The Distortion of Reality

Policemen are constantly involved in altercations with people in the community, and when these situations turn violent it can be difficult to assign blame on a particular person without video evidence. Police departments began implementing the use of body cameras for their on-duty officers so that there is more accountability of the policeman and possibly more trust between them and the public. The intent of the cameras is to alleviate any confusion that jurors may have when they need to decide who is at fault in an investigation between a policeman and a civilian. Although it may seem that video footage can be the most accurate source of evidence to jurors, research shows that it can actually generate bias and false interpretation in the courtroom. 

In the article, “Jurors Less Likely to Fault Cops Based on Body Cams, Study Finds”, Karina Brown discusses various research studies that show jurors were less likely to indict policemen when viewing the video footage from a body camera, than watching from a camera on the dashboard. The reason for this is because the officer was not as visible in the video, and therefore the viewers hardly ever blamed the policeman who they did not see. From these results, we can see how police video footage in court can unjustly favor the officer if it is from a body camera. Whoever is more visible in the video is more likely to be seen at fault. So, when a police officer is wearing a body camera, jurors will subconsciously assume the aggressor in the situation is the person they see the most, even if it is the officer who is to blame. It is the perspective of the video that distorts the situation and can ultimately lead to wrongful convictions. 

Yael Granot further delves into how perception can be deceiving while viewing video evidence. In her article, “In the Eyes of the Law : Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence”, she explains that video evidence can be misinterpreted depending on the presentation of it in court and how the video is shot. Angles of a video are important to how jurors view the evidence. They may assign less blame to the officer if the footage is from a body camera, and may assume the person who is focused on in the video is the individual at fault. Short video clips in court are also subject to interpretation, and therefore their reliability lowers because of implicit bias. Dr. Granot discusses how people tend to over believe what they see in a video, and think that their interpretations are more accurate than they are. Visual experiences are biased, but the majority of people are unaware of their biases because they are so far beyond their conscious awareness. 

Although the implementation of body cameras on policemen can be a positive tool, we must always consider the inaccuracies of the footage due to things like angles, length of video, context, clarity, etc. Jurors, in particular, need to be aware of the possibility of misinterpretation and better understand that all people perceive things differently. Dr. Granot’s research supports Karina Brown’s discussion of the potential deception that body cameras may present to viewers. This type of video evidence can make jurors more empathetic of the police officer since the way it is filmed can portray the officer as being attacked or seen as the victim in a violent altercation. Because of the inability to see the full situation as it is, jurors are more likely to be unintentionally biased and take the side of the policeman. 

References

Brown, Karina. “Jurors Less Likely to Fault Cops Based on Body Cams, Study Finds.” CNS, 7 Jan. 2019, www.courthousenews.com/jurors-less-likely-to-fault-cops-based-on-body-cams-study-finds/.

Granot, Yael, et al. “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence.” NYU Scholars, American Psychological Association Inc., 1 Feb. 2018, nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/in-the-eyes-of-the-law-perception-versus-reality-in-appraisals-of.