Cops, cameras, and the policing of ethics

Abstract

In this article, we explore how cameras are used in policing in the United States. We outline the trajectory of key new media technologies, arguing that cameras and social media together generate the ambient surveillance through which graphic violence is now routinely captured and circulated. Drawing on the work of Michel Foucault, we identify and examine intersections between video footage and police subjectivity in case studies of recruit training at the Washington state Basic Law Enforcement Academy and the Seattle Police Department's body-worn camera project. We analyze these cases in relation to the major arguments for and against initiatives to increase police use of cameras, outlining what we see as techno-optimistic and techno-pessimistic positions. Drawing on the pragmatism of John Dewey, we argue for a third position that calls for field-based inquiry into the specific co-production of socio-techno subjectivities.

Police Use of Body-Worn Cameras: Challenges of Visibility, Procedural Justice, and Legitimacy

“…Second, CCTVs were critiqued on the basis of efficacy, particularly whether they produce satisfactory evidentiary value (Biresi and Nunn 2003). Despite advances in camera technology, the same critiques exist of BWCs (Stalcup and Hahn 2016). Third, privacy implications were a central concern associated with CCTVs (Norris, McCahill, and Wood 2004), and this concern is accentuated in the realm of BWCs with their advanced data collection capabilities, including biometric (Otu 2016;Coudert, Butin, and Le Métayer 2015).…”

“…Furthermore, perceptions of police legitimacy may also be affected by internal police administrative procedures. Stalcup and Hahn (2016) note that, in some cases, footage is mysteriously missing or cameras are conspicuously turned off before events unfold; Willits and Makin (2017) contend that BWC footage often fails to reveal crucial aspects of events; and, Vitale (2017) argues that BWC footage should be under the control of a neutral third party. All these issues may leave the public questioning the trustworthiness of police, highlighting public feelings of alienation from the decision-making process associated with BWCpolicing.…”

Ched Evans, rape myths and Medusa's gaze: a story of mirrors and windows

“…30 For a comparable analysis in a different context, see Felman (1997 There are various possible ways to theorise visuality and its application in the study of crime and criminal justice. For example, Foucault's (1995) discussion of the efficient production of compliance and docility in prisons utilising Bentham's panopticon has spawned a wealth of criminological literature identifying manifestations and effects of the surveillance state (Mathiesen, 1997;Smith, 2004;Stalcup and Hahn, 2016;Wacquant 2009 Dymock (2016), for whom to speak of the state in such terms is demonstrably appropriate given that the consequences of criminalisation often involve scrutinising female sexuality.…”

“…There are various possible ways to theorise visuality and its application in the study of crime and criminal justice. For example, Foucault's (1995) discussion of the efficient production of compliance and docility in prisons utilising Bentham's panopticon has spawned a wealth of criminological literature identifying manifestations and effects of the surveillance state (Mathiesen, 1997; Smith, 2004; Stalcup and Hahn, 2016; Wacquant, 2009). Other approaches employ Jean-Paul Sartre's (2003) proposed radical distinction between empowered viewing subjects and vulnerable viewed objects (Moore and Breeze, 2012).…”

The concepts of surveillance and sousveillance: A critical analysis

“…"Rather than the overview position of surveillance, [sousveillance] was watching from "below" […], including people recording and posting their encounters with police." (Stalcup and Hahn 2016) In a similar vein, Jean-Gabriel Ganascia devotes a section to defining sousveillance, but does not get much closer than the claim that: "In the case of sousveillance, the watchers are socially below those who are watched, while in the case of surveillance it is the opposite, they are above." (Ganascia 2010) In a claim with a somewhat wider scope, Jean-Gabriel Ganascia writes that: "Surveillance societies were centralized, based on a hierarchical social structure, and localized in a physical building.…”