Police body-worn camera policies as democratic deficits? Comparing public support for policy alternatives

IF 3.5 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Daniel E. Bromberg, Camille Faubert, Étienne Charbonneau
{"title":"Police body-worn camera policies as democratic deficits? Comparing public support for policy alternatives","authors":"Daniel E. Bromberg,&nbsp;Camille Faubert,&nbsp;Étienne Charbonneau","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Research Summary</h3>\n \n <p>Policies that govern the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by police vary widely between American cities. However, it is currently unclear whether citizen preferences for these policies vary in a similar manner. More specifically, do BWC policies reflect citizen preferences or are existing policies disfavored by a majority of the public? To investigate these questions, we randomly sampled 1000 respondents for each of the three representative metropolitan areas, Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Charlotte, NC, in addition to a further 1000 Americans across the country to inquire about policy preferences. We found that most respondents prefer the BWC policies recommended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to those currently implemented in their regional police departments. In other words, elements of the BWC policies in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Charlotte do not reflect residents’ preferences.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy Implications</h3>\n \n <p>The policy stating that footage access should be given to parents of minors, a deceased subject's family members, or anyone filmed in an encounter, a model promoted by ACLU, is a clear favorite in the United States at large, but also in the three cities we studied. The policy stating that footage access should not be given to superior officers to find disciplinary infractions, also backed by the ACLU, is less popular among Americans at large and residents of Seattle. Beyond the high support for BWCs within the American population, decision makers need to make sure that the policies that govern the use of this tool respect democratic principles. Therefore, the voice of citizens needs to be heard to avoid a democratic deficit.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47902,"journal":{"name":"Criminology & Public Policy","volume":"21 3","pages":"649-670"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology & Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12589","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research Summary

Policies that govern the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by police vary widely between American cities. However, it is currently unclear whether citizen preferences for these policies vary in a similar manner. More specifically, do BWC policies reflect citizen preferences or are existing policies disfavored by a majority of the public? To investigate these questions, we randomly sampled 1000 respondents for each of the three representative metropolitan areas, Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Charlotte, NC, in addition to a further 1000 Americans across the country to inquire about policy preferences. We found that most respondents prefer the BWC policies recommended by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to those currently implemented in their regional police departments. In other words, elements of the BWC policies in Los Angeles, Seattle, and Charlotte do not reflect residents’ preferences.

Policy Implications

The policy stating that footage access should be given to parents of minors, a deceased subject's family members, or anyone filmed in an encounter, a model promoted by ACLU, is a clear favorite in the United States at large, but also in the three cities we studied. The policy stating that footage access should not be given to superior officers to find disciplinary infractions, also backed by the ACLU, is less popular among Americans at large and residents of Seattle. Beyond the high support for BWCs within the American population, decision makers need to make sure that the policies that govern the use of this tool respect democratic principles. Therefore, the voice of citizens needs to be heard to avoid a democratic deficit.

警察随身相机政策是民主赤字吗?比较公众对政策选择的支持
美国不同城市的警察使用随身摄像机(BWCs)的管理政策差别很大。然而,目前尚不清楚公民对这些政策的偏好是否以类似的方式变化。更具体地说,《生物武器公约》的政策是否反映了公民的偏好,还是大多数公众不喜欢现有的政策?为了调查这些问题,我们在三个具有代表性的大都市区(加利福尼亚州洛杉矶;西雅图,华盛顿州;以及北卡罗来纳州夏洛特市,此外还有全国各地的1000名美国人询问政策偏好。我们发现,大多数受访者更喜欢美国公民自由联盟(ACLU)推荐的生物武器公约政策,而不是目前在其地区警察部门实施的政策。换句话说,洛杉矶、西雅图和夏洛特的生物武器公约政策的要素并没有反映居民的偏好。美国公民自由联盟(ACLU)倡导的一项政策规定,未成年人的父母、死者的家庭成员或任何被拍摄的人都应该有权访问录像,这一政策显然在美国广受欢迎,在我们研究的三个城市也是如此。同样得到美国公民自由联盟(ACLU)支持的一项政策规定,不应让上级官员查看监控录像,以发现违章行为,但这项政策在普通美国人和西雅图居民中不那么受欢迎。除了美国民众对生物武器的高度支持外,决策者还需要确保管理这一工具使用的政策尊重民主原则。因此,必须倾听公民的声音,以避免出现民主赤字。
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
Criminology & Public Policy
Criminology & Public Policy CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
6.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Criminology & Public Policy is interdisciplinary in nature, devoted to policy discussions of criminology research findings. Focusing on the study of criminal justice policy and practice, the central objective of the journal is to strengthen the role of research findings in the formulation of crime and justice policy by publishing empirically based, policy focused articles.
×
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