Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Because police officers will happily turn off the cameras whenever they know they'll get in situations where they'll look bad. And given that there are no consequences for doing so, this will continue to be the status quo.
Crime Privacy Police Complaints Drop 93 Percent After Deploying Body Cameras https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Fuck you. Privatized police would be incentivized to do whatever maximized profit, which is likely increased incarceration when the prison system is privatized but publicly funded. Privatize the funding of prisons then maybe.
The point, as I understood it, is that we have footage that shows what really happened, as opposed to when cops lie about the mortal danger of a black person running away from them,
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
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).
NPR's studied a topic which needs some study - "What are the affects of body cameras?" Then it presumes the correct question is, "Does this affect police behavior?" Of course, that question in the end does not matter. What matters is whether citizens unjustly treated by police offered a better final outcome for police brutality cases and whether police officers unjustly accused by citizens with whom they interacted also provided a better final outcome in their cases. It's a shame NPR didn't seem to ask THAT question. (Or the person posting here didn't suppressed this portion of the question...)
{^_^}
To be useful, they need to do a study where police misconduct is rampant.
No, they just need a study where they can prove that all footage was recorded and processed. Can they turn off cameras?
What was the percentage of damaged recording (audio or video)?
Chicago Police Hid Mics, Destroyed Dashcams To Block Audio, Records Show
The conclusion was that it did not reduce complaints. That's different than reducing unreported abuse. It's possible that these cameras did in fact reduce real and actual police abuse when the victims did not report the crime.
I'll hear stories of police beating people after they've been cuffed. It will go something like an accused child abuser will be cuffed and then "trip" down the stairs on the way to the police cruiser. How do you catch that? Even if on camera it can be difficult to tell if it's really a misstep on the staircase, police pushing the accused, or the accused trying to get the police in trouble by intentionally falling down the stairs.
Even though the study concluded no change in officer behavior the DC police intend to keep the cameras. It must be that they see value in the cameras outside of the potential to reduce police abuse.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
When this country was founded there were only private 'police' forces. You could hire a night watchmen, or a locality might pay for one. It's one of the reasons for our adversarial justice system: the idea is not that the government was tracking down evildoers, but that you personally would go to a magistrate with sworn evidence, obtain a warrant, and if necessary obtain the bunch of thugs necessary to arrest the person who wronged you (dueling was also an accepted alternative). It does have a certain libertarian appeal to it, but as law enforcement is a service which is required to be universal, [1] privatizing it amounts to a private tax, and [2] it's less efficient. Police forces were introduced originally (in London, by one Robert Peel, from whence they derived the nickname 'bobbies') as a cost-saving measure.
Anyone wishing to return to the days of private police is an idiot, an anarchist, or more frequently both.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
If 'bad behavior' is only attributable to a small percentage of cops to begin with, then you would expect little change on average from using cameras.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .