One particular response to the recent shootings perpetrated by white officers on subaltern victims has brought into question whether or not police officers should be equipped with cameras in order to function as a "third eye" they would provide objective truth when it comes to certain contentious incidents. Drover & Ariel (2015) address the lack of studies done on body worn cameras by police officers. The article presents a study that documents a Police leaders’ implementation of a randomized controlled trial of the use of body work cameras. The main objectives are to identify the challenges to implementing a trial and identify how they were overcome. The solutions to these challenges may provide key operations and implement change. Jennings et al. (2014) consider in their study the recent surge in body cameras in law enforcement. However, there was no research done on an officer’s perception of body worn cameras. This article is to inform the reader of all sides and perceptions of a body camera and if they effective. It appears that through the research the officers were open to body cameras and feel that it could reduce the negative interactions between themselves and citizens. lessons for police leaders, not only as they undertake evidence-based testing, but also as they manage police
The information and data that was presented in by Lajka (2015) provided invaluable quantitative information about police and body camera statistics. The author made it clear that through research conducted, body cameras for police officers do in fact hold them accountable for their actions and less complaints of force were reported. All the information was fact based and if there were opinions given in the article it was from the individuals that were interviewed. Stanley (2015) has covered the ACLU’s interest, control over recordings, limiting the threat to privacy from the body worn camera by Law Enforcement, the effects these cameras will have on the citizens, what will be the retention hold on these video encounters, the use of the recordings, and public disclosures. He thereby addresses some different aspects of the body camera and law enforcement regarding its utility or inefficacy.
Some scholarship discusses “new” trend towards officer body cameras. Waters (2014) discusses the trend towards wearable body cameras by police officers since the Ferguson, Missouri shooting of Michael Brown. Would a body worn camera by the officer involved in this incident have led to more accurate account of what happened that day and less “civil unrest”? Waters not only discusses the pros of the body worn cameras by police officers but also the cons and gives reasons to be caution of this fairly new technology. Some of the cons that the article covers is the ability to scale back after such technology is implemented, privacy of the public and officer, and cost.
Technology and video presences can deter criminal behavior, although not all sources pertain specifically to police body cameras. After the 9/11 attacks on American soil, cameras have become a part of our everyday lives. New technologies such as face recognition are now being used in public sectors and private and personal sectors have implemented the use of cameras. The author discusses the lack of control by civilians and privacy issues. Dr. Yesil analyzes the socio-political dimensions of video surveillance in the U.S. during 1990s and 2000s. The work could be outdated and public opinion might have changed about video surveillance and privacy since Dr. Yesil published her book. Dr. Yesil earned her M.A. degree in Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and completed her doctoral studies in Media, Culture and Communication at New York University. Dr. Yesil’s research has included Turkish media, globalization, media and culture regulation, censorship, surveillance and privacy. Though this book does not mention the use of the body-mounted cameras worn by police officers it does discuss the use of video cameras by local law enforcement agencies to deter crime in public places and the usefulness of cameras to catch criminal activity. This could be useful in my study of the body-mounted cameras worn by police officers in that if studies show that people are often less likely to commit a crime if they know or see a camera then perhaps they are less likely to be hostile or aggressive towards a police officer who is wearing a body camera as well as the police officers who were the cameras; will they be less likely to use excessive force if cameras are worn.
References
Drover, P., & Ariel, B. (2015, June 5). Leading an Experiment in Police Body-Worn Video Cameras. Retrieved from Sage Journals: http://icj.sagepub.com.libproxy.chapman.edu/content/25/1/80.full.pdf+html
Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and Cameras: Officers Perceptions of the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 549-556.
Lajka, A. (2015, 03 25). Vice News. Retrieved from Vice News Web site: https://news.vice.com/article/reports-suggest-body-cameras-are-only-effective-when-cops-cant-turn-them-off
Stanley, Jay. (2015, March). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from ACLU Web Site: https://www.aclu.org/police-body-mounted-cameras-right-policies-place-win-all
Waters, E. (2014, September 24). University of Richmond. Retrieved from Richmond Journal of Law & Technology: http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/transparency-in-law-enforcement-the-trend-towards-officer-body-cameras/
Yesil, B. (2010). Video Surveillance: Power and Privacy in Everyday Life. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC.
