The goal of Ariel, Farrar, and Sutherland’s research was to determine if the presence of a body-worn-camera on the law enforcement officer, would reduce the prevalence on use-of-force and/or citizens’ complaints. Ariel, Farrar, and Sutherland (2014) explain in the introduction of their paper that at that time there was, “no research evidence on the benefits of body-worn-cameras” (p. 510). They continue to explain that their report is “on the first randomized controlled trial using body-worn-cameras” (Ariel et al., 2014, p. 510) in a longitudinal study over 12 months.
The entire population of the Rialto Police Department patrol officers participated in their research experiment, which totaled 54. Over the 12 month study period, they randomly …show more content…
The researchers conducted surveys to the Orlando Police officers and collected the data. The data collected from these surveys acted as baseline data. The researchers, then, randomly assigned the 95 patrol officers to “one of two groups: Body-Worn Cameras and No
Body-Worn Cameras” (Wesley et al., 2014, p. 550). Wesley et al. (2014) stated that the survey response rate had produced a rate of 96% (ninety-one officers responded) (p. 551). This survey was conducted prior to the body-worn cameras being put in place, which was the baseline survey as mentioned before. A more comprehensive survey was, then, administered “using a 5-point Likert-scale” (Wesley et al., 2014, p. 550).
The results suggest that the use of body-worn cameras is supported by police officers. The study found that officers are comfortable in wearing body-worn cameras, as well. Additionally, Wesley et al. (2014) found that officers, “perceive a potential for benefits of body-worn cameras in improving citizen behavior, their own behavior, and the behavior of their fellow officers” (p. 551). Likewise, it was found that officers do not believe these cameras will impact the willingness to respond to …show more content…
The first argument is the growing dissatisfaction with the police by their local communities. The second argument is the ever-increasing need for protection to police officers from violent occurrences with public citizens. As Coudert et al. (2015) explains, “When there is evidence that either citizens or police are exposed to serious threats, the use for body-worn cameras would rely on sufficient grounds” (p. 7). The results of the researchers’ study lend an ambiguous answer to the questions mentioned in the methods. For the first question, it was found that for a civil society, police need to be made more accountable. To the second question, the researchers found that police need the ability to protect themselves from unfounded accusations. Lastly, for the third question, Coudert et al. (2015) stated, “For policy-makers and society, the expected pacifying effect on the interactions between police and citizens” (p. 12). This article further validates the unique perspective a body-worn camera offers. As with any emerging technology, ethical questions will arise. Many questions and issues have already surfaced, and are being carefully weighed and
The entire population of the Rialto Police Department patrol officers participated in their research experiment, which totaled 54. Over the 12 month study period, they randomly …show more content…
The researchers conducted surveys to the Orlando Police officers and collected the data. The data collected from these surveys acted as baseline data. The researchers, then, randomly assigned the 95 patrol officers to “one of two groups: Body-Worn Cameras and No
Body-Worn Cameras” (Wesley et al., 2014, p. 550). Wesley et al. (2014) stated that the survey response rate had produced a rate of 96% (ninety-one officers responded) (p. 551). This survey was conducted prior to the body-worn cameras being put in place, which was the baseline survey as mentioned before. A more comprehensive survey was, then, administered “using a 5-point Likert-scale” (Wesley et al., 2014, p. 550).
The results suggest that the use of body-worn cameras is supported by police officers. The study found that officers are comfortable in wearing body-worn cameras, as well. Additionally, Wesley et al. (2014) found that officers, “perceive a potential for benefits of body-worn cameras in improving citizen behavior, their own behavior, and the behavior of their fellow officers” (p. 551). Likewise, it was found that officers do not believe these cameras will impact the willingness to respond to …show more content…
The first argument is the growing dissatisfaction with the police by their local communities. The second argument is the ever-increasing need for protection to police officers from violent occurrences with public citizens. As Coudert et al. (2015) explains, “When there is evidence that either citizens or police are exposed to serious threats, the use for body-worn cameras would rely on sufficient grounds” (p. 7). The results of the researchers’ study lend an ambiguous answer to the questions mentioned in the methods. For the first question, it was found that for a civil society, police need to be made more accountable. To the second question, the researchers found that police need the ability to protect themselves from unfounded accusations. Lastly, for the third question, Coudert et al. (2015) stated, “For policy-makers and society, the expected pacifying effect on the interactions between police and citizens” (p. 12). This article further validates the unique perspective a body-worn camera offers. As with any emerging technology, ethical questions will arise. Many questions and issues have already surfaced, and are being carefully weighed and