Police brutality against minorities, especially African Americans, has not been a stranger to modern society. Due to these unfortunate tragic events, more police officers have been using ‘body worn videos’ , or more formally known as ‘body cams’, and dash cams. Body and dash cams were implemented in hopes to hold officers accountable for their actions, but they show to offer more confusion than anything. The article How Police Body Cams Videos Impact Jurors Differently than Dashcam Videos delineates the cognitive bias and decision making associated with body and dash cams.
A team of researchers at Northwestern University gathered 1,916 volunteers to serve as mock jurors during police officer’s trials and actions they committed to during their duty. Volunteers were shown footage from crime scenes and staged acts from two different perspectives and some volunteers were asked whether the officer of interest should be indicted or not. Volunteers were shown body and dash cams of the same events and was required to fill out a questionnaire afterwards and the researchers discovered differences in how volunteers viewed the intention of the police officer involved in an incident based on a different video. The researchers discovered that the mock jurors were less likely to find an officer guilty based on body worn videos compared to dash cam footage. These findings suggest that individuals are less likely to find an officer in the wrong when the officer does not appear in the video. This disconnect strips the ability to judge the intention of the police officer therefore leading to cognitive bias.
In Dr. Granot’s article, she demonstrated by using video evidence in the court system and how using this evidence can lead to bias. She surveyed 152 New York University students and they were shown footage of police officers and were asked whether they found an officer guilty or not. Dr. Granot and her team discovered that volunteers who strongly identified with police officers and focused their visual attention on the officer were more likely perceived the officer as innocent. On the contrary, individuals who had a weaker identification with officers and had more visual attention on the officer while viewing the clip were more likely to give them a harsher punishment. Granot’s study suggests that unconscious cognitive bias can often occur when viewing video evidence because the cognitive bias can prohibit the participant to see the officer’s guiltiness and therefore come to an inaccurate decision.
Although, video evidence can be a critical turning point in a case, it also comes with its drawbacks. Depending on how the video is presented and where visual attention lies, important details and intentions can be overlooked. Consequently, this can lead to an unjust hearing and the officer not facing the consequences of their actions.
Citations:
Yirka, Bob. “How Police Body Cam Videos Impact Jurors Differently than Dashcam Videos.” Phys.org, Phys.org, 8 Jan. 2019, phys.org/news/2019-01-police-body-cam-videos-impact.html.
Granot, Yael, et al. "Justice Is Not Blind: Visual Attention Exaggerated Effects of Group Identification on Legal Punishment. "Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol.143, no. 6, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment