Surveillance Cameras on Patrol Cars

Would you support the implementation of surveillance cameras on patrol cars even though it has a high cost? When the security and safety nor only of the officer but also the citizen is overwhelmed, the high cost of surveillance system must not be an obstacle. There must be a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of its application. Unfortunately, there still been resistance to adopt this system in all police department because besides the high cost, officers feel that instead of being used as a method of enforcement, it is used as a method of surveillance for the officers (2011).
Before you enter your average gas station, you see a sign with intriguing yet captive words. The sign reads “Smile, you are on camera!” Signs like these are widely used today to warn the shopper that there is in fact eyes prying in on their activities to capture any illegal actions. These illegal actions are usually handled by police officers. But what about their vehicles and the daily dose of crime stopping action? Is a warning necessary inside a vehicle that carries out the tasks of the law? Recording devices, specifically video cameras, should be placed inside each and every official vehicle. An audible and visual proof of an offender’s behavior can be more than sufficient to allow the law to take charge and give such his or her amount of justice. Of course devices like these can and have been used against the will of officers. Nonetheless the pros outshine the cons on many levels in today’s rapidly growing technological world (2012).
A burglar never warns a home owner about his future intent on infiltrating his home and abruptly taking everything with financial value to later sell and profit. A traffic accident never starts with the arrival of an ambulance and first responder team. Drunk drivers never flash a warning about their loss of reflexes and basic reasoning skills. Instead crimes such as burglary, traffic violations, and drunk driving occur on any time of the day and at any given moment. As you may already know, cameras are already inside many patrol units as they fight crime throughout the city (2011). According to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), with the amount of 21,000,000 dollars, over 17,500 patrol units have been well equipped with recording devices throughout the United States. Not a bad number when put into prospective. The amount of cameras in patrol units has grown over the years due to more financial resources (2001). Having an off/on button on them is like having an on/off button to your homes alarm system! An absurd move! Therefore these cameras should operate as long as the patrol unit is patrolling the streets. It is crucial they record every bit of evidence an officer may encounter. Whether it is an average traffic stop or a violent car chase, this evidence is reviewed by detectives and examined closely.
These cameras are rarely hidden and are in fact exposed to the public. If indeed the exposure of a camera plays a role in the conduct a criminal engages in during his or her act of crime, it will be a positive one. On a recent study of interactions between offenders and officers, it was found that “Not only were officers being assaulted at an alarming rate: they were increasingly becoming accident victims while performing their duties on the highways”. When these officers were asked if they believed the use of these devices to be a helpful aid, there responses summarized in saying that the “use of the in-car camera would possibly deter assaults while providing a safer working environment (2001).” This small abbreviated survey implies a positive change intertwined with the use of cameras. This change involves there thinking of the persons actions to participate in the intended criminal act. It is as if the person begins to second think the consequences of whatever malicious they act they do. If this person’s action have been pre meditated through will to carry out the plan, then the presence of a camera will be miscellaneous to them. Whether or not these cameras are exposed will create little to no effect on the crime or criminal at the time of his or her intended actions (2011).
The surveillance effect is seen when the general public displays its fear of being watched and in a way violated of their privacy. A person’s privacy decreases more every day. The places these people seek to feel more at ease can be the general public leisure area. When a surveillance camera is watching over head, these privacy hogs can suddenly feel as if they were mice in the Sahara desert evading the eyes of a hovering eagle miles above the sky. This turn of events can be detected through there nervous jitters and shaky hands. But when put in front of a patrol unit, this behavior may differ. It may be displayed on how the person responds to the brief interrogation the officer does in the stop. That persons may lose their thoughts.
In the introduction of the officers stop he or she should inform the person he or she stopped that they are in fact being recorded. When a person is arrested and there rights are told, these include “anything you say or do will be held against you in the court of law.” This compares to informing the person that a video device is being used to record visual actions and audio and that such evidence could or will be used against them in the court of law. As mentioned before if that person intended on engaging in an activity malicious to the officer and possibly dangerous. Once the officer informs the suspect he is being watched, possibly, in a positive way, the suspect will re-think any malicious actions he thought of at the moment in order to flee his law enforcing citizen. Although it may seem like a superficial factor, the life of the officer may well be put under another filter of protection, aside from the bullet proof vest and other aiding attires, from any harm done. Of course such filter of protection is not that of a literal one but instead at a karmic moral one.
Having a camera in a patrol unit at all times can benefit in an array of forms throughout the day of an officer. The benefits of these although not included can help in many ways. The small cons include matters such as financial availability, or misconduct of the officer himself/herself. The cost of these cameras are relativity high but the positive outcome is higher. Some officers allow the emotions presented at a tense given moment overcome the words and actions expressed by such. Being civilians who enforce the laws, they are expected to follow such. However, cameras capture these events as well, and when looked into, can damage the reputation of the force.