With the trial of officer Darren Wilson taking
place, tensions remain high in Ferguson, Missouri. Within the recent months,
there are those who question what could have resulted if Wilson had a body camera
on him at the time of the incident. There has been a police interest in using
body camera, before Michael Brown’s death, however the disputes in Ferguson
have further accelerated the need for technology usage. Mike White, associate professor at the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, comments:
“Within 28 days of
Michael Brown’s death, the officers of Ferguson were wearing body cameras. In a
relatively short period of time, it will be considered standard practice. It’s
not going away. In the next few years you’re going to see the majority of the
police departments in the U.S. moving in this direction.”
 |
|
A police officer
wearing a body camera
|
 |
|
(This graph is presented by Farrar to show
the reduction in incidents and complaints against police officers after they
started the 2012-2013 experiment with body cameras. The 30 second buffer
is called the “pre-event video buffer,”
which allows the original incident that made the officer turn on the camera be
captured too.)
|
In 2012, Police Chief William A. Farrar of Rialto, California conducted a continuing experiment about the use and effect of body cameras on police offices in his department. He worked alongside Barak Ariel, a visiting colleague at the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge and an assistant professor at Hebrew University. Within the first 12 months, they found that even with only half of the 54 uniformed patrol officers had cameras there was an 88% decline in the complaints filed against officers from 24 to 3 complaints. The police officers also used 60% less force. Interestingly, when force was used it was twice as likely to have been applied by officers not wearing cameras.
Some people have
privacy concerns about the secure network videos are uploaded on and when officers
are allowed to turn off their cameras. Video footages from dashboard
cameras in police cars have been used as entertainment for years. Internet
users and even TV networks like TMZ obtain and post videos of the arrests of
naked or drunk people, including from time to time athletes and celebrities
with legal issues. In sensitive cases such as domestic violence or rape
victims, the idea that videos can possibly be accessed online is unnerving to
some. Although these concerns are meaningful to further investigate, body
cameras can protect both the citizens and police officers. If citizens complain
that a police officer was discriminatory or that their arrest was unjust, then
they have video evidence to use. Similarly if presented with a complaint from
individuals, the officers can pull up their camera and showcase the incident,
thereby preventing false accusations.
With
these cameras, there is hope that discriminatory practices and treatment will
come to light. Minority communities have long since been aware that they are
targeted and treated differently because of how they are perceived by others.
Within court cases, when it is a regular joe (minority or not) on trial against
the statement of a police officer, juries tend to favor the latter. Seeing the
number of complaints filed against officers and use of force incidents decline
because of body cameras, it will be interesting to see if the number of arrests
and trials of minorities change as video evidence becomes more common. Can
officers still pass off reasons for stopping individuals as reasons of
suspicion and not because of their race or will body cameras catch the trend
that has been going on for years?
References
Kim, Rosa. "Police Use
of Body Cameras Raises Hope for Change...and Privacy Fears." RTV6.
N.p., 17 Oct. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.theindychannel.com/decodedc/police-use-of-body-cameras-raises-hope-for-changeand-privacy-fears>.
Pearce, Matt. "Growing
Use of Police Body Cameras Raises Privacy Concerns." Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times, 27 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-body-cameras-20140927-story.html#page=1>.
Rañoa, Raoul. "The
Influence of Body Cameras." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times,
27 Aug. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.latimes.com/la-na-g-the-influence-of-body-cameras-20140827-htmlstory.html>.
Stross, Randall.
"Wearing a Badge, and a Video Camera." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 06 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/business/wearable-video-cameras-for-police-officers.html?_r=2&>.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of the body camera reminds me of a sociological concept call the panopticon. The panopticon, a figure with one watch tower, has an all seeing eye component to it, as it constantly monitors the cells surrounding the walls. This concept is even more interesting because although the people in the cells are under surveillance, they don’t have the ability to see the watchtower. This surveillance will keep the people in the cell from acting out, as they are never sure if their actions will be caught. In mounting a camera on a police officer, the panopticon effect would likely take place, and would keep the officers more honest and clean. Looking at cases like that of Michael Brown, or the events that took place in Ferguson, one questions whether or not the outcome would have been the same, and if situations like this in the future could be avoided, as police officers would not have the same ability to wrongfully abuse their power.
The idea of body cameras is good in theory. However, looking at the case of Eric Garner, it makes you wonder how effective even this will be. If video evidence of an illegal choke hold of an unarmed man repeatedly asking to breath is not enough for an indictment, what is? Cameras would be good, but they the issues are so much bigger.
ReplyDelete