Police Body Cameras in Large Police Departments

IF 1.1 2区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
B. Ariel
{"title":"Police Body Cameras in Large Police Departments","authors":"B. Ariel","doi":"10.17863/CAM.12683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Body Worn Cameras are spreading worldwide, under the assumption that police performance, conduct, accountability, and legitimacy, in the eyes of the public, are enhanced as a result of using these devices. In addition, suspects’ demeanor during police–public engagements is hypothesized to change as a result of the video-recording of the encounter. For both parties—officers and suspects—the theoretical mechanism that underpins these behavioral changes is deterrence theory, self-awareness theory, or both. Yet evidence on the efficacy of Body Worn Cameras remains largely anecdotal, with only one rigorous study, from a small force in Rialto, California, validating the hypotheses. How Body Worn Cameras affect police–public interactions in large police departments remains unknown, as does their effect on other outcomes, such as arrests. With one Denver police district serving as the treatment area and five other districts within a large metropolitan area serving as comparisons, we offer mixed findings as in the Rialto Experiment, not least in terms of effect magnitudes. \n \nAdjusted odds-ratios suggest a significant 35% lower odds for citizens’ complaints against the police use of force, but 14% greater odds for a complaint against misconduct, when Body Worn Cameras are used. No discernable effect was detected on the odds of use of force at the aggregate, compared to control conditions (OR=0.928; p>0.1). Finally, arrest rates dropped significantly, with the odds of an arrest when Body Worn Cameras not present is 18% higher than the odds under treatment conditions. The outcomes are contextualized within the framework of reactive emergency calls for service rather than proactive policing. We further discuss officers’ decisions and the degree of the necessity of arrest in policing more broadly, because the burden of proof for tangible evidence necessary for making a legal arrest can be challenged with the evidence produced by Body Worn Cameras: officers become “cautious” about arresting suspects when Body Worn Cameras are present. Limitations associated with the lack of randomly assigned comparison units are discussed, as well, with practical recommendations for future research on Body Worn Cameras.","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":"8 1","pages":"729-768"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"63","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.12683","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 63

Abstract

Body Worn Cameras are spreading worldwide, under the assumption that police performance, conduct, accountability, and legitimacy, in the eyes of the public, are enhanced as a result of using these devices. In addition, suspects’ demeanor during police–public engagements is hypothesized to change as a result of the video-recording of the encounter. For both parties—officers and suspects—the theoretical mechanism that underpins these behavioral changes is deterrence theory, self-awareness theory, or both. Yet evidence on the efficacy of Body Worn Cameras remains largely anecdotal, with only one rigorous study, from a small force in Rialto, California, validating the hypotheses. How Body Worn Cameras affect police–public interactions in large police departments remains unknown, as does their effect on other outcomes, such as arrests. With one Denver police district serving as the treatment area and five other districts within a large metropolitan area serving as comparisons, we offer mixed findings as in the Rialto Experiment, not least in terms of effect magnitudes. Adjusted odds-ratios suggest a significant 35% lower odds for citizens’ complaints against the police use of force, but 14% greater odds for a complaint against misconduct, when Body Worn Cameras are used. No discernable effect was detected on the odds of use of force at the aggregate, compared to control conditions (OR=0.928; p>0.1). Finally, arrest rates dropped significantly, with the odds of an arrest when Body Worn Cameras not present is 18% higher than the odds under treatment conditions. The outcomes are contextualized within the framework of reactive emergency calls for service rather than proactive policing. We further discuss officers’ decisions and the degree of the necessity of arrest in policing more broadly, because the burden of proof for tangible evidence necessary for making a legal arrest can be challenged with the evidence produced by Body Worn Cameras: officers become “cautious” about arresting suspects when Body Worn Cameras are present. Limitations associated with the lack of randomly assigned comparison units are discussed, as well, with practical recommendations for future research on Body Worn Cameras.
大型警察部门的警察随身摄像机
穿戴式摄像机正在全球范围内传播,人们认为,在公众眼中,警察的表现、行为、问责制和合法性都因使用这些设备而得到加强。此外,嫌疑人在警察与公众接触时的行为举止被假设为由于遭遇的视频记录而改变。对于双方——警察和嫌疑人——支持这些行为改变的理论机制是威慑理论,自我意识理论,或者两者兼而有之。然而,关于穿戴式摄像头的功效的证据在很大程度上仍然是轶事,只有一项严格的研究,来自加州里亚托的一个小机构,证实了这些假设。在大型警察部门,穿戴式摄像头如何影响警察与公众的互动,以及它们对其他结果(如逮捕)的影响仍不得而知。以丹佛的一个警区作为治疗区,并在一个大都市地区内的其他五个区作为比较,我们提供了与里亚托实验一样的混合结果,尤其是在效果大小方面。调整后的比值比表明,当使用穿戴式摄像机时,市民投诉警察使用武力的几率显著降低了35%,但投诉不当行为的几率增加了14%。与对照条件相比,未检测到对总体使用武力的几率有明显影响(OR=0.928;p > 0.1)。最后,被捕率显著下降,在没有穿戴式摄像头的情况下,被捕的几率比接受治疗的情况下高出18%。结果是在被动紧急服务呼叫的框架内,而不是在主动维持治安的框架内进行的。我们进一步讨论了警察的决定和在更广泛的警务中逮捕的必要性程度,因为进行合法逮捕所需的有形证据的举证责任可能会受到随身摄像机提供的证据的挑战:当随身摄像机在场时,警察在逮捕嫌疑人时变得“谨慎”。讨论了缺乏随机分配的比较单元的局限性,并对未来研究穿戴式摄像机提出了实用建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal remains one of the most widely read and widely cited publications in the world. It is the second most widely subscribed journal published by any law school in the country. It is one of the most widely circulated law journals in the country, and our broad readership includes judges and legal academics, as well as practitioners, criminologists, and police officers. Research in the area of criminal law and criminology addresses concerns that are pertinent to most of American society. The Journal strives to publish the very best scholarship in this area, inspiring the intellectual debate and discussion essential to the development of social reform.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信