Policing, Race, and Body Cameras, Essay Example

The Camera’s Rolling

Nikki Jones and Geoffrey Raymond examine the potential benefits of third party videos.  Because this topic is so wide, they decided to focus on two important questions: How might the presence of a video camera affect the unfolding interactions that are recorded in third party videos? And How might the perspective of a videographer influence the production and preservation of these records, in turn, what influence might this standpoint have on our analysis of the data. Because of these two questions, the authors believe that a systematic approach should be developed for analyzing videos that have been recorded by third-party videographers. The authors actually happened upon this research, they were initially examining how African American men with criminal records changed their lives. During this time, they found a citizen who had archives of personal videos of the interactions between police and local residents over a period of several years.

The videos were made by a man, the authors referred to as Ray, who lived in the community. From the description of the housing complex, one can conclude that the complex is predominantly African American and it was comprised of violence and drug relations.  First it was noted that Ray had a personal connection to the community-he lived there and knew all of the persons he was videoing. He concluded that the camera does alter the encounter of an altercation, when the participants know they are being videoed. In other words, the scene does not unfold as it would have in the absence of a camera because often the participants treat the camera as an “honored guest”.  For example, the authors note another video where a suspect is being detained by police, but is not talking to police officers, but directly to the videographer. The suspect said, “Man, I’m walkin’ to the store. They on me, man”. Likewise, the police is talking directly to the videographer as well. He says, “You think I care about that camera on me?” So, in all honesty, the officer a police are interacting with the camera and not each other.  Also, the videographers’ presence can also alter the encounter. When the participants know the person behind the camera and what his beliefs are, they may be more apt to react or respond in favor of his/her belief. The authors concluded that cameras can capture and objective view, but it is very unlikely when the videographer has a personal relationship with the participants. As a result, cameras that are placed strategically around a neighborhood are more likely to capture a more objective view.

Technology, Policing, and Implications

Jess Maghan, Gregory O’Reilly, and Philip Chong Ho Shon investigate the use of in-car video technology used by police officers nationwide. In this article they sought to point out some of the benefits of technology, but also to highlight some of the other less positive issues. The authors quickly point out that technology is a great asset to the officers and in most cases are very beneficial to them; however, in some cases officers are reluctant to use them properly because they feel they are a way to keep track of them and not as a way to protect them. One great benefit of the in-car camera is the fact that it may deter abuse on officers and increase public confidence in officers. In recent years, video cameras have been installed into police cars in response to allegations of racial profiling. The authors discuss several different scenarios of how in car camera are used. Some officers have the ability to turn on dash cameras at their own discretion, while others remain on constantly. In one case in Arkansas a dash camera helped an officer from being the target of an internal investigation. On a routine stop, a cop was accused of stealing money from the suspect. When the officer’s supervisor arrived, the suspect claimed that he too took money from his car. Later, the video tape was reviewed and determined that neither officer had taken any money from the suspect. This data was collected in the 90s and much has improved in technology since then.

Body Worn Cameras

Michael White attempts to assess the evidence about body worn cameras for police officers. He seeks to determine if the pros outweigh the cons and what are the greatest benefits of the devices. It is believed that body worn cameras actually improve he behavior among both officers and citizens. There has been a decline in complaints of the use of force. There have been some concerns about officer safety when wearing this equipment. The weight of the camera has been an issue. In one case an officer received a neck injury from the weight of the camera. Also there has been the potential for an officer to be injured by accidently fallen and bumping his head against the equipment. Studies in the United States have found the following benefits of body worn cameras: Increased transparency and legitimacy, improved police behavior, improved citizen behavior, expedited resolution of complaints and lawsuits, improved evidence for arrest and prosecution, and opportunities for police training. Some concerns were: citizens’ privacy, officers’ privacy, officers’ health and safety, training and policy requirements, and logistical and resource requirements, including data storage and retrieval. One of the greatest benefits of body worn cameras is the possibility for police training. The type of scenarios that potential officers view will be of content that cannot be mocked in a classroom.

Synthesis

Deterrence is one of the main strategies used to determine effectiveness of a crime program; all three of these articles have deterrence as its focal point. Dash cameras, body worn cameras, and even third party videographers can deter inappropriate behavior from both officers and citizens in some cases. If a particular crime rate was down, that meant that the crime program was effective. Deterrence is the rationale used behind many traditional policing programs. The effectiveness of the program is based upon the extent to which the desired outcome is met. Under this assumption, it is believed that the would be criminal will be deterred from specific acts of crime as a direct result of the possible consequences. With this approach, members of the community in conjunction with policing organization, give gang members the opportunity to make other choices. They did not use this as a deal to get gang members to stop committing crimes, but as a way to allow them to see that there were other possibilities for their lives.

Within a democratic society, the purpose of law enforcement is to maintain order. Consequently, the police have several functions: creating and maintaining a sense of security within communities, protecting the citizens’ personal and constitutional rights, resolving conflicts, and being vigilant to prevent potential problems. These duties have been deemed so important in democratic societies that police have been granted the rights to deny these freedoms by the use of necessary force when the greater good is at stake. Yet, the threat of police force, in many cases, causes more harm than good. Although in some cases the threat of force is effective, in most cases the police are only effective when the citizens cooperate. It is impossible for police to advocate in every situation that citizens have because there are just not enough police for this to occur. Consequently, many citizens have made negative impressions of the police because they were not assisted in what they deemed a timely manner. As a result, the atmosphere of most neighborhoods depends upon the citizens own willingness to abide by rules and laws, yet this willingness can be enhanced by body worn cameras, dash cameras, and videographers. Nonetheless, the above description describes the relationship of police and citizens in a typical democratic society; this has not been the case lately in states around America. The reality of police interaction and public opinion seem to be more prevalent due to media exposure.

Members of minority groups are more aware of distrust of law enforcement due to negative encounters with law enforcement officials. A great deal of research has conveyed that minorities are more likely to have distrust suspicion of law enforcement than other ethnic groups. One reason for this distrust is that minority groups feel they have been disproportionately singled out because of the ethnic group they are a member of.  As of recently, the public’s perception of policing has changed due to widespread media coverage of incidents that indicate the policing has been racially biased. Many are left believing that police are not legitimately serving to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens because of their ethnic background. Lack of trust in police has many serious consequences. First of all it undermines the legitimacy of police ability to do their jobs democratically. In recent years, researchers have been given the opportunity to closely examine policing strategies. This and other tactics have been used to help improve law enforcement practices in hopes of regaining public trust and cooperation. White suggests:

“that the cameras may have a civilizing effect. However, the dynamics of police-citizen encounters are complex, and there are numerous potential explanations for the decline in citizen complaints and use of force. One explanation is that body-worn cameras dissuade citizens from filing complaints, especially frivolous complaints” (2014)

Much data has been collected, but the most telling of the data shows that Caucasians have a higher trust in law enforcement than any other race. Ironically, it did not mater the Caucasian’s age, income, education, or other factors; overall they just had a more positive perspective of law enforcement, according to the data examined by White. More efforts are needed in ensuring that police are adequately doing their jobs, as well as ensuring the citizens are being compliant.

References

Jones, N., Raymond, G (2012). The camera rolls: Using third-party video in field research. The Annals of the American Academy1, 642

Maghan, J., O’Reilly, G., & Chong Ho Shon, P (2002). Technology, policing, and implications of in-car videos. Police Quarterly 5, 25-42.

White, M. (2014). Police officer body-worn cameras: Assessing the evidence.