Behavior Modification of Body-Worn Cameras
A principle behind body-worn cameras is their ability to act as a third-party witness that is unbiased and has perfect recall of an incident, while also having a psychological effect on a person’s behavior. The camera creates a situation similar to Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon (insert citation about panopticon see theory book). Bentham’s panopticon is a type of prison where there is an enclosed and obscured central tower for a prison guard to watch from and prison cells in a circle facing the tower allowing the guard to observe the prisoners from one location. Although it is impossible for a guard to watch every single prisoner at the same time since the tower is obscured the prisoners never know when they themselves are being watched therefore act as if they are always under watch (insert citation about panopticon effect see theory book). This means that the subject is unknowing when or if they are under observation by an observer so in uncertainty acts as if they are. In the case of body-worn cameras, the officer is the subject who is aware of the camera’s presence in recording footage of their actions but, they are never aware if or when the footage recorded will be watched by a superior. Their superior is the observer and the camera much like the prison layout is just the facilitator of the relationship. The relationship of subject, observer, and camera can create a process a secondary influence on the subject.
The body-worn camera not only can act as a facilitator for the subject to modify their behavior in avoidance of another’s scrutiny but also by their own judgment and scrutiny. They are self-aware and self-conscious of their own actions and behavior because of the body-worn camera is now the stimulus. Psychologists Duval and Wicklund (1972) developed their theory of self-awareness where attention and scrutiny of actions, generally, projected outward to someone or something else, is drawn inward shifting the object of attention to themselves and evaluated by their own consciousness. They determined not only can self-awareness be applied within an experiment but also a tool to utilize in the regulation of behavior to societal desires.
Ariel et al. (2017) used the relationship of body-worn cameras and self-awareness theory sought to test the influence it had on officers' and citizens' behavior. They hypothesized that the body-worn camera influences not only the officer but also the citizen behavior which in turn would show a reduction in assaults on officers. In addition to the officer’s presence, the body-worn camera would offer a stimulus for self-awareness to occur within the city where they would moderate their behavior and be compliant. The footage captured by body-worn cameras provides strong evidentiary value in courts which increases the likelihood of an individual’s criminal actions being prosecuted so to avoid being reprimanded behavior modification would occur. The same can be said for the officer equipped with the body-worn camera, footage captured would cause them to act more professionally in avoid of reprimand from their superiors and the society. It should be noted that these theories and ideas are some of the principle phycological tenants of classical deterrence theory which is difficult to quantify or measure directly. The psychological approach of self-awareness and self-conscience theory provides a measurable avenue.
Although the theoretical foundation of body-worn cameras acting as a stimulus for behavioral modification is logical Ariel et al. (2017) study yielded contradicting results which paint a dangerous situation for officers. Within their study across ten police departments, eight experienced a reduction in assaults on officers of 61% which would support to the rationale that body-worn camera’s facilitation for self-awareness created a socially desirable effect. Yet, the remaining two departments saw an increase in assaults on officers when compared to the department's control group. This presents a puzzling conundrum for researchers with the data supporting a partial conclusion. They determined that a possible explanation for this occurrence was what was they coined over-deterrence. Policing often requires the use of force to subdue non-compliant criminals and also protect themselves but police are under greater scrutiny from their superiors and the public. Body-worn cameras may have initiated an overly overt self-awareness process within the office and through aversion to scrutiny from others, less force than was required was used resulting in increased assaults on officers.
Use-of-force and Complaints
With the use of body-worn cameras, there are perceived benefits that come with their implementation. President Obama said in a summit among White House staff “There is a role for technology (body-worn cameras) to play in building additional trust and accountability but it’s not a panacea”.
Generally, effectiveness has been measured through the change in the number of overly aggressive use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints against police officers before and after implementation.
Empirical research on body-worn cameras in the United States was relatively absent a decade ago and it wasn’t until recently did data begin to emerge. As of 2018, there have been approximately 70 research articles, over 111 sub-studies, and numerous governmental reports. The research has shown an overwhelming trend in the number of use-of-force incidents and complaints against officers reduce after the introduction of the body-worn camera. Which holds true with the results of England which had implemented body-worn cameras some number of years before with promising results. At roughly the same time when President Obama in conjunction with the Department of Justice announced their clear and transparent program for police departments some experiments on the effectiveness of body-worn cameras were concluded. The two earliest studies conducted were by Barak Arial, William Farrar, and Alex Sutherland which started in 2012 with the Rialto, California Police Department, and the Mesa Police Department study conducted by researchers at Arizona State University.
Cost
One of the considerations when implementing any program especially one like body-worn cameras as a national scale is a cost. A report by the Office of Justice Program warned of the difficulty to anticipate costs. Costs can be broken down into two categories the initial cost which could include the price of the body-worn cameras units themselves costing approximately $700-1000, charging stations, miscellaneous accessories, and installation of equipment. The second category is operating costs which could involve costs in I.T. specialists or someone tasked with handling data, attrition of body-worn cameras which would be the body-worn cameras lost or broken through their use, and perhaps the most daunting storing the data collected. Body-worn cameras produce an enormous amount of video data and it's only exponential in growth in larger departments who have more officers equipped. In a 2018 Police Executive Research Forum estimated based upon the respondents to their survey a median annual cost of body-worn cameras was $4,000 and an additional $1,000 in data storage costs.
Although this estimated cost is relatively low the largest-sized department responding to the survey reported an annual cost of $1,334,717 in body-worn equipment and an overtaking cost of $4,000,000 in data storage. The costs in data storage are likely to increase in the coming years further putting financial pressure on smaller departments that have less funding like those of ten or less officers which accounts for nearly half of all departments in the United States. Grand Teton National Park Ranger eliminated both their body-worn program along with their dash-mounted cameras citing several issues with cost and time. They experienced trouble storing the footage collected from the rangers even with a thirty-day non-crucial to a case deletion policy. Along with battery life issues, in an interview with Jackson Hole News & Guide Public Affairs Officer Denise Germann said “It’s our priority to have those rangers in the field rather than the time it takes to do the data management of the body camera program,”. Due to the ever-depleting battery life of the body-worn cameras Rangers were having to return in some cases every two hours to exchange for a fresh unit.
In East Dundee village of Chicago, their Police Department paid roughly $20,000 dollars for the first year in a five-year contract for their body-worn camera program. They had not yet issued body-worn cameras to their officers before Chief George Carpenter announced to the village board the department’s intention to eliminate the program. There were concerns of high costs for the department of an estimated $18,000 each year for data storage alone and that they were unsure of what issues the body-worn cameras were solving for the small village of 3,192 residents.
Costs in data storage are likely to only increase for police departments. For the past thirty years, the trend in digital storage has been the areal density doubles every thirteen months which is known as Kryder’s Law. This means in relation to cost that the amount of digital storage doubles every two years for approximately the same price driving the cost per bit of data downward. Dr. David Rosenthal cofounder of LOCKSS, a digital preservation organization, analyzed the long-term cost of digital storage and the trend of Kryder’s Law. Rosenthal et. al. using three different digital storage formats of tape, disk, and flash storage in relation to short- and long-term models found that for the remaining decade the continuing decrease in the cost per bit of storage will be much slower and may even stop. This means as database storage requirements expand for police departments with body-worn cameras programs it will be compounded by the shift away from Kryder’s Law.
In addition to the rising cost per bit of digital storage, some departments may see an increase in cost from the legislation. Small department of Wahoo Nebraska with only six full time sworn officers experienced and drastic operating cost increase after a state law required footage from the officers to be stored for 90 days. For the department of six officers, the new state legislation would cost roughly 15,000 more annually which was not viable, and put an end to Wahoo Police Department’s seven-year body-worn camera program.
Limitations
This analysis and studies covered have potential limitations. As of June 2018, there were approximately 70 publicly available research articles on the topic of body-worn cameras along with, and due to time constraints for which this paper was written within not all research on body-worn cameras could thoroughly be evaluated. The theoretical framework although sound contains some if its own limitation, especially with officer discretion. The key component of the body-worn camera acting as a stimulus for an officer’s behavior modification is its requirement to be on. Much like the binary bits that make up the programs of the body-worn camera so is the state of recording footage, it is either recording or it is not.
