Protectors, peacekeepers, law enforcers and criminal capturers are all of the things that should come to one's mind when thinking of police officers. For many, that is simply not the case. Over the years, there has been a shift in the public's opinion of police officers. People find the police to be abusive, controlling and untrustworthy; this is particularly seen in minorities. This is due to a long line of racial disparities and the seemingly recent spike in cases of police brutality. In 2010, over 6,000 sworn law enforcement officers who were tracked for police misconduct with over 200 of those incidents ending in civilian fatality (Sinyangwe). Police brutality is a major problem in today's society. Recent cases of police brutality have also led to minorities distrust in the criminal justice system as a whole. In a time where it is becoming harder and harder to trust the police in routine situations, it has become quite evident that things need to change. With the implementation of body-worn cameras, it would bring policing back to its original meaning and help decrease prejudice and discrimination against minorities.

It is quite clear that policing was designed to help people, bring peace and provide the community with a person to trust and moderate certain situations. They were also meant to represent the poor and regular citizens, like you and me. As stated before, policing has drifted from what it was meant to be. Amongst minorities, especially black minorities, it has become increasingly hard to trust the police. With cases dealing with police brutality, black youth have been at the forefront of this horrible ordeal. Cases like the Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Tamir Rice have led to a deeper distrust for police, American government and the judicial system. In all of the cases listed, the police officers were acquitted from any wrong doing despite incriminating evidence. Since these officers were never held accountable, it led to things like the Black Lives Matter movement and the Ferguson Riots. 

Discrepancies in policing are not new. Throughout history, there has been a constant battle between civilians and the police. According to Rhea L. Combs, Black Lives Matter, Then and Now, "The current grassroots ''Black Lives Matter'' campaign resonates with the freedom movements of the 1960s. Today's attempts at organizing youth against police brutality and other social injustices recall moments nearly five decades earlier ... " (Combs). One of the most influential battles was the Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement was a movement for social justice and equality in the 1960's. Not only was it a fight against injustice, but it was also a struggle to be treated as equal humans by the police. Another civilian battle against police officers was the Black Panthers Party. The Black Panthers Party sparked around the time of the Civil Rights Movement as a group of black men and women who "policed the police." Although the Black Panthers took a more violent route, their message was all the same- to fight against police brutality. Many years later, there was a music group out of Compton, California who wrote a popular song in 1988 called, "F*** tha Police." Racial profiling and the cases of police brutality that ended in fatalities inspired this song. All of these events happened in history and they are something that today's society can learn from.

These three movements listed in the last paragraph all relate to the current Black Lives Matter Movement. This movement is also pushing for social justice, equality, the end to systemic racism and an end to police brutality. Taking into to account all four of these situations, one can see that there has clearly become a trend in the mistreatment of civilians and especially those who are minorities. With the technology of today, the police can be held accountable for their actions. Body-cameras could possibly end this constant battle between civilians and the police.

Recently, there has been an increased awareness to the issue of police brutality and the use of excessive force.  The Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Walter L. Scott are a few of the cases that have been brought to attention by the media. According to The Justice Department, "in 2008, among people who had contact with police, 'an estimated 1.4% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, which was not statistically different from the percentages in 2002 (1.5%) and 2005 (1.6%)'" (Wihbey and Kille). The Justice department also released data on complaints logged in. In 2002, there were 26,556 complaints logged, in total.  That means that there were about "'33 complaints per agency and 6.6 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers." However, "overall rates were higher among large municipal police departments, with 45 complaints per agency, and 9.5 complaints per 100 full-time sworn officers.'" In 2015 alone, police killed at least 102 unarmed African Americans and out of those cases, only nine resulted in officers being charged (Sinyangwe). That is five times the rate of Caucasians. Policing and its long history of discrepancies have ultimately led to this push for a fundamental change.

Not only do body cameras protect officers, they protect citizens as well. In December of 2014, President Barack Obama proposed new funding meant to help improve relations between police departments and minority communities, saying there is a "simmering distrust" between the two groups (Dann and Rafferty). This funding was for body cameras. In a world filled with security cameras and camera phones, the next step should definitely have been body cameras. From the viewpoint of an officer, it is very beneficial to them and their department. Officers are now held completely accountable for any wrongdoing that they may commit (Smith and Nelson). It also encourages them to be on their best behaviors and protect them from false claims. For example, according to Steve Lovell, a decorated police officer from Oakland, California describes a case that was a physical encounter between an officer and a citizen in May of 2013 (Lovell). The citizen then made claims of racial profiling and police brutality. Footage showed that nothing of the sort occurred. They will hopefully increase transparency between the two groups. Since it is a digital recording of their interactions, it helps clarify discrepancies, identify trends in those discrepancies, and ultimately reduce use of force complaints.

With most solutions, they are accompanied by opposition.  Body-mounted cameras have legitimate opposition. For citizen's, the biggest concern is the governments invasion of privacy. According to contact reporter Matt Pearce, "people's concerns are regarding when officers should be allowed to turn off such cameras  --  especially in cases involving domestic violence or rape victims  --  and the extent to which video could be made public" (Pearce). The article by Pearce calls into question the numerous dash cam videos that have been sources of exploitation for the victims or suspects. He states that, "Internet users have posted dash-cam videos of arrests of naked women to YouTube, and TMZ sometimes obtains police videos of athletes and celebrities during minor or embarrassing traffic stops, turning officers into unwitting paparazzi" (Pearce). Police departments' biggest issue with this system is the cost and the lack of evidence to support its benefits. Body cameras throughout the whole department cost about $800 to $1000 just by themselves (Sanburn). But to implement a system for the police, it would require an intricate system to store the videos since they are required to record all interactions. For smaller agencies, this can be a huge problem. They just simply can't afford to use them. The Ferguson Police Department cannot afford them yet Ferguson plays a major role in the discussion over body cameras and excessive use of force. Ferguson, Missouri is where the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown happened and unraveled the idea for change. Police departments also argue that there is not enough evidence to sway them into funding something that is so expensive (Sanburn). At the time of the article, "Why Cops in Ferguson Don't Have Body Cameras" there were only five completed studies that evaluate the effects of body cameras. With there being very little studies being done; there have still been signs of effectiveness. 

There are obvious concerns about the police adopting body cameras, but there are also myths that surround body-cams. In an article by two academics who have studied body cameras for multiple years, they analyze the myth that body camera videos are free from interpretation. They consider a survey that reports that 50.9 percent of black motorist claim that police officers place their hand on their firearm while approaching his/ her vehicle compared to whites 11.5 percent (Ready and Young). They assure that racial disparities like this one is most likely due to selective awareness instead of a difference in police behavior. The second myth is that body cameras will automatically and singlehandedly improve police officers interaction with the public. Although complaints of excessive and fatal force have been in the headlines recently, police officers primarily serve as a 'social worker' (Ready and Young). It states that, "less than 20 percent of calls to the police are for felony crimes, and police use of force occurs in only 1 percent of police-citizen contacts" (Ready and Young). The other 79 percent of calls pertain to "social work," like mediating disputes, assisting people who are injured, mentally ill, and/or in crisis. The usage of body cameras can make those types of interactions even more difficult. The last myth surrounding body-cams is that the video's objectiveness will reduce civil unrest and controversy. It suggests that it can cause "polarizing effects" for certain controversies (Ready and Young). These myths can easily be acknowledged and fixed to make sure time, resources and effort is being put where it is most needed.

Although there are incontestable facts, people's expectations of what should have been done can be widely different. For example, there was a news article about the release of body camera footage of two high profile cases of the Oakland Police Department. The first footage was from the shooting of the twenty-eight year old Nathaniel Wilks. He was fatally shot while being chased on foot by Oakland police (Anthony). The second video involves the case of Richard Linyard who died after a foot chase with police where no shots were fired. In both of these instances, viewers of the tapes had swaying opinions (Anthony). Some considered them justifiable, while others did not. Those are all major concerns that have been brought up in the discussion of body-worn camera, however with a few tweaks to the current policy those concerns can be dismissed.

Although experiments and data are limited, there have been plenty of notable contributions associated with body cameras. This article reports the findings of a three-month investigation that analyzed hundreds of records from five police departments with body camera programs. Its data shows that the way the cameras are used usually aid police more than citizens. The data from two of the cities, Salt Lake City and Ft. Worth showed a decrease in police involved shootings or use of force incidents (Fossi-Garcia). In another study that was twelve months long, they found the body-worn cameras were effective in reducing response-to-resistance incidents by 53.4 percent. Body-worn cameras are effective in reducing serious external complaints by 65 percent (Jennings, Lynch and Friddle). They improve evidence collection and report writing. One small study from Rialto, CA found complaints against police officers fell by 88 percent, and the use of force by officers fell nearly 60 percent after the introduction of body cameras (Sanburn). Even with the very small amount of study done on this issue, body-cameras have almost always prevailed. Now that more police departments are starting to adopt this system, evidence that support body-cams will be really easy to find. Once that is done, more and more police departments will hopefully adopt this system.

Amending the policies that have already been put in place is a must. A main problem that was identified was when the cameras should be rolling. As of now, officers have full discretion over when they are recording. The problem with that is that it causes skips in data and there could be situations where it was needed but the camera was off. Consequently, cameras cannot be recording all of the time nor should it be at the disposal of the officer. In the article by Jay Stanley, who is a policy analysis for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), offers a possible solution to this dilemma. He says, "[that] some form of effective automated trigger could be developed that would allow for minimization of recording while capturing any fraught encounters  --  based, for example, on detection of raised voices, types of movement" (Stanley). Another issue with the policy is the lack of punishment for the misuse of the body cameras. Stanley asks that,

"Direct disciplinary action against the individual officer.

The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions in favor of criminal defendants who claim exculpatory evidence was not captured or was destroyed.

The adoption of rebuttable evidentiary presumptions on behalf of civil plaintiffs suing the government, police department and/or officers for damages based on police misconduct. The presumptions should be rebuttable by other, contrary evidence or by proof of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible" (Stanley). 

Another major issue is the lack of respect for citizen's privacy. There were no set guidelines, so officers were getting footage of private things like the inside of someone's home. Stanley said that officers should be required to inform citizens that they are being recorded and that they should clearly state that they are using a body-camera upon entering his or her house (Stanley).  He also asks that public disclosure of any recording should be allowed with the consent of the subjects and that redaction of video records should be used when feasible. There are many kinds that need to be worked out but the plan that was put forth by Stanley has addressed almost every opposition that has been put out against body-worn cameras. The only issue that remains is the hefty price load that they place on smaller issues. Government funding could possibly help with cost issues or, smaller police departments can receive one or two cameras and build up their technology overtime. This is not a perfect plan but it does improve the policy so that more departments will adopt this system. 

Body cameras will remain the topic of discussion for many years. It is seen as the Holy Grail to reducing police brutality and the use of excessive force. With the help of the cameras, policing can revert back to what it was intended to be- protectors, peacekeepers, law enforcers and criminal capturers. While looking back through history, this trend of racial disparity have been discovered and hopefully body cameras will diminish the distrust and sometimes hatred, that minorities have toward police officers. Police officers will now be held more accountable for their actions and because body-cams can prevent a particular officer from targeting a minority. With the success that these cameras have been having at other police departments, it will not be long before they are introduced on an even wider scale. Even with its many kinks, there is no question that body cameras are the solution to this worsening problem.

