The first randomized controlled trial of police body cameras shows that cameras sharply reduce the use of force by police and the number of citizen complaints.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial, where nearly 1,000 officer shifts were randomized over a 12-month period to treatment and control conditions. During ‘‘treatment shifts’’ officers were required to wear and use body-worn-cameras when interacting with members of the public, while during ‘‘control shifts’’ officers were instructed not to carry or use the devices in any way. We observed the number of complaints, incidents of use-of-force, and the number of contacts between police officers and the public, in the years and months preceding the trial (in order to establish a baseline) and during the 12 months of the experiment.
The results were that police use of force reports halved on shifts when police wore cameras. In addition, the use of force during the entire treatment period (on shifts both using and not using cameras) was about half the rate as during pre-treatment periods. In other words, the camera wearing shifts appear to have caused police to change their behavior on all shifts in a way that reduced the use of force. A treatment that bleeds over to the control group is bad for experimental design but suggests that the effect was powerful in changing the norms of interaction. (By the way, the authors say that they can’t be certain whether the cameras primarily influenced the police or the citizens but the fact that the effect occurred even on non-camera shifts suggests that the effect is primarily driven by police behavior since the citizens would not have been particularly aware of the experiment, especially as there would have been relatively few repeat interactions for citizens.)
It is possible that the police shaded their reports down during the treatment period but complaints by citizens also fell dramatically during the treatment period from about 25-50 per year to just 3 per year.
The first randomized controlled trial of police body cameras shows that cameras sharply reduce the use of force by police and the number of citizen complaints.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial, where nearly 1,000 officer shifts were randomized over a 12-month period to treatment and control conditions. During ‘‘treatment shifts’’ officers were required to wear and use body-worn-cameras when interacting with members of the public, while during ‘‘control shifts’’ officers were instructed not to carry or use the devices in any way. We observed the number of complaints, incidents of use-of-force, and the number of contacts between police officers and the public, in the years and months preceding the trial (in order to establish a baseline) and during the 12 months of the experiment.
The results were that police use of force reports halved on shifts when police wore cameras. In addition, the use of force during the entire treatment period (on shifts both using and not using cameras) was about half the rate as during pre-treatment periods. In other words, the camera wearing shifts appear to have caused police to change their behavior on all shifts in a way that reduced the use of force. A treatment that bleeds over to the control group is bad for experimental design but suggests that the effect was powerful in changing the norms of interaction. (By the way, the authors say that they can’t be certain whether the cameras primarily influenced the police or the citizens but the fact that the effect occurred even on non-camera shifts suggests that the effect is primarily driven by police behavior since the citizens would not have been particularly aware of the experiment, especially as there would have been relatively few repeat interactions for citizens.)
It is possible that the police shaded their reports down during the treatment period but complaints by citizens also fell dramatically during the treatment period from about 25-50 per year to just 3 per year.
Constant surveillance of the "public servant" LEO? Damn straight it's worth it. It not only takes care of bad apples, but also shuts up a lot of ghetto turds that scream racism every time some shiftless negro criminal get's arrested, thumped or shot dead.
Arms are the only true badge of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of the free man from the slave.
but complaints by citizens also fell dramatically during the treatment period from about 25-50 per year to just 3 per year.
If this means less Al Sharpton, DO IT.
Turdacious wrote:What's the IGx verdict-- is a reduction in bad behavior by bad apple cops worth constant surveillance from the State?
Any contact with a cop already is state surveillance. A recorded version would provide greater balance - right now, the cop version of events will win almost every time.
BUT - there some privacy issues to iron out. Otherwise, every police contact would be a potential episode on Cops.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
I have installed surveillance equipment for at least 15 years and it is surprisingly effective in running a tight ship. My thinking is, don't do this if you're not going to do it right. Some things that come to mind -
* more cameras, even if you don't store all the footage long term, especially inside the car.
* integrate with GPS and accelerometer on the officer, and in the car
* detect tampering by sending alarms when footage is interrupted or communications is lost
* review footage periodically, spot check for problems
Here's a hot one for you: would you be in favor of federal oversight by the DOJ or FBI of state and local law enforcement surveillance systems?
I am inclined to say that I'd be in favor of that, because the review aspects are crucial and law enforcement does a shitty job of policing itself. None of these are going to work as well as you'd want them to as long as there is no accountability beyond the station house. (Fox, henhouse, etc.)
But would that be unconstitutional? I don't know, but it would have to at least be LESS unconstitutional than some of the "oversight" federal, state, and local law enforcement have been doing on private citizens. State and local law enforcement have enjoyed big brother's backing in their surveillance and investigation of private citizens; fair is fair.
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!
ccrow wrote:Here's a hot one for you: would you be in favor of federal oversight by the DOJ or FBI of state and local law enforcement surveillance systems?
I am inclined to say that I'd be in favor of that, because the review aspects are crucial and law enforcement does a shitty job of policing itself.
