Role of Technology in Police Brutality

The police are responsible for safeguarding civilians in the country. The law allows them some form of authority to enforce the laws stated in the Constitution and act within certain limits in their line of duty. However, recent times have seen the police go beyond the confines of their jurisdiction when on duty. The usage of force or rather brutality by the police has been under severe scrutiny after the fatal encounters that the police in America had with unarmed black males in the city of New York, Ferguson, Baltimore, Mo and other parts (Wing, 2015). 

Many people have been agitated by the numerous such cases involving police and civilians. Hardly does a month end without the media highlighting cases of police brutality, some that take place in quick succession. For instance, the hotly debated case of Michael Brown that the grand jury passed a verdict on was an example of the abuse of authority by the police and lack of transparency in their department. A police officer in Detroit shot and killed a seven-year-old girl as she slept in the year 2010 but the charges against him were recently dropped. Another case related to the same involved the shooting and killing of Tamir Rice, a twelve-year-old boy on November 22nd in the year 2010 (Brown, 2015). The police shot Tamir while responding to alerts by the public on someone holding a gun at a local park. It was later discovered that the “gun” the boy had was an airsoft gun (Wing, 2015). The security footages showed that the police officers drove up to Rice and shot him as he sat in a gazebo and left in their car. Later in the same year, in the month of October, an officer was accused of stealing nude images of a DUI suspect from their iPad at a stop. The accusation further revealed that the officer used to collect nude photos as part of a game (Brown, 2015). The list goes on and on, does well to show the immensity of police abuse of their authority in the country, and hence suggests that it a big problem.

Officers regulate themselves with investigations conducted internally and often when lethal force is applied with very few charges brought up against the police officers. But how can the brutality be stopped if the police cannot be convicted? According to Randolph McLaughlin, a professor of law and trial lawyer, the society does not want to believe that the police can engage in bad things hence giving the officers the benefit of doubt (Brown, 2015). It thus becomes tough to indict such police officers. A serious debate has followed such notions and concerning the cultures of the police as well as the possible methods of fixing the problems above. It is imperative that the accusations against the police officers be taken with the seriousness they deserve and treated like all other allegations or charges (Holmes, 2000). It is also very pertinent to have transparency that confirms the stories surrounding the police officers. 

Technology has proven key and extremely useful in curbing police brutality. In fact, Brown (2015) suggests that the best way to curb police brutality is by using body cameras. Apart from the body cameras, the media, video capturing techniques, and cell phones serve to adequately perform the function of keeping officers in check and prevent them from overstepping their mandate. Many people think that the rise of the surveillance technology implies dystopian. However, that is not the case, though. It hardly means that the cameras will be used to spy on the police officers but rather keep an eye on the proceedings of the government and its local authorities (Jefferson, 2013).

Daniel Denvir, a reporter with Philadelphia city paper, observes that cell phone cameras and the media have been instrumental in checking on police officers that act unlawfully. In a very recent ordeal, a policeman had to contend with a video by an eyewitness as he tried to convict a black man by the name Askia Sabur for assault on an officer. The video depicted a different occurrence from the one the police described (Jefferson, 2013). The prosecutor had firmly stated and argued that Sabur had assaulted the officer but the video captured a complete reverse of the story and the jury found the defendant “not guilty” with a lot of ease. Camera Phone videos and photos have done an excellent job in recent times to transform the capacity of civilian oversight of the law enforcement agents. Such has been seen by the numerous strides employed by such technology in overthrowing the government of Egyptian tyrant Hosni Mubarak after he launched an attack on demonstrators in the city of Cairo as well as capturing the pepper-spraying on protesters in Wall streets at the University of California (Jefferson, 2013). Camera phones prove to revolutionize the manner in which citizens police the police officers suggesting that technology has a significant impact and hence the next generation will even be better. Look at Google Glass, for example, the new technology serves to provide one with the smartphone functionality in a pair of glasses that rest on one's face (Jefferson, 2013). The glasses make it possible to record videos without having to pull them off the face neither do one need to pull out their phones to take records. All a person must do is say “record, ” and the device will follow the command and begin filming whatever is happening. It is something that can be done hands-free and it will certainly make the officers act in their best behaviors. (Cassandra, 2015), insists that a nation with such technology might have things get out of hand like the privacy of people and more so the females. Nevertheless, it is not doubted that such technology helps reduce the manner in which police officers act in public while on duty. Brown (2015), insists that a person is more careful and aware of their actions when they are being recorded, and the same holds for the police officers. 

The role of technology emerges following the numerous cases of brutality by the police and how well technology can help reduce the same. Brown (2015), remains adamant that videos are unyielding forms of evidence in courts. People may record everything they see in a public setting, and many have done so to the police to prove of their ill manners. For instance, Luis Paulino was beaten and battered brutally by the NYPD after intervening when the officers were doing the same to another man. Paulino believes that his case and the claim would never have held water in court if it were not for the presence of a witness video. Paul Callan, formerly a prosecutor in the Supreme Court, says that the cases of police brutality have dwindled courtesy of cell phone cameras and recording devices. Some of the videos have gone viral like in the chocking case of Erik Garner but still the number has gone down (Brown, 2015). It is due to that effect that some people hold dear the idea of police officers wearing body cameras every day at work to monitor their actions. 

Technology proves worth through the media. As earlier mentioned, the case of Erik Garner, the man that was choked to death by police officers went viral as every person could see the confrontation that led to the man’s demise (Kelsh, 2015). It spread via the media like fire in a dry forest and people from all corners of the world were able to listen and see the content. In fact, the media enabled the outcry for justice for Garner after frustrated Americans took to the streets to protest against the inhumane act of the officers. Many have fallen victims of police brutality with the most common names being Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Oscar Grant, and Erik Garner. The majority of these victims are from the black community, and many Afro-Americans are tired of what seems like a prejudicial killing against their race. Police brutality is currently a big talk following what the media has highlighted and has managed to show to the public (Wordpress, 2015). Technology has facilitated the capturing of everything that transpires on cameras. However, (Kelsh, 2015) remains saddened by the fact that technology has helped capture actual happenings of such ordeals, but minimal justice has been offered to the victims.

It is no doubt that technology such as the media has increased and solidified evidence necessary to tie down offenders of the law. The media further shows the patterns in this brutality insisting that it targets the minority in the society and hence does well to direct investigations. The incidences have gained public attention and audience courtesy of the media, and it is not questionable that the media has done a great job to expose the brutality. It remains true that police officers thrive in their illegal and unlawful acts because they lack eyes behind their backs from the public (Holmes, 2000). However, the media acts as the supervisor telling or rather reporting to the citizens how these officers behave. It is a primary educator to the public on the cases abuse of authority and power by the officers. Channels like BBC, CNN and ABC together with social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have facilitated the calls for justice for victims of police brutality (Cassandra, 2015). It may not seem enough for the persons that have died in the hands of such cruel officers, but it is beneficial because it sets the grounds for change. The outcry by the public creates a tempo that demands proper conduct of the officers, and this has been abled by the use of technology in the form of the media. Recordings of these actual occurrences hold firm as evidence in courts, and it is upon the courts to follow up and punish officers to set a new culture among the officers (Cassandra, 2015). The videos should be used by the courts to pass jurisdiction and hence make the officers know that they cannot act out against the public, get caught on camera and still walk away free men. 

Body Cameras in Reducing Police Brutality

Equipping police officers with body cameras proves to be an effective way of improving their behavior while conducting their duties in public according to new studies (Cassandra, 2015). Researchers from the University of South Florida released a report regarding a yearlong body camera pilot program instituted at the Orlando Police Department. The research involved forty-six randomly selected officers who wore the devices and compared them against another forty-three officers that did not wear the camera. Cases of usage of force or response to resistance dropped by 53% in twelve months from March 2014 to February 2015 among officers that wore the cameras. Civilian complaints against the same officers further declined by 65% (Wordpress, 2015). The study confirms a significant reduction in the injuries obtained by civilians relating to officers who wore the body cameras and a significant decrease in the injuries of the officers themselves (Wordpress, 2015). Officers that did not use the cameras had few incidences involving forceful usage of power and the decline in their cases was less substantial. 

The study comes at a time when the country is making efforts to outfit police officers with body cameras all over the country following the instances of misconduct and police killings that call for improved transparency in the police docket. Body cameras have proven to be a rare point considering that reform advocates and law enforcement agents hold different opinions on the same Nevertheless, President Obama announced a $75million initiative aimed at covering all costs of expansion in the program that serves to fit all officers with body cameras (Jermaine, 2015). According to Dr. Wesley Jennings, a primary investigator in the USF’s department, the officers in the Orlando study were skeptical at first concerning the equipment with some of them insisting the cameras would not hinder them from using force during their arrests. However, the statistics do well to narrate differently from the expected and confirm that indeed the body cameras have an impact on the behaviour of the officers in the field (Jermaine, 2015). 

Many of the officers agreed that the equipment helped change the behavior of citizens and as such contributed to the de-escalating of confrontations between them and the civilians. Moreover, the officers insisted that the cameras improved collection of evidence and helped them recollect activities that transpired on the ground for them to write reports. According to Dr. Wesley, most of the officers did not feel any burden carrying the cameras (Wing, 2015). Jennings further confirms that officers who earlier said the cameras would not inhibit them from using force eventually felt that the equipment made them better officers at on their jobs and more so in the field. The study concluded with most of the officers challenging the department to adopt the technology and two out of three officers that wore the cameras insisting that they would want to continue using the technology (Jermaine, 2015). The chief of police of Orlando is in support of the body wear cameras and is currently pushing for a federal grant of $500,000 to obtain the equipment. 

Bodywear cameras will also do well to improve transparency and accountability amongst the officers as well as protect the police from false and biased complaints. It will further give valuable evidence to the prosecutors (Jefferson, 2013). Other studies have shown similar drops in the usage of force and complaints from civilians after the body cameras were implemented. For instance, a yearlong study program in Rialto, California concluded in the year 2013 showed a 59% reduction in the incidents of excessive use of force by officers that wore body wear cameras with an overall 87% drop in complaints from civilians (Wing, 2015). The number was compared to those of the previous years and showed a complete transformation in the collected data referring to the topic under study. Indeed it would appear that the technology is taking the police enforcement docket to the right direction. However, some skeptics insist that the use of this equipment is highly dependent on the policies that govern and oversee their usage. For example, the police departments in cities and states work hard day and night to limit the accessibility of the public to footage (Kocis, 2014). The same critics explain their skepticism by appreciating the fact that certain guidelines will facilitate the tampering of these cameras by the officer and use the videos for their benefit along or rather convert the device into a tool of wider surveillance (Kocis, 2014). 

Questions are still raised concerning when the devices must be turned on and off and how much of their content needs be available to the public. The US department of criminal justice released a statement saying that it would provide $20 million in the form of grants to assist the local and tribal agencies acquire and learn how to use body wear cameras. The grants fall into the $75 million plan of President Obama to issue out body cams for police wear in all states and police agencies (Kelsh, 2015). Despite the importance of the cams, many departments remain confused on the initiation of the technology. Nevertheless, some agencies have used them and have come out friendlier to the idea of the equipment than before insisting that the technology decreases forceful arrests and complaints from the public. For instance, in San Diego, a report in the year 2015 showed that the body wear cameras were responsible for a “personal body” force employed by officers by a margin of 46% (Kocis, 2014). 

Another example is that of the 2015 report from the Mesa police department of Arizona, entitled impact of on-officer video on the citizen and police contact. The researchers studied and analysed 3,698 field reports that were completed by one hundred patrol officers where half had worn the body cameras and the half did not. The primary findings were that officers without the cameras had more incidences of “stop and frisks” and had more arrests than the others had who wore the cameras. The numbers showed that these officers had 9.8% more frisks and 6.9% more arrests than the officers who wore the cameras. Also, officers that had cameras issued out 23.1% more for the ordinance violations as compared to those that did not put on the cameras (Kocis, 2014). Conclusively, the study confirmed that the officers were more careful in their operations when they had the cameras on as compared to when they did not. The researchers in their discussion and analysis suggested that police showed careful actions because they were more thoughtful of the policies and criminal procedures as they wore the cameras. It remained in their heads that video evidence could subject them to immense scrutiny by their superiors together with members of the public (Wing, 2015). 

The first-degree murder charge that was filed against University Cincinnati officer after his body wear camera captured him shooting an unarmed African American man to death shows the importance of the technology in capturing police misconduct. Another case is one where a body wear camera captured Ray Tensing pulling Samuel over and shooting him in the head after Dubose failed to produce a license and open the driver door. Tensing had argued that the car had dragged him, but the story was later confirmed as untrue (Jefferson, 2013). Further camera captures showed and confirmed that police officers had lied about the scene when they said that the car driven by Dubose was “dragging.” The then prosecutor strengthens the importance of the body cameras, Joe Deters who remained convinced that the case would have been dismissed were it not for the cameras. Another officer, Michael Sager was caught on a cell phone camera as he shot a certain Walter Scott in the back and was fired immediately because of the same and charged with first-degree murder (Jefferson, 2013). 

The idea of body wear cameras has become extremely popular with the politicians who insist that all police officers must have the equipment fitted in their uniforms. However, the concern over whether the cameras will do a good job in reducing the police brutality remains at large (Jefferson, 2013). For instance, the police that shot Dubose was wearing one but still went forward and committed a crime. 

Some of the pertinent issues surrounding this equipment include the officers’ discretion in turning them on or off at stops and certain points. According to the NYPD, the officers must have their cameras on at all times and whenever they interact with the public as compared to the aspect of reasonable suspicion (Diamond, 2010). Therefore, one would seek to ask whether the police will face charges for turning off their cameras at certain times when on duty. More important is the aspect of supervision because it is highly critical that these cameras be supervised even when worn by officers. According to Jefferson (2013), it remains in the best interest of both the police department and the public as a whole to have proper supervision on the technology. Police officers should face stringent punishment when they switch off the cameras. It is of utmost importance that the officers have the cameras on at all times regardless of whatever situation they may be in at that time.

On the question of whether the cameras help reduce cases of brutality, it is well to distinguish certain cases from the general view. For instance, numerous studies have confirmed that the cameras have a direct impact on the manner in which officers interact with the public. The few instances of cops continuing to act out on the public despite having the camera could imply personal issues that are far much different from the general personalities. Moreover, the camera is aimed at primarily capturing the instances, which will eventually tell the officers that they cannot get away with brutality on the public. 

Conclusion

The police are charged with the task of safeguarding civilians in the country. The law allows them some form of authority to enforce the laws stated in the Constitution and act within certain limits in their line of duty. However, recent times have seen the police go beyond the boundaries of their jurisdiction when on duty. A serious debate has followed such notions and concerning the cultures of the police as well as the possible methods of fixing the problems above. It is imperative that the accusations against the police officers be taken with the seriousness they deserve and treated like all other allegations or charges. It is also very pertinent to have transparency that confirms the stories surrounding the police officers. Technology has proven key and extremely useful in curbing police brutality. It remains true that police officers thrive in their illegal and unlawful acts because they lack eyes behind their backs from the public. 

The role of technology emerges following the numerous cases of brutality by the police and how well technology can help reduce the cases of police brutality. On the question of whether the cameras contribute to reducing cases of cruelty, it is well to distinguish certain cases from the general view. For instance, numerous studies have confirmed that the cameras have a direct impact on the manner in which officers interact with the public. In general, it is well to appreciate that police brutality exists and affects numerous of the ordinary people. However, technology plays a significant role in reducing the cases of police brutality. Such equipment like cell phone cameras, the media, and the camera body wears do well to expose the behaviors of the police officers while on duty. It is well to appreciate that the technology may not change a person and maybe some officers will still act illegally regardless of the implementation of the technologies. However, the constant exposes and charges will eventually keep the police officers in check, as it will ensure they understand they cannot get away with a crime. 

References

Brown, A. (2016). Technology and Police Brutality - The Prindle Post . The Prindle Post . Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.prindlepost.org/2014/11/technology-and-police-brutality/

Cassandra. (2015). Police Brutality: Through the Media. Queens College , 1-5.

Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy , 21 (3), 69-83.

Holmes, M. D. (2000). Minority threat and police brutality: Determinants of civil rights criminal complaints in US municipalities. Criminology , 38 (2), 343-368.

Jefferson, C. (2013). Technology’s Role in Defeating Police Brutality . BET.com . Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.bet.com/news/national/2013/03/08/technology-s-role-in-defeating-police-brutality.html

Jermaine, T. (2015). Body Cams Can Capture Abuse, But Can They End Police Brutality? . AlterNet . Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/body-cams-can-capture-abuse-can-they-end-police-brutality

Kelsh, C. (2015). Do body cameras change how police interact with the public? - Journalist's Resource . Journalist's Resource . Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/body-cameras-police-interact-with-public

Kocis, A. (2014). Ending police brutality with technology . Easternecho.com . Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.easternecho.com/article/2014/12/ending-police-brutality-with-technology

Wing, N. (2015). Study Shows Less Violence, Fewer Complaints When Cops Wear Body Cameras . The Huffington Post . Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-body-camera-study_us_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56

Wordpress. (2015). The effects of technology on police brutality A Baruch site