Body Cameras: Fact or Fiction?

By: Sarah Bennett

The history of law enforcement has been a long and colored one. Originally there were no
established laws, as men settled disputes over their land and properties with clubs and knives.
However with the growth and development of cities and civilizations there came the need to not
only protect a man, but also his family and his property. This led to the development of the
written law, such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Commandments given to the Jews in the
Bible. In these were established how commerce was to work, how trading and bartering were to
be settled, and even how much a man could gain for a days wages.
The purpose of the laws was to provide a distinguished difference between what men
were allowed to do and not to do. If a man were to a steal from his neighbor, take his wife, or kill
him, he would in turn be punished with time in prison, be forced to pay back in fees, or be
executed. By having a firm set of laws in place and strict enforcement a king would be able to
maintain control of his kingdom, and the people would be guaranteed the protection they needed
from crime.
Time has changed many of our perspectives on how crime and criminals should be
treated, even increasingly how the men called to protect and serve the law. Crime in the colonial
era was treated much as it was in the early days of civilization; however, knives and swords were
exchanged for muskets and cannons. Criminals were seen as the filth of society, the ones that
society was burdened with and could not get rid of. Men were selected by the Crown to enforce
Englands taxes and new laws that were issued. Not many of these men were upstanding citizens

in the eyes of most, but they held power from the King, so there was little that every day people
could do about any abuse that they put forth.
Things changed a lot when the Revolution came about however. The Crown was no
longer criminals in the jails, but the people themselves were. In order to better protect and serve
the people, the Constitution included things such as the Bill of Rights to make sure that not only
were the people protected, but that they also would be treated fairly when going through the
processes of the Law. In addition new law enforcement agencies were created around the country
to better serve and protect the people. Over time laws changed, and the world of crime advanced,
there was always some new way to murder or steal, and police had to evolve with the times. New
techniques were introduced such as forensics so police could get as much evidence and
information out of a crime scene as possible. The invention of electricity opened a whole new
world of crime and crime fighting.
People are now able to look into one anothers lives with the push of a button, and in a
world where so much of our information online, there is an even higher demand for protection
from law enforcement. Sometimes that same technology is needed to protect people from law
enforcement itself. The rise of several high profile cases over the past couple years, such as the
shooting of Michael Brown (Department of Justice, 4), have cast the light on law enforcement,
leaving many to wonder if the people themselves were in need of protection from law
enforcement. Many people went out in riots in the streets protesting what was generally seen as
an unarmed man being shot by a police officer, and thus was coined the phrase police
accountability (Gains, 203).
Ever since the events in Ferguson and other areas there has been a rise in demand for
more visibility when it comes to police matters. The public wants a clearer view on what is going

on behind the scenes, especially when it comes to shootings. This has led to the introduction of
the police body camera, a camera that an officer wears when he and or she is on duty that records
everything that takes place. There are many perceived benefits to the body camera (body cam)
such as live capture of crucial events, which then can be used as hard evidence in a court case.
Others include the ability to know what the officers are doing, and at public request be able to
have certain recordings open to the public so they can see what really happened in different
cases. Many people are concerned on the other hand, about having their encounters with police
being recorded by said cameras, and also as a major invasion of their privacy. Others are
concerned about the disturbing images that may be caught on film, such as a murder case or
accident.
Overall, transparency is still an issue even with the introduction of body cameras. Some
police departments and legislators have gone as far as to limit what kinds of footage can be
shown to the public (Feeney). Many also question if the use of cameras has made a change
overall in the past couple of years, especially given recent episodes of police violence. However,
contrary to popular belief a study by Ariel et al. suggests that police body-worn-cameras reduce
the prevalence of use-of-force by the police as well as the incidence of citizens complaints
against the police. Even though it is an initial study, the conclusions drawn by the study bring
hope that as more departments begin to use video capturing devices that incidents such as
Michael Browns can be avoided in the future.
With the rapid change in technologies such as the body camera, one may be curious on
how such technologies may be used in the future. A similar case could be made for drones which
many departments have started using to increase the range of their surveillance abilities.
However, this is only speculation and time and the due course of time will be the real

determinants for if and how these technologies may be used in the future. It may be possible that
the human race may see the day where all law enforcement is done via electronics, and the
human element has been completely removed from the equation. Another possibility is the team
up of humans and robotic partners to fight crime together like in some of the older 80s movies.
In a time of so much political and social upheaval there is a great need for law and order
to be established. However, in light of the recent tragedies people are forced to look upon the
people that they once trusted with fear and distrust. While some studies have shown that there is
hope for the use of video capture devices in law enforcement, their numbers are few, and need to
be conducted and tested on a wider basis before any solid conclusions can be made about the
effectiveness of said devices. The only way that both the public and the police can make amends
is to come forth and bring transparency to the forefront.

Resources:
1. Feeney, Matthew. Police Body Cameras. National Police Misconduct Reporting
Project. CATO Institute, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.
<https://www.policemisconduct.net/explainers/police-body-cameras/>.
2. Police Body Worn Cameras: A Police Scorecard. N.p., Aug. 2016. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.
<https://www.bwcscorecard.org/>.
3. Ariel, Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland. The Effect of Police Body-Worn
Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized
Controlled Trial. SpringerLink. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3>.
4. Department of Justice Report Regarding the Criminal Investigation Into the Shooting
Death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson.
Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.
<https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/pressreleases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf>.
5. Gaines, Larry K. Criminal Justice in Action. 7th ed. N.p.: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.