The adoption of body-worn cameras by various security agencies has greatly played a significant role in transforming policing practices and reforms. Though some security agencies at first were reluctant in deploying these gadgets, the need for this technology rapidly grew following controversies involving officers using excessive force on the citizens’. In scenarios where an officer(s) is involved in a dispute, the persons affected and media would want to know if there is body-worn camera footage of the occurrence, and if the agency has not used the gadgets, it creates a negative perception to the police fraternity by the members of the communities. Despite many security agencies rushing to embrace this technology, they have little knowledge about the impact it can have on their policing practices and their relationship with the community. Therefore, understanding these effects is essential in evaluating the potential value of these gadgets.
In an attempt to understand this I will carry out a research study and my primary focus will be to determine these two variables, namely officers’ coercion and complaints by citizens against officers. The findings of my study will largely be dependent on how the implementation of body-worn cameras has helped reduce the use of force by officers. I will carry out my study using the randomized controlled trial research design to figure out citizens’ attitudes towards officers wearing body-worn cameras and those not wearing during voluntary and involuntary police contacts. The reason I will use randomized controlled trial study design is that randomization will help to minimize potential allocation and performance bias. I will carry out my study in a police department. My research team will use staff schedule to select the participants in each shift randomly. I will generate numbers indiscriminately using the Microsoft Excel to determine whether each officer in the study would or would not put on body-worn cameras assigned to them during every selected shift.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I will ensure that compliance with the research procedures is upheld in the following ways:
Before deployment of body-worn cameras, I will brief the police department supervisors regarding the importance of being honest.
Random selection to determine which officer to wear or not wear the body-worn cameras will be made out of officers’ awareness to prevent officers foreseeing their body-worn cameras assignment.
Appointment of a member of the police department staff to monitor conformity with the research procedures and to encourage involvement from officers.
Ask the head of the police department to permit my research team to view body-worn cameras footage assigned to each of the officers by date during their visits.
To determine citizens' reactions, my research team will conduct telephone surveys for individuals who during the study had contact with the police. We will ask them to recall their encounter with police of specific police department on the specific dates of their communication. Our survey questions will be designed in such a way that can be used to determine the citizens’ views on the professionalism of the officer, the validity of the police actions and the citizens’ satisfaction with the police service. Responses from these citizens’ will be used to generate perception variables for the following dependent measures: professionalism, legality, and satisfaction. For instance, officer’s legality will be determined by the degree in which the civilian will approve that the officer cares about the security affairs of the neighbourhood and the respect the officer had on the individual.
Officer’s professionalism will be determined by how reasonably the officer imposed powers, how firm they adhered to law or rules and use courteous language. Citizen’s satisfaction will be determined by the confidence that the citizen had on the officer of doing a commendable job while giving his/her service.
The success of the study will depend on the number of respondents who interacted with the pilot officers and are willing to take part in the study. Low responses will limit the findings of the study. The minimal response may be due to unanswered phone calls, language barrier, refusals to take part or denial of having contact with the officer. Also, the persons considered valid for the study will be restricted to only those in which a report will be documented. It will not incorporate individuals that had casual contact with the officers, and a report was not recorded. Also in situations where the officer will think a report is unnecessary will limit the findings from the study’s population.
In conclusion, the data will show the citizens’ reaction to the pilot study. It will reflect how the adoption of these gadgets by various security agencies has affected citizens.
References
Gaub, J. E., Choate, D. E., Todak, N., Katz, C. M., & White, M. D. (2016). Officer perceptions of body-worn cameras before and after deployment: A study of three departments. Police quarterly, 19(3), 275-302.
Hardin, D. (2015). Public-Police Relations: Officers' Interpretations of Citizen Contacts (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Henstock, D., & Ariel, B. (2015). Testing the Effects of Body Worn Video on Police Use of Force during Arrest: A Randomised Controlled Trial.
Rosenbaum, D. P., Lawrence, D. S., Hartnett, S. M., McDevitt, J., & Posick, C. (2015). Measuring procedural justice and legitimacy at the local level: the police–community interaction survey. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 335-366.
Young, J. (2014). Implementation of a randomized controlled trial in Ventura, California: A body-worn video camera experiment. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
