Police body cams - officers love them, but are they really helping solve crime?
- Summary:
-
One report suggests police officers are overwhelmingly supportive of body cameras, whilst another questions whether they actually help improve convictions.
However, one of the pieces of research does point to overwhelming support from police officers for use of the technology.
The first report, released by civil liberties group, Big Brother Watch, which issued forces and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with a number of freedom of information requests, found that 71% of forces have adopted the technology, with a total spend of £22,703,235 on 47,922 body worn cameras.
It notes that this is a huge increase from 2010 when the police said that they had spent £2.2million on 2,843 cameras.
However, the report notes that whilst this significant increase in investment, and despite senior figures publicly supporting the rollout of the technology, little evidence has been provided to show its effectiveness. It states:
With such an increase in investment it would be logical to assume that the police had determined conclusively that the technology was indispensable and worthy of such substantial spending, and that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) could show the extent to which footage from body worn cameras has benefitted conviction rates.
However, this is not the case. Neither the police nor CPS could provide us with data relating to the use of footage in criminal proceedings. This makes it impossible to verify the promise of improved convictions based on the use of the technology.
The report also notes that only 6 forces (12%) do not use body worn cameras and do not have any trials or roll outs planned. However, it’s main criticism is that the investment that has been made in the technology, compounded with public commentary about its use as evidence in criminal proceedings, has not been validated by data. It continues:
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has also been a vocal supporter of the use of body worn cameras, making clear that “The underlying principle of using BWV is that it can be used as evidence.” We were surprised, therefore, to discover that the CPS is unable to prove the benefits of the technology in relation to its use in prosecutions.
One of the critical claims made by enthusiasts for the technology is that footage from the cameras will improve sentencing and early guilty pleas. We used Freedom of Information requests to ask both the police and the CPS how many court cases have used footage taken from a police body worn camera which led to a successful or an unsuccessful prosecution. We also asked the CPS how often a defendant entered a guilty plea based on body worn camera footage and how often footage from a body worn camera was requested from the police. Neither the police or CPS provided us with a response.
With no access to the facts and figures relating to the outcome or how footage from body worn cameras is used it is impossible to assess the claims of their value. If the police and CPS are insistent that the technology will improve sentencing and improve guilty pleas they need to provide data to show the assertion to be accurate.
Further problems
The second report, carried out by researchers at London Metropolitan University, examines officers’ attitudes towards the technology over a two year period, during body camera trials with the City of London Police.
It also looked at the effectiveness of the technology in helping criminal proceedings.
It has been hoped that the recording of incidents would encourage guilty pleas. Interestingly, the study compared the number of guilty pleas over three periods - two control periods and then the period during which the trial took place - and the number of first hearings resulting in a guilty plea varied only by 1% between the three.
The report notes that “it does not appear that the proportion of trials being settled by a guilty plea at the first hearing was any lower than usual during the trial period”.
Worryingly, the researchers also found that officers were struggling to submit evidence to the CPS, as it’s systems were incompatible with the body cam software. The report notes:
Frustration was expressed that despite the quality of the camera footage it was not as yet compatible with the systems used by the Crown Prosecution Service. Therefore, footage could not just be downloaded to the courts for use. There were also some minor gripes with regards to the editing of footage and concerns about the provision of mobile chargers, as the cameras could run out of power on long shifts.
Indeed, as one officer remarked: “The only thing we weren't taught, which still hasn't gone live yet, is how we send data to CPS”. Some officers were able to share evidence from BWVC (body worn video cameras) with the CPS on an ad hoc basis. For example, in one case a respondent discussed liaising with colleagues in CID whether you were able to pass video on to the CPS. Another produced a word document which could or did direct a prosecutor to a relevant recording. Future research should look into how these processes have developed and become formalised since the trialling of the technology.
Police attitudes
However, what clearly came out of the London Metropolitan University report was the overwhelming support from police officers for the new technology. The findings show that of the 149 police officers interviewed, 83% feel body cameras should be worn, with one adding that cameras are “the best piece of kit” they have used.
Some 93% also said that they believed the cameras would help with the evidence gathering process, whilst 87% agreed that they would increase the chance of a conviction following an incident.
Lead author Dr James Morgan, senior lecturer in Criminology BSc, said:
Contrary to many assumptions regarding ‘cop culture,’ the officers surveyed and interviewed for this study were very progressive in their approaches to this new technology.
They wanted greater accountability and oversight and believed in their own policing practice and wanted this recorded.
The findings also point to a particular context in policing, where actions are often scrutinised with members of public armed with their own recording equipment. The participants of this study wanted their own footage to counter negative portrayals of the police which might be found on social media, having their perspective and experiences better understood by the wider public.
Police officers were mainly positive about the technology, most notably in the hope it would reduce spurious complaints and give police the opportunity to show the pressures in which they work under.