
Study finds police body cameras had no significant impact on use of force - DyslexicAtheist
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/the-benefits-of-police-body-cams-are-a-myth/
======
mikkom
IMHO it seems that the body cameras are quite frequently "malfunctioning" when
they would be needed.

edit: some links from quick google search.

[http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/19/us/minneapolis-police-
shoo...](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/19/us/minneapolis-police-shooting-
body-camera/index.html)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/a-cop-
fir...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/a-cop-fires-a-teen-
dies-yet-six-police-body-cameras-somehow-miss-what-
happens/2017/03/20/c7d801a8-0824-11e7-b77c-0047d15a24e0_story.html?utm_term=.1ad46681f944)

[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-baton-rouge-
shoot...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-baton-rouge-shooting-
questions-swirl-around-body-cam-failures-n605386)

~~~
darkerside
It's quite possible they are functioning just as often when not needed, and
that this only seems malicious because of selection bias.

~~~
hbarka
And guess who does the selection bias on the on/off button.

~~~
darkerside
This only matters if you assume malicious intent. I'm not saying it isn't ever
there, but let's not pretend it's proven to be statistically significant.

~~~
orclev
Malicious intent __must __be assumed. The body cameras exist in order to be a
deterrent to malicious police behaviors and as such any system which puts the
officers in charge of the functioning of the cameras, and which does not
heavily discourage or prevent police from operating with a broken or
malfunctioning camera is failing in its primary mission. It should be illegal
for an officer to operate or be on duty with a broken or otherwise non-
functioning body camera, and the footage from body cameras should be held by
an independent third party that is not subject to oversight or control by the
police (FBI might not be a bad idea).

~~~
horsawlarway
Ironic, given that a core tenant of our justice system is "innocent until
proven guilty".

All of the things you mention are "wishlist" items right now.

Lets assume this is true (and honestly, I'd love for it to be true).

>It should be illegal for an officer to operate or be on duty with a broken or
otherwise non-functioning body camera

So now that you have that law, how do you enforce it?

How does a department verify that they're complying?

How does any individual officer know whether his camera is working or
malfunctioning?

How do they correct the problem if it's a technically complex issue related to
camera infrastructure or hardware?

How much additional burden does this place on each department?

How do those departments pay for that added burden?

\----

So can we put a system in place that satisfies your very high standard? Almost
certainly yes.

Should we? I don't know.

Will we? Almost certainly not. At least not in the immediate future. It's
expensive and hard.

~~~
orclev
Obviously there's the question of how foolproof you want the system to be, but
at a minimum there should be some system that monitors and confirms it's
receiving at least a heartbeat signal from the camera and that the camera is
reporting normal functioning. If the camera drops out police dispatch should
be notified who in turn should notify the officer that he needs to return to
the station to have his camera replaced. One possibly more passive solution
that others have mentioned is to simply discount any testimony an officer
provides that doesn't have an operating camera to corroborate his statements
and instead defer to non-law enforcement testimony in those cases instead of
the current situation where an officer is always considered more trustworthy
than anyone else. That provides very strong incentive for police to insure
their cameras are working because in the event they aren't any testimony they
provide would be more or less nullified and likely lose them cases.

~~~
darkerside
This is like a nightmare scenario. Criminal testimony should be given more
weight than the police? Madness.

------
cruschtGlacz
Surprise!

You can’t expect to extract any value from cameras under police control.

The cameras must exist beyond the reach of police departments, and publish
footage in a way that cannot be censored.

The body cameras get censored because the police have created a system that
benefits them, above all else.

The reality of this outcome should weigh heavily on everyone’s mind, about how
this correlates with every other aspect of police activity.

~~~
throwaway2016a
> and publish footage in a way that cannot be censored

Easier said than done. Police officers are often seeing people on the worst
day of their life. It would be an incredible decrease in privacy and general
dignity if all footage was just published uncensored.

If someone assaulted you and stole your cloths would you want a video online
of you being interviewed about the experience with just a towel on (and
probably a few scenes where you are completely naked before they get you the
towel)? That is potentially an extreme example, but ever day police officers
interact with innocent people and victims that don't deserve to have that
experience made public domain.

In short, the police need some way to make sure some video is kept private.

Police abuse of power is a terrible thing. I have no doubt they are literally
getting away with murder and framing people in many cases. But we have to
remember that a vast majority of what officers do is to protect us and help us
in our time of need.

~~~
ufmace
The related argument against this that I've seen from a few cops is that this
also removes their ability to use discretion and not charge people. If
somebody reports a crime and happens to have some drugs in their pocket and
the police find them, they could have just ignored them or confiscated them
and not charge the guy in pursuit of the greater good, but with the whole
thing on tape, they essentially have to charge everything they see/find.

~~~
CaptSpify
Is that an issue though? It's my understanding that police are allowed a lot
of discretion as to whether or not they should charge someone with a crime.
ianal, so genuinely asking

------
bmcusick
The cameras are a positive step anyway. The political debate cannot help but
be effected every time a cop is caught on video doing something shady, but
nothing happens. Over time this repeated evidence will cause social change,
even if it doesn't create justice for the particular victim of that particular
moment.

But for cameras to be really effective a couple things need to happen:

1) They have to be on by default, and not turned on and off by the cop.

2) The video needs to be archived with a neutral party that can provide the
raw source data to attorneys for both prosecution and defense on equal terms.

3) The law needs to change and juries need to change so that cops are actually
held to the same standards of violence and self-defense as any other citizen.
This is necessary for US police to claim to actually be civilian police, and
not a military occupation. But nonetheless this last one will be the hardest
and slowest change of the three.

------
MrBuddyCasino
Another data point:

"The presence of body-worn cameras caused police to refrain from the use of
force even when its was necessary for self-protection."

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-017-9311-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-017-9311-5)

Tl;dr here:
[https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/942692766177480704](https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/942692766177480704)

------
darkerside
This article is a poster child for jumping to conclusions. It's just as
possible that there's no impact because there aren't a significant number of
violent actions performed by police with the mindset that it is not justified.

We seem to have a great understanding of the detachment with which a doctor
needs to operate to handle a stressful and high stakes daily environment, but
somehow totally lack this empathy when it comes to police.

------
brudgers
There are many rationales for body cameras. Most are along the lines of
providing better records of events such as interactions between the police and
the public. Reducing use of force is usually not among the official
rationales. However, one unofficial rationale is that body cameras may reduce
_unreported_ uses of force and again this goes back to the main rationale of
providing a better record of police activities.

------
jasonpeacock
Yet a study in Las Vegas reports significant reduction in the use of force
when body cameras are used:
[https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/IRM-2017-U-016112-Final.pd...](https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/IRM-2017-U-016112-Final.pdf)

In fact, I think the DC report is the exception - cameras are having
significant impact most everywhere else.

------
JonnyNova
This signifies that the police in question don't believe their conduct is
wrong. This definitely comes down to a problem that needs to be sorted with
proper training and establishing proper protocols on how to deal with these
situations.

------
jeffehobbs
Better than nothing, however?

~~~
sergiosgc
Not really. The article states two huge downsides:

1) Privileged footage access by the police results in selective publication of
parts of the video, creating false or distorted narratives;

2) Police cameras are cameras, so this results in increased surveillance.

~~~
jasonkostempski
I dont get number 2. There's already a police officer where the camera is,
they themselves are surveillance. Id much prefer the camera. Especially if I
did something wrong so it can be seen exactly what I did instead of the report
being blown out of proportion to ensure the charges stick.

~~~
jetti
Right, but what about all the times that crimes aren't being committed? In
Illinois, the law is that the cameras must be able to record 10 hours and must
be on when not in the car or the officer is talking with a victim, witness or
confidential informant and those individuals request the camera be turned off
[0]. That means that whenever the office enters a private area, where one
expects a reasonable amount of privacy, that privacy is gone as long as the
officer if following the rules. There are, of course, private places that one
would not expect privacy such as any business that states they are recording
video.

[0]
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=3662&Ch...](http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=3662&ChapterID=11&SeqStart=100000&SeqEnd=1000000)

------
bsder
tl;dr: The problem isn't the "body cam". The problem is that the victims can't
get at the body cam footage due to various rules put in place by departments
and police unions.

~~~
paulus_magnus2
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place," Schmidt tells CNBC

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument)

~~~
bsder
The "nothing to hide" argument is not relevant for a public servant whose job,
by definition, is occurring _in public_.

Since we give police more power than the average citizen, the more appropriate
argument would be: "Who will guard the guards themselves?"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)

At then end of the day, the appropriate answer in a Democratic system must
eventually be "the people, themselves".

Body cams don't magically make police better. But, without them, you can't
even begin the process.

