Body cameras behind bars: Exploring correctional officers’ feelings of safety with body-worn cameras
| Date | 01 April 2022 |
| Published date | 01 April 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895820959125 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820959125
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2022, Vol. 22(2) 323 –342
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895820959125
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Body cameras behind bars:
Exploring correctional officers’
feelings of safety with body-
worn cameras
Michelle Sydes , Shannon Dodd
and Emma Antrobus
The University of Queensland, Australia
Abstract
Amid rising rates of prison violence, corrective service agencies worldwide are increasingly
championing body-worn cameras as a tool with the potential of making the prison environment
safer. Little is known, however, whether this technology makes correctional officers feel safer
while carrying out their duties in an environment with higher rates of violence than most other
occupations. Using survey data and interviews with correctional officers in Queensland, Australia,
this study shows that for many correctional officers, body-worn cameras do not improve feelings
of safety or have a civilizing effect on prisoner behavior. Most correctional officers do believe,
however, that the presence of body-worn cameras reduces the threat of false allegations
and thereby improves their “professional” safety. This study also considers whether officers’
perceptions of physical or professional safety vary by officer characteristics, body-worn camera
usage, and prison type.
Keywords
Body-worn cameras, corrections, false allegations, prison violence, safety
Introduction
Correctional officers are subjected to higher rates of violence than most other occupa-
tions (Steiner and Wooldredge, 2017). In fact, recent statistics show that the rate of
violent assaults against correctional officers is on the rise in many countries
(Department of Justice, 2019; Ministry of Justice, 2019). Exposure to
Corresponding author:
Michelle Sydes, School of Social Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072,
Australia.
Email: m.sydes@uq.edu.au
959125CRJ0010.1177/1748895820959125Criminology & Criminal JusticeSydes et al.
research-article2020
Article
324 Criminology & Criminal Justice 22(2)
prison violence—particularly when perpetrated against officers—can have serious
consequences for corrections staff and agencies more broadly. For correctional offic-
ers, ongoing exposure to prison violence can contribute to work stress, post-traumatic
stress, and burnout (Butler et al., 2019; Steiner and Wooldredge, 2015). For correc-
tions agencies, prison violence can lead to high rates of absenteeism and poor staff
retention (Crews and Bonham, 2007).
Recognizing the need to create safer environments for correctional officers, correc-
tions agencies across the world are increasingly championing body-worn cameras
(BWCs) as a potential solution. Indeed, BWC programs have recently been introduced
in prisons in the United States, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Australia, and New
Zealand (e.g. Beales and Marsh, 2016; Hong Kong Correctional Services, 2018;
McLennan, 2019; Ministry of Justice, 2017). As in the policing context, the rationale
for introducing BWCs behind bars is that the cameras operate “as both a warning sign
and a potential objective witness” during encounters between correctional officers and
prisoners (Timan, 2016: 145). This increased surveillance is presumed to reduce both
prisoner- and officer-perpetrated violence due to the increased risk of that behavior
being caught on camera (Ariel et al., 2016). Beyond the purported benefits in improv-
ing physical safety, it is also claimed that BWC footage will improve correctional
officers’ professional safety by reducing the number of vexatious complaints made
against them and by providing more transparency and accountability in prison work
(Crime and Corruption Commission Queensland (CCCQ), 2018).
It remains to be seen, however, whether BWCs can make the prison environment
safer, particularly given evidence that the camera technology already widely used in
prisons (i.e. closed-circuit television (CCTV)) does not deter violent behavior by prison-
ers (Allard et al., 2008). Furthermore, some corrections agencies have voiced doubts that
BWCs can reduce prison violence, with the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice (2019)
recently claiming that the introduction of BWCs will not, of itself, solve this issue, but
instead only “make violence incidents easier to manage or resolve” (para. 9). They fur-
ther warn that BWCs can have “counterproductive effects if not used wisely” in a correc-
tions environment (Ministry of Justice, 2019: para. 9).
Despite these concerns, only one study to date has evaluated a prison BWC program
(Beales and Marsh, 2016). However, that study focused just on the high security units
within two New Zealand prisons and involved only a small number of staff who had been
equipped with a BWC. Notwithstanding those limitations, that study provided evidence
to suggest that equipping correctional officers with BWCs can increase their actual and
perceived physical safety (Beales and Marsh, 2016). In addition, officers felt that the
BWCs kept them “professionally” safe, by preventing or resolving false accusations or
complaints made by prisoners. While that study provides a valuable starting point, much
more research is still needed in this area given the likely reliance by corrections agencies
on BWCs as a strategy to improve prison safety.
With the recent introduction of a state-wide BWC program in prisons throughout
Queensland, Australia, comes the opportunity to more comprehensively explore how this
technology may shape correctional officers’ perceptions of safety and whether these per-
ceptions vary between officers. Using a mixed-methods approach, we examine percep-
tions of both physical and professional safety by drawing on a state-wide survey of
To continue reading
Request your trial