Body Camera Study Shows No Effect On Police Use of Force Or Citizen Complaints (npr.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Having police officers wear little cameras seems to have no discernible impact on citizen complaints or officers' use of force, at least in the nation's capital. That's the conclusion of a study performed as Washington, D.C., rolled out its huge camera program. The city has one of the largest forces in the country, with some 2,600 officers now wearing cameras on their collars or shirts. In the wake of high-profile shootings, many police departments have been rapidly adopting body-worn cameras, despite a dearth of solid research on how the technology can change policing. "We need science, rather than our speculations about it, to try to answer and understand what impacts the cameras are having," says David Yokum, director of the Lab @ DC. His group worked with local police officials to make sure that cameras were handed out in a way that let the researchers carefully compare officers who were randomly assigned to get cameras with those who were not. The study ran from June 2015 to last December. It's to be expected that these cameras might have little impact on the behavior of police officers in Washington, D.C., he says, because this particular force went through about a decade of federal oversight to help improve the department.

Comments

Yeah

[ArchieBunker]

Because most district attorneys are too chickenshit to bring charges against a cop. If a DA does bring charges all the cops turn into instant crybabies and threaten to stop doing their jobs. Also notice how the charges are rarely direct, mostly its a grand jury who decides and the DA can influence how its run. Then you have the police unions.

Ever read about how Jeffrey Dahmer was almost caught? A naked and intoxicated 14 year old boy ran out of Dahmer's apartment and the police were called. All the black neighbors said the boy was underage and didn't belong there. The cops didn't listen and gave the boy back to Dahmer to be murdered. Google his name John Balcerzak.

Re:Yeah

[swillden]

Also notice how the charges are rarely direct, mostly its a grand jury who decides and the DA can influence how its run.

Note that DC is under federal jurisdiction, so all terms of the fifth amendment apply. This means that in DC prosecution of any "infamous crime" (i.e. felony) requires indictment by a grand jury, per the opening text of the 5th, which reads "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

Since the grand jury clause has not been incorporated into the 14th amendment against the states, states are not required to follow this process. Many do, but not all.

Re:2 years ago it was report 93% drop!! Who is rig

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be both are right, thanks to this gem from the article you just posted:

"Against all expectations, there was no significant difference in complaints between officers wearing cameras that week and those going without."

Yep, that quote came straight out of the article (and, in fact, the summary) that claimed the 93 percent drop.

The difference in claims is subtle, yet significant. The 93 percent drop is a before and after comparison. The "no difference" is a with and without comparison. Put simply, once the cameras were rolled out, ALL officers started behaving better, whether they were wearing cameras or not. So there was a huge drop from before, but no difference between officers during.

The more recent publication does not make it clear whether they are comparing before-and-after or with-and-without. Though the wording definitely suggests they may just be comparing with-and-without.

Furthermore, there is this statement "because this particular force went through about a decade of federal oversight to help improve the department." So the officers were already in the spotlight before the cameras were rolled out, receiving oversight that would, presumably, be keeping them on their best behavior. If that oversight was effective, we would expect a drop in complaints when that oversight began, and no drop in complaints when the cameras were rolled out (since everyone just stayed on their best behavior).

Re:Not surprising

[fahrbot-bot]

And, you know, that's fine. If cameras don't deter bad behavior, so be it. But in that case, FFS, use the footage, both against criminals who otherwise benefit from the ambiguity the lack of footage would bring, and against bad cops.

Cameras aren't just about deterring bad behavior, they're also about being able to reliably deal with he said/she said situations where there are severe consequences for believing one party over the other.

I heard this story on NPR and at the end the head of the DC Police said much the same and offered a real-world example. They broadcast the audio ('cause it was radio) of a real encounter where a man was threatening his wife with a knife. After repeated calls to drop the knife and back away, he continued and was shot by the police. Afterward, some people questioned if the guy actually had a knife, but it was readily visible in the video. Cameras can "protect", perhaps after the fact, both civilians and police.