameras record people in their most sensitive and vulnerable moments. Victims of domestic violence or sexual assault may be recorded as well as people during medical emergencies. Individuals may also be filmed inside private homes. While most would assume that these recordings would be safe and only released if absolutely necessary, these recordings are actually considered public records by many jurisdictions. This means that journalist or citizens can request the footage and could lead to victims' identities to become public and witnesses could face backlash or retaliation. It can also show minors. 

    In conclusion, while policies concerning body camera footage still need to be amended, they also provide a peace of mind. Body worn cameras can be very beneficial not only during an event but even in justice process after.