Do you think body cameras on policemen will reduce police brutality?

I think they are a good start. But as we saw in Eric Garner case, apparently video of a murder is insufficient. I’m not sure what it’s going to take.

Yes, I think they will. I’m thinking of some recent psychological studies where subjects were put in situations where they could easily avoid doing the right thing (“honor system” situations). For some of the trials, a picture of watching eyes was posted in the test area, and that alone dramatically increased ethical behavior.

There will certainly be cops who work around any surveillance system, but I think that even the subconscious awareness that behavior is being observed will have an overall effect.

Yes, it will.
Police will have, in the back of their minds, the fact that they are being recorded.
Remember a few years back , when someone was being interrogated, and the cop turned off the camera? When the camera was turned back on, the suspect had numerous bruises. The cop said they tripped and fell during that time.

@filmfann One of the issues I have heard about is whether cops will be able to turn off the cameras at will which would certainly diminish their effect.

While I am in favor of police wearing cameras because it has been demonstrated as reducing the instances of police problem behavior, I am concerned about it being one more step in the direction of constant surveillance.

@zenvelo Who will watch the watchers? But I think there is a demonstrated need here for oversight.

No, those officers who abuse the public’s trust will turn their nefarious nature onto the camera & its implementation.
It got “broken” or was pointed away from the scene at a precise moment etc.

Yep! They could only help. They would also clearly show the world the officers see and why they act the way they do. The cameras will show how a 15 year old girl on meth can throw two police officers responding to the 911 call, on the ground and beat one’s face because they looked at her like just a 15 year old girl and did not consider her a threat. Or why they shoot multiple times because of the few cases where the suspect does not go down and manages to fire back when the officers stopped firing. Or document that the vehicles getting pulled over for speeding or dark windows are being pulled over for speeding or dark windows, not the color of the drivers’ skin. Or how suspects run and try to escape, or fight in the vehicle, or repeatedly bang their heads multiple times on the window glass even when they are handcuffed and are in the back of the police car.
I have no data but I believe there would be a heck of a lot fewer cries of brutality and racial targeting once the suspects and the public realize the whole interaction is being recorded. The crack head banging his own face on the door frame would not be able to claim the police did it. Nor could the Reverend Loudmouth looking for free publicity.

If you have ever watched the “reality” TV show “Cops” you can see one guy doing it during the opening theme. It is quite a popular move.

The investment would be well worth the money saved by the reduction in court cases.

I had a cop lie on the stand to a judge’s face about how drunk I was. It’s a long story, but I got charged with a drunk-in-public while waiting in the parking lot of a bar for my designated driver. I was barely over the limit to drive myself and not acting like a jackass. I simply asserted my constitutional right to privacy when he asked for my ID (I guess he suspected I was underage). He immediately arrested me, then realized I was over 21, and ended up lying about it in court. Those college-town cops have nothing better to do, and it’s pathetic.

So yeah, I know some cops will lie to save their own asses. A camera should help them prove their case when they’re doing the right thing, and prevent them from acting like little power-tripping hotheads. They should be spending money on these instead of all of this fucking military gear, like armored personnel carriers.

I heard on NPR that they had reduced both police brutality and citizen complaints significantly when used in one California city.

Well, I think they would help, but couldn’t this also be another violation of people’s privacy? I mean, practically everything we do is already being tracked. And I definitely don’t think our right to bear arms is being protected, if that’s not obvious. Really, I’m not sure having a permit makes a huge difference, because they’ll still suspect you. People can lie or be deceitful, and then someone else is going to have to pay for that. Its pretty easy to twist the facts.

In my opinion, not that it matters much, this really goes all the way back to the government, trying to take away our rights so that we can’t be able to over throw them if we feel the need. This land is for the people and the people made the government, not the other way around.

There was an interesting comment on the news last night regarding police misconduct. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but a high percentage of police never had a misconduct inquiry, while a small percentage had more than 10 inquiries.

I think cop cams are an excellent idea, and @thorninmud nails it. If the officer knows that he’s wearing “eyes” I think he will be less likely to commit the kinds of crimes that we see more and more of these days. It may not stop all, but it will stop some.

While I appreciate the concern about peoples’ privacy, we are under so much surveillance now that I don’t think cop cams will make a significant difference. Between ATM cams, traffic cams, store cams, parking lot cams etc etc etc they are watching us now.

I think it’s a great idea ,as long as the cop can’t turn it off and on at will.
It will save the cops ass if He/she is innocent of any wrong doing, it will also fry the cop if he/she is guilty.

It’s happening with or without this debate. Body cams, Dash cams, security surveillance, even drone surveillance. The next step is to put it all on the Internet and give us regional surveillance centers. When they put a camera in my toilet we’ll all regret this. ‘1987’ 30 years late.

@Jaxk Did you mean “1984”?

They could only help. Look at the Dillon Taylor Case. Black cop with a body-worn camera shoots an unarmed white kid. The camera help show that his actions were justified. Same thing with Garner’s case.

As for your detailed point, just because unarmed young black men are being killed disproportionately, it doesn’t mean that it is because of police brutality. On the contrary, most of these cases either have no indictment, or if indicted, there is no conviction.

The only way to measure police brutality is with a conviction rate. If there is no conviction, you cannot make accusations of brutality.This brings up another benefit to body-worn cameras in that it would discredit everyone who makes false accusations of racism, brutality, and the likes.

^ “The only way to measure police brutality is with a conviction rate.”

Unless the system is more flawed than you believe it to be.

Does the person who believes the system is severely flawed have evidence?

@grac3alot The Innocence Project web site would be a good place to start finding the evidence that the system is severely flawed.

@canidmajor I know! It bothers me that there is so much surveillance! Its not that I have anything to hide, but still its really none of their concern. Its not just public cameras. I can see the need for those. But tracking our internet usage, where we go, what we do, what we buy, and even what we say…its way to much. The idea is probably making me paranoid. Correction: it is making me paranoid.

Just like @Jaxk said. Its happening really whether we want it to or not, and despite them making it look like we have a say in this, we really don’t. We haven’t had a true say in a lot of these choices.

And, the toilet thing, really made me laugh. So true, so true. :P

@janbb

Huh? What does that website have to do with showing flaws in conviction rates of police officers?

And I meant peer-reviewed evidence. The website you linked me to is biased, agenda driven.

The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University and created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. The project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.* As a clinic, law students handle case work while supervised by a team of attorneys and clinic staff.

You said nothing in your second post about restricting the “system’s” flaws to police convictions or lack of.

The fact that cases researched by the Innocence Project have led to reversals of convictions speaks for itself.

I said nothing because it was suppose to be obvious. longgone quoted a part of my answer that is talking about police conviction rates

The only way to measure police brutality is with a conviction rate

No, reversals are not a sign of a flawed system. Just because technological advancements such as DNA testing didn’t exist in historical cases, doesn’t mean the system is flawed, it means we just didn’t have that technology available. We acted to the extent of our historical abilities. The fact that there are reversals shows me the system is fair. Technology helps prove innocence and criminals are set free. The system would be flawed only if reversals were not allowed even when evidence proves innocence. That is not the case.

@grac3alot: So the video of police choking to death an unarmed man who was clearly heard to be saying “I can’t breathe” is evidence that proves innocence???

One of the big problems getting in the way of those convictions you so base your point on, is a lack of indictments. Prosecutors are pretty much in control of the evidence (or not) that gets presented to the Grand Jury, and tend to lean greatly in favor of the police.
This is why some of these cases are being taken to the federal level, to hopefully get a fairer hearing that will lead to indictments that will cause more evidence to be presented in a trial setting.

And we have no way of knowing how many cases are not brought up because of cover-ups or internal investigations. Or lack of publicity. So lack of indictments and/or convictions is no proof of anything – pro or con.

@grac3alot I don’t follow your logic. Having to overturn bad convictions means the system is working?

@janbb – Yea, 1984. Sorry, I plead senility.

@canidmajor

That isn’t the only video that was shown in the court room. There were multiple videos and from different angles and obviously other evidence that isn’t open to the public. You’re judging the case only by what the media allowed you to see. So yeah, cameras help a lot.

@canidmajor Prosecutors are pretty much in control of the evidence (or not) that gets presented to the Grand Jury, and tend to lean greatly in favor of the police.

Please provide peer-reviewed evidence for this statement.

Also, what evidence do you have that more indictments would lead to more convictions?

I have done a brief search, but I was unable to find any peer-reviewed evidence of a national officer conviction rate. There is a biased one by the Cato Institute that places that number at around 30% conviction rates of all officers who were indicted and that rate remains flat per year.

@janbb

A lack of indictment means there wasn’t enough convincing evidence. Dwelling on ifs and buts scenarios, cover-ups, and the likes has no value. It tells us nothing.

@Adirondackwannabe

The argument was that overturned convictions is evidence that the system is flawed. My logic is that overturned convictions are not evidence of a flawed system because these overturned convictions lacked the availability of dna-testing in its historical day. A lack of available technological advancements is not a systemic flaw. It is simply a lack of availability.

@grac3alot To get a conviction you need the jurors to unanimously believe a crime happened “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is a very high standard of proof (which is good). However, it’s certainly possible for people to be guilty of crimes but to not rise to that standard of evidence. In the case of police shootings you typically have a uniform officer’s word against a suspected criminal, there can also be systemic bias in terms of the prosecution not trying their best for a conviction, or investigators not being as thorough in pursuing a conviction, or interrogators going easier on a fellow officer. I’m not saying all of these things happen all of the time. But it’s pretty clear to me that conviction rates are a poor metric for establishing how common the behavior occurs in the population. Because of all of those factors conviction rates should consistently underrepresent the behavior.

Thank you, @janbb, for the link.

@grac3alot I was merely pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Well, @grac3alot, you seem to be married to your ideas. Your insistence on “peer reviewed evidence” in cases like this is just not feasible. My statement about prosecutors comes from experience, and Indictments lead to more convictions in the same way that they lead to more acquittals, in that they lead to more in-depth investigations in preparation for trials.
And it is a sad wAy to try to prove that you are more educated or enlightened on a subject by stating that Anyone here bases opinions “only by what the media allowed you to see.”
Do tell, what sources do you have access to that the rest of us don’t?

Never mind, we are way off the original Q, now. Sorry, @janbb.

@gorillapaws

Yes, a lot of things are possible, but if you cannot provide the evidence for it, then it means nothing to everyone. All you end up doing is falsely accusing someone for something they didn’t do or falsely accusing a system. In fact, when you do that, it is libelous. I’m surprised there aren’t that many lawsuits for defamation.

@grac3alot Well let’s look at the banking crisis as an example. It is widely known that there was massive fraud and illegal behaviors occurring throughout the industry when it collapsed. Only one guy went to jail If we’re using your metric then I guess the banking crisis never happened right? or perhaps it’s more indicative that there are flaws in the system, no?

@canidmajor

What cases? You just accused prosecutors of being corrupt because you claim you have some personal experience. That is what you call evidence and expect me to take your word on it? Heh. What about a random guy or girl who says these prosecutors are legit and their personal experience was always good with prosecutors? What about everyone else who has a story to personal opinion and personal story to tell to prove their opinion?

They’re investigating before they indict someone. You’re basing each argument on the same false accusation (that the prosecutors are corrupt).

I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m merely praising the benefits of body-worn cameras. Grand Juries abide of strict confidentiality. Whatever I told you about the multiple cameras and various angles was information that the media shared. The media, however, only shared one video. The one that circulated. You can’t just the entire case on that one video.

Oh dear, I don’t think you have an understanding of the system. No one called prosecutors corrupt, you’re reaching for that. Again, we are too far off the original intent of the Q. Go back to the camera issue.

@gorillapaws

I haven’t studied the crisis too much, but accusations of fraud and illegal behavior does not equate to convictions. If there weren’t as many convictions as you expected, then it means either the accusations were false, or there was not enough convincing evidence.

There are a lot of reasons for the banking crisis, so I don’t understand your logic when you say that since some people were not convicted of fraud, the financial crisis didn’t happen? All it means is that fraud and other illegal behavior didn’t play a significant role in the financial crisis. Although, If I recall, there were lawsuits, and those who were accused of fraud, lost, and paid a large monetary penalty. So where is the flaw in the legal system?

(I’ve requested that this be moved to Social.)

@canidmajor Prosecutors are pretty much in control of the evidence (or not) that gets presented to the Grand Jury, and tend to lean greatly in favor of the police.

Your words. If that is not an accusation of corruption, then what is it?

Body Cams will serve to protect both the officer and the criminal in many ways. I question the logistics of such a practice though. A shift is generally hours of boredom and tedium punctuated by moments of intense action. How to filter the sitting on butt time from actual something happening time will be tricky.

@majorrich Yes, and there are issues about how to archive and retrieve all that data.

Aren’t these cameras equipped with motion sensors? It only turns on when there is external activity (not the person who wears it). It won’t record the down time.

@grac3alot Just came across this editorial in “The New York Times” which discusses the issue of prosecutorial bias (not corruption) and indictments. You – and others – might want to read it.

The motion sensors makes sense.

@grac3alot “If there weren’t as many convictions as you expected, then it means either the accusations were false, or there was not enough convincing evidence.” that’s what’s known as a fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma. There are of course many alternative to false accusations, or insufficient evidence, much of it is covered in the article, namely that the system is broken.

While this specific point is deviating from the main topic, the logic of the conclusion is applicable. You are demanding perfect evidence to which I reply:
“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

If have nothing to hide you hide nothing. In this day and age of crazies on every corner cameras will protect the police just as much as they will protect others from potentially unwarranted police violence.

@gorillapaws

Fine, then you left it so open-ended that you can’t take any of it seriously. If it is maybe this, or maybe that, what good is it? If we went by that standard nothing would be accomplished.

@grac3alot See argument from ignorance.

Put it in context.

@janbb

I read your article and I have no problem with what it proposes – the best solution would be a law that automatically transfers to an independent prosecutor all cases in which a civilian is dead at the hands of the police. This would avoid the messy politics of singling out certain district attorneys and taking cases away from them.

How certain are you that an independent prosecutor would address public perception?

Do you think that if there was an independent prosecutor in the Michael brown case, and the grand jury still decided not to indict officer Wilson, the public would accept the verdict peacefully?

@grac3alot I don’t know. I think the problems need to be addressed in multiple ways but this could be one part of the search for greater impartiality – or the perception of it.

(Do you think that if there was an independent prosecutor in the Michael brown case, and the grand jury still decided not to indict officer Wilson, the public would accept the verdict peacefully?) @grac3alot
I think they would have accepted it more peacefully yes. Police investigating themselves leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth.

@SQUEEKY2: The cop at my job told me that body cams would be turned off and on by the cop (the way they turn on a lapel mike).

@jca then they can be bypassed, so what good will they do if an innocent is harmed by the police?
I can see the police using them when they are in the right, but think they will be brought out when they are not?
I guess it really should be an independent body investigating the police, when they are accused of any wrong doing.

@SQUEEKY2: But on the other hand, the cams would protect (or could protect) the police as well as the public, because as @LuckyGuy points out, it would show the criminal acting up and perhaps bringing trouble upon himself. Also, the cops might get in trouble by administration if they had repeated episodes of activity where their cams were not activated.

@jca I pointed out that it could help clear the cops in any case where they are innocent of any wrong doing.
BUT they can be shut down so think they will be used much in cases where the cops were actually guilty of misconduct,I’m going to bet probably not.