Assessment of Body-worn Cameras Implementation Potential in Indonesia: A Systematic Literature Review
Mirza Triyuna Putraa,1*, Setiadi Yazida,2
a Magister Teknologi Informasi, Fakultas Ilmu Komputer, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
1 mirza.triyuna@ui.ac.id; 2 setiadi@cs.ui.ac.id
* Corresponding author
I. Introduction
Body-worn cameras, often abbreviated as BWCs are a type of technology that allows users to capture video and audio of events without carrying a hand-held camera. In developing law enforcement agencies, various countries in the world, including the United States (USA), Australia, and various European countries, have used BWCs as a technology that supports the implementation of tasks in the field. [1]. The use of BWCs in carrying out police duties is a relatively new technology and continues to be developed to create transparency by officers in carrying out their duties, ensuring the use of measurable force by the police, and minimizing complaints that may arise from public reactions of officers' misconduct [2]. The first application of BWCs was carried out around the 2000 when that years, there was a murder by officers in carrying out their duties, forcing the United States police to apply BWCs to their officers in the field [3]. Police use of BWCs can help prevent discriminatory behavior and violent encounters, promote good interaction between police officers and the public with available video evidence, and last but not least, increase public confidence in the law [4].
The Indonesian National Police (INP) 2022 plans to implement BWCs for its personnel in carrying out police duties [5]. This follows the advice from the National Police Commission (NPC) as one of the evaluations of INP's performance at the end of 2021, where there are incidents of police officers acting outside the law and tarnishing the good name of the institution. These
ARTICLE INFO A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received Revised Accepted
Many studies have researched the application of BWCs or Body- Worn Cameras in various countries that have implemented the use of BWCs on law enforcement officers. Previous research has measured how effective the implementation of body cameras is in helping law enforcement accountability and transparency, what problems may arise, and how the public perceives the use of BWCs by law enforcement. This study conducts a methodological literature review on previous research sources that have discussed the implementation of BWCs in various countries with varied research methods and resulted in various conclusions. The main study of this study aims to determine the challenges and solutions for implementing BWCs by police officers and the public awareness of BWCs. The approach used is an updated guideline on PRISMA statement 2020 by compiling 13 main studies from 276 search results, starting from 2017 to 2022, that include problems and solutions for implementing BWCs and measuring people's perceptions of BWCs usage. It was found in this study that some of the challenges in implementing BWCs by law enforcers are trust, racism, privacy concern, cost, and IT capacity. Meanwhile, public perception is divided into two groups: those who support and do not support it. Several supporting factors to consider are that BWCs influences police behavior, accountability, legitimacy, transparency, and procedural justice.
Copyright © 2017 International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research.
All rights reserved.
Keywords:
body-worn camera police
challenges privacy concern public perceptions
recommendations aim to prevent abuse of power, excessive violence or corruption, or can be used for monitoring and as evidence for the actions of members in the field. In addition to being a performance monitoring system and showing the accountability and transparency of officers in their duties, the use of this camera is also a form of modernization of INP. BWCs or surveillance cameras also support INP’s efforts to increase accountability and transparency. Metro Jaya Police will be the first pilot project to implement the use of BWCs in Indonesia [6].
Based on the results of previous research, it was found that many opinions state that using BWCs by officers can influence and increase a more polite attitude between officers and the community and make residents feel that the police presence is legitimate and transparent. It is undeniable that some police use this technology to increase public perception and trust in their institutions [7], [8]. Research on the use of body cameras on police officers is often focused on reducing the use of police force, increasing public willingness to participate in collecting evidence in case handling, and reducing public complaints against the implementation of police duties [9].
Therefore, Lum et.al. [1] have identified six main themes in the study of the use of cameras consisting of police officer behavior, police officer attitudes, community behavior, community or public attitudes, community research, and impact on organizations.
In general, there are two reasons why this research is novel and unique. First, as far as we know, research on BWCs that specifically discusses challenges and solutions as well as public perceptions of the implementation of BWCs in the Police using the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) method has never been done before. This is based on our search results on the Scopus indexing journal database. However, previous research that has reviewed the application of BWCs has been carried out since 2014 by White et al. [10], 2017 by Maskaly et.al [11], and most recently 2020 by Lum et al. [1] which in their selection criteria included the requirements that the studies must have investigated the use of BWCs by law enforcement officers and measured the behavior of police officers or citizens (rather than their perception).
Second, the reason for the uniqueness of this study is the location of the research location, which predictions will make based on the challenges and perceptions of people in other countries that have previously implemented BWCs. Most of the studies that raised the theme of BWCs were in English-speaking countries (especially the USA), Turkey [1], [10], and finally, Uruguay [12], [13]. There has not been any literature discussing BWCs from countries in Southeast Asian countries. Even though there are quite large differences between these countries and countries in Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia, which will only adopt the implementation of BWCs in its police force in 2022, this article will analyze potential challenges that may apply in Indonesia’s implementation.
This study uses the SLR methodology to perform a theoretical review of current research and existing literature available and based on the latest research over the last five years (2017-2022), the challenges and solutions for implementing BWC, and understanding the general perception. This study aims to systematically identify and analyze previous studies that discuss previously taught to answer the following questions: (1) what the challenges of implementing BWCs by police officers are? And (2) What are the public’s perceptions of police officers who use BWCs?
II. Research Methods
This study used a systematic literature review based on the PRISMA 2020 statement [14].
Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement procedure, there are 27 checklist items covering all aspects of the document that are used to increase transparency in systematic reviews [14]. We describe the methodology in the following phases, (A) formulating research questions, (B) developing research protocols, (C) searching and selection process, and (D) extracting and analyzing data from the selected primary studies.
A. Formulating Research Questions
The identification process for the research question begins with the PICOC (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Context) approach [15]. PICOC identification results are also used to create search strings that will be used in the search for relevant studies.
Table 1. PICOC Analysis Population Body-worn Cameras
Intervention Implementations Comparison Challenges
Outcomes 1. The challenges of implementing BWCs by the police 2. Public's perceptions of police officers who use BWCs Context Public Perceptions
We formulate the research question based on the PICOC as follows, (RQ1) What are the challenges of implementing body-worn cameras by the police officers? And (RQ2) What are the public’s perceptions of police officers who use body-worn cameras?
B. Developing Review Protocol
We designed the following research methodology to discover and choose the primary studies related to the study objectives. First, the Scopus database was used for the search since it has more than 75 million records from around 24,600 titles and 8,000 publishers. Then we develop the search string based on the research question. Third, determine inclusion criteria consist of Studies in English, peer-reviewed articles (journals), Title or abstract and substance of the study related to the research issue, and publication period from 2017 to 2022. Next, decide exclusion criteria which includes studies published prior to 2017, studies not written in English, publications other than journals, and titles or abstracts and study content that are unrelated to the research issue. as a summary, study selection strategy can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2. Study Selection Strategy Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria Studies in English Studies not written in English Type of publication: journal
(peer reviewed paper) publications other than journals (conference paper, book chapter, review) Study content relevant to
research issue Study content that are unrelated to the research issue
Publication year 2017-2021
(5 years) published prior to 2017
Furthermore, study quality assessment goes through the process of determining the quality of studies based on whether the full-text paper can be downloaded or accessed or read (eligibility), whether the journal publisher has a good SJR index (quality), and whether the study's content is relevant to the research question (relevance).
C. Searching and Selection Process
The first stage in study selection is to run a search in the Scopus database for existing studies.
To determine our search strategy, we use the PRISMA extension, namely PRISMA for searching [16]. The determination of the search string in this study is based on keywords that are in accordance with the research and a PRISMA checklist for searching including full search strategies, limits and restrictions, and search filters, which will produce a search string as follows.
(“body-worn cameras”) AND ("Police") AND ("challenge*" OR "Problem*" OR "public perception*")
To comprehensively support the search and selection process, we use the PRISMA flow chart to summarize the study selection process [17]. A flow chart displays the movement of information across the Systematic Review's various phases. It depicts the number of records identified, screened, included and excluded, and the reasons for the exceptions.
Fig. 1. Selection Strategy adopted from PRISMA
This search resulted in the discovery of 276 articles. In the second phase, 78 articles were filtered out based on their title and abstract, yielding 198 articles. The 198 articles were then filtered based on the titles and abstracts, yielding 151 articles. Furthermore, after the selection based on the study selection strategy that had been prepared previously, 25 articles met the requirements. In the final step, 25 articles were read and analyzed to determine whether the full- text paper's contents were relevant to the research question. Finally, the main study was chosen from the 13 most relevant articles.
D. Data Extraction and Analysis
The papers selected as the main study are extracted to identify and analyze the main message of each study. The following data were recorded from each main study: year of publication, name of the journal of the published paper, bibliographic reference specifically title and author. From the search and selection process, 13 papers from a total of 276 search results were selected that are relevant to the context of our research and will be used as the main research to answer the two research questions posed. Brief information on the 13 main studies can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. List of Main Studies
No Year Ref Topic
1 2017 [18] Survey residents' perceptions about the use of BWCs on officers' bodies in carrying out police duties 2 2018 [19] Research by conducting Randomized Controlled Trials on the effect of cameras used in police bodies
on duty
3 2018 [20] Measuring public complaints in Latin America against BWCs used on police officers 4 2018 [21] Research on body camera use in Baltimore City on stop-gap, lip service, and perceived futility 5 2019 [12] Research with a quasi-randomized controlled trial on community responses to the use of BWCs 6 2019 [22] Effects on officer performance and organizational support with the use of cameras used on police
bodies
7 2020 [13] experimental evaluation in carrying out traffic stop actions against police using BWCs
8 2020 [23] A quasi-randomized controlled trial study of the effect of body-worn cameras on police satisfaction and general perceptions
9 2020 [24] Measuring public perception of procedural justice, legitimacy, and BWCs
10 2021 [25] The use of body cameras on police officers continues to require trust and respect influencing the public's perspective on procedural justice: an international perspective
11 2021 [26] Support from the community for the use of cameras in the police to get a more comprehensive step in taking action
12 2021 [27] Citizens' Perceptions of the use of cameras by the police
13 2022 [28] Conducted research on the effect of institutional perviousness on the use of BWCs by US police agencies
After the identification, we proceeded to extract the information from all studies, including (1) the summary and main objective, (2) challenges of implementing BWCs by the police, and (3) public’s perceptions of police officers who use BWCs. The result of extractions are presented in chapter 3. In the analysis process, we categorized and classified the challenges and public perceptions related to BWCs found in each study. We also identified and mapped the solutions from the main study to address challenges. The results of this process are then discussed in chapter 4.
III. Result
A. Summary of Main Studies
White et al. [18] researched to evaluate the opinions of people who have specifically met with police using body cameras and have been filmed in those meetings. In addition, it specifically explores the potential for behavioral changes in people who have police meetings recorded with a body camera compared to police meetings that are not recorded with a body camera. In line with this, Braga et al. [19] conducted similar research that focused on encounters between police using BWC and citizens, but the research was conducted with case studies specifically on the scope of work of the Las Vegas, Nevada police. In their research, the number of police respondents involved was more than 400 police officers, with the main objective of evaluating the impact of BWC on community complaints, activities of officers in the field, and levels of use of force.
On another occasion, Mitchell et al. [20] Observed the impact after the use of BWCs by police officers on complaints from citizens by referring to previous research with different case studies guided by two complementary theories, self-awareness and prevention. Based on the article by Kerrison et al. [21], in their research, they specifically use several legal theories, namely critical racial theory, theoretical implications for legal irony, and legal justification theory. However, they specifically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of implementing BWC based on the community’s thoughts and explore suggestions for improving existing deficiencies to maintain police-civilian interactions.
In the article by Demir [12], the study looks at how people feel about police BWCs and whether the exposure to these cameras affect their opinion of them using a quasi-randomized controlled trial. In the control group, the drivers encountered traffic officers without BWCs, while within the assigned experimental group, the drivers encountered traffic officers wearing BWC. After the traffic check, the driver was investigated. This also included unresolved questions. The evaluation was carried out in two stages, namely by providing open-ended questions with coding and then analyzing the open questions’ coding.
Adams et al. [22] took a slightly different approach, where most of the other studies focused on the impact felt by residents, but this study focused on the effect felt by officers using BWCs.
Although the implementation of BWC has been carried out and has received full support from the organization, it is still found that electronic performance monitoring has a negative effect on employee welfare, even increasing the burden on officers' performance and increasing fatigue.
Demir et al. [13], [23] are a few of the many studies on BWCs that use case studies in Asian countries. This study examines the impact of BWC implementation in Turkey by focusing on the perceptions of its citizens on procedural justice and police legitimacy carried out by the traffic police. The cause of this research is that there is still a lack of public trust in the actions of the police in the field in their duties. The study was conducted with a controlled quasi-experiment and analyzed the public's perception of the procedural fairness of drivers who stopped in Eskisehir, Turkey.
Besides, Thompson et al. [24] conducted research with case studies at the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). The study measures public perceptions of the use of BWCs on police officers and their impact on citizens' knowledge, support for the developed program, the effect of justice obtained, and the legitimacy of the procedure. In addition, Sivasubramaniam et al. [25] more daringly conducted research on the impact of the implementation of BWCs in two countries by
examining the perception of citizen-police meetings by ignoring the attitude of officers' respect for citizens and conversely the attitude of public trust in the police that had been built previously.
Kopp et al. [26] found that, in general, the public views the use of BWCs by police as agreeable.
This is based on the belief that BWCs will support the accountability and transparency of police work. The study was conducted in a medium-sized Southern California city, surveying data from 431 residents. This study provides us with broader knowledge regarding evaluations from the wider community that affect citizen support for implementing BWC for police officers. Residents who are the benchmarks in this research may feel the concerns that may be felt by the principle of privacy, the costs involved, various technological limitations, to the possibility of manipulation of recorded data.
Wright et al. [27] examined public perceptions of BWCs adoption in Washington D.C and how technology impacts public-local government relations, specifically concerning police departments.
The data processing used in this research is qualitative. In the first stage, semi-structured interviews are conducted, followed by a qualitative analysis of the data obtained. In addition, survey participants have shown that BWC offers improvement of the behaviour of officers, but these benefits are minimal because BWC does not increase the overall trust between citizens and police officers. Then last, Lawshe [28] used 2013 Law Enforcement Management and Management Statistics (LEMAS) data from US law enforcement agencies of all sizes to examine the relevance of organizations' transparency to the adoption of wearing cameras. increase. Transparency determines the likelihood that an organization will adopt new policies or practices and how it will be internally coordinated to implement innovations.
B. Challenges of Implementing BWCs by the Police Officers
Based on the extraction results in each article, the challenges in implementing BWCs can be categorized into several groups. In several articles, to the challenges of implementing existing BWCs, some solutions can be used to deal with these challenges. Table 4 Shows each category and the solutions offered.
Table 4. Challenges and Solutions Challenges Ref Solutions / Recommendations
Trust [12], [21],
[23]–[25], [27]
§ Positive trust-building activities need to take place in order to build trust [27]
§ Increased transparency, improved evidence, provided accurate explanations of interactions between police citizens, improved relationships between police citizens, increased confidence in police [12]
§ Officers' respectful behavior and trustworthiness can have a significant impact on community trust, and this effect is not always evident or predictable [25]
Racism [12], [21], [24]
§ Reduced racial tensions between police and citizens [12]
§ Identify the positive relationship that exists between public knowledge about the BWC program and perceptions of procedural justice [24]
Privacy Concern
[21], [23], [26]
§ Regulations are made that describe access to recordings from BWCs with the aim of protecting the rights and privacy of each recorded individual, be it victims, defendants, and people who are not involved who are just passing through. [21]
Unfair/Corrupt [13] § When the perpetrators of the criminal justice system carry out their duties and authorities in a fair manner, it will automatically have an effect on increasing public trust. [13]
Cost [21], [23] N/A
Implemented BWCs without much scientific evidence
[19] § Provide a lot of scientific evidence first before application [19]
Increased burnout of officers
[22] § Creating patterns and good habits with emotional regulation training for long- term needs [22]
§ Creating an environment with skills-based training to improve the ability of officers to face an increasingly competitive work environment [22]
§ Maintain good communication and training to officers regarding departmental policies and practices regarding body-worn cameras [22]
Respect [25] § Officers' respectful behavior can have a significant impact on community trust, and this effect is not always evident or predictable [25]
Required pre- conditions for a BWC
[18] § Citizens' knowledge of BWC can have a positive effect on their assessment that meetings with the police are considered procedurally fairer than residents who do not have this knowledge. 14]
§ In an effort to maximize the effect of using BWCs, when carrying out their duties officers notify the public that the interaction is being filmed [23]
Loss of legitimacy
[21], [28] § Shows that preference can have a positive effect on the adoption of BWCs when compared to other organizational characteristics [28]
Bandwich and IT Capacity
[20], [21] § Periodically save recordings to storage media and provide empty dockets for use in the next shift [20]
Based on the article by Wright et al. [27], it was concluded that although in the early stages of implementation there were anticipated benefits of BWCs, the community still felt skeptical about the use of BWCs, whether it was related to increasing the level of public trust to improving the relationship between police and community relations, especially communities of color. The survey results show that using BWCs does not increase public trust. The use of technology may be useful to facilitate the acquisition of evidence, but it does not have an impact on increasing public trust.
Besides, Kopp [26] explained some respondents were a little or very concerned about the potential for BWC footage to be altered or withheld from them, the limited ability to capture a full picture with BWC, the cost of BWC, and privacy concerns.
Demir et al. [13] found that Turkish citizens viewed traffic officers as unfair and corrupt during their policing practices. They were also generally rude and uncooperative during traffic stops. Braga et al. [19] stated that many law enforcement agencies have adopted the use of BWCs without much scientific evidence to support their use. While there are benefits to BWCs, there is still much to learn about their effectiveness. Without a deep understanding of this new technology, the application may have consequences in the future, for example it will be difficult to decide whether the policy of implementing the new technology is right or wrong.
In their research, White et al. [18] explained that fulfilling the prerequisites for implementing BWCs to become a culture within the police and the public is complex and difficult to achieve.
Demir et al. [23] elucidate that the cost of BWC equipment might provide difficulties for some police departments, and also includes privacy issues and the perceived lack of trust in the police, so it affects community support for the implementation of BWCs. Mitchel et al. [20] and Kerrison et al. [21] expounded that data storage and management for BWCs for some police departments are too costly. Last, Kerrison et al. [21] also stated that there are challenges involving the potential for manipulation of video footages.
C. Public Perception of BWCs Implementation
Most of the articles used as reference sources measure the public's perception of the use of BWCs, resulting in how the community responds to the police using BWCs in carrying out their duties. as research conducted by Wright et al. [27] found that community members believed that BWC would affect improving police behavior, accountability in action, and police legitimacy in carrying out their duties. However, trusted cameras will not increase trust between the police and the community. Kopp et al. [26] conveyed that people's support for body-worn cameras depended largely on their perceptions of the benefits and risks of the cameras, regardless of their demographic characteristics.
Demir [12] found that BWCs can be a tool that supports citizen perceptions of the legitimacy of the police in carrying out their duties and leads to an increase in the feeling that the police are procedurally fair by increasing police transparency and accountability. This study found that using BWCs will reduce corruption and complaints. This is based on the use of recordings of BWCs that can be used as evidence, transparency in action, police legitimacy, and increasing police-citizen compliance. On another occasion, Demir et al. [13] found that the use of cameras affected residents' responses to instructions from the police when they were stopped on the street because they were considered to behave more procedurally fair with video recording.
The article by Braga et al. [19], mentioned that other dimensions influence the use of BWCs by police officers, including police legitimacy, accountability in action, perceived distributive justice, and no less important is influencing the control of crimes that occur among citizens. These various things can increase public trust in government officials through the police. BWCs are also considered to ensure law enforcement does not look at offenders’ race, thereby improving justice by distributing resources more accurately.
Sivasubramaniam et al. [25] found that the presence of BWC in fact does not influenced people’s perceptions of police-citizen interactions and is independent of officer respectfulness and preexisting trust. These findings underscore the importance of preexisting trust in police and respectful behavior by police officers, even in BWC-recorded encounters. Additionally, White et al. [18] stated that nearly 90 percent of respondents agreed that all Spokane police officers should wear BWCs. Most of them generally agreed that procedurally, they were treated fairly.
Demir et al. [23] conveyed that BWCs significantly increased citizens’ satisfaction with the encounter and citizens’ general perceptions of the police. Then Lawshe [28] explained that the decision to share information with the public by an agency to open lines of communication with citizens via a website further opens an agency up to scrutiny and criticism from the public. Mitchell et al. [20] identified that BWCs provide an effective solution for reducing grievances against the police, which can potentially be a marker of increased accountability, transparency and legitimacy for the Latin American law enforcement departments
An article by Thompson et al. [24] mentioned that community members support BWCs and staff believe it is procedurally fair and legal. Finally, Kerrison et al. [21] stated that when police officers equip surveillance mechanisms, they become more aware of the use of force when they are groundless for at least two reasons. First, the evidence is that delinquent police officers know their records, so they can plant weapons at crime scenes and call words to confirm their legitimate response to threatening suspects. Suggests. Second, civilians and officers alike are always aware of the image of unjustified national violence, and even the creation of the most terrible evidence does not necessarily discourage authorities from violating constitutional protection or acquittal. It does not reduce the possibility of
As a summary of the public perception that has been explained by each finding by previous researchers, it can be seen in table 5.
Table 5. Public Perception of the Use of BWCs Support
Improve Ref Improve Ref
Police behavior [12], [27] Compliance [12]
Accountability [12], [19], [20], [27] Trust [12], [19]
Legitimacy [12], [20], [21], [27] Procedurally justice [13], [18]
Transparency [12], [20] Distributive justice [19]
Evidence [12] Crime control [19]
Quality of Treatment [12] Lawfullness [12]
Contradict
Not improve Ref Not improve Ref
Trust [27] Respecfulness [25]
Extra-legal factor [19] Preexisting trust [25]
Police-citizen interactions
[25]
IV. Discussion
The results in chapter III found challenges and solutions as well as public perceptions of the implementation of BWCs by the police in carrying out their duties. This is in line with the research questions that have been prepared previously. Each explanation will be explained in the sub-chapters below.
A. RQ1. Challenges of implementing BWCs by police officers
Based on the results found previously, eleven challenges were found in the implementation of BWCs. The findings vary between aspects of human, process, and technology. Each of these problems also found solutions offered to maintain the existence of the implementation of BWCs.
One challenge or problem cannot be found in a solution from the 13 articles that are used as the main reference source, namely challenges related to cost.
In the human aspect, challenges that can occur are related to trust, racism, respect, and increased burnout of officers. Regarding the issue of respect and trust, these two things are correlated, where it is said that officers' respectful behavior can significantly impact community trust. Thus, one of the efforts to increase public trust in using BWCs in Indonesia can be made by increasing public respect for the police. In addition, to increase public confidence in the benefits of using BWCs, positive trust-building activities can be carried out, increased transparency, improved evidence, provided accurate explanations of interactions between police citizens, improved relationships between police citizens, increased confidence in police. Racism is a highly significant issue in most studies used as references because it is carried out in the USA. While there are cases regarding racism in Indonesia, it is unrelated to law enforcement. However, as a solution to this problem, it can be done to reduce tensions between police and citizens [12].
The next challenge related to the human aspect is on the officers who use BWCs, where it was found that some officers who use BWCs in their duties experience mental pressure. It is said that, with the use of cameras, they really must guard every action they take. An effort to deal with this is done by breaking the long-term mental health virtuous circle through emotional regulation training [22], and skill-based training to help executives cope with increasingly difficult work environments by improving their skills [22] and designed to convey support and care to executives [22].
In the process aspect, challenges that may be faced even in implementation in Indonesia are related to privacy concerns, corruption, implemented BWCs without much scientific evidence, and required pre-conditions for BWCs. It is undeniable that currently, the issue of privacy is a matter of considerable concern, which heavily implies a concern in the application of BWCs in Indonesia in relation to the recordings obtained. Access to images should be regulated to protect the rights and privacy of victims, defendants and witnesses recorded. In addition, the duration of the storage and usage of must also be managed to avoid privacy abuses in the future.
In implementing BWCs while carrying out their duties, the officer needs to state that the communication is being recorded when recording an incident. This is done to avoid violating existing regulations, and the recording can be used as legal evidence. In addition, most of the problems in countries that have implemented BWCs lack of scientific evidence before application in the field.
Finally, in the technological aspect, this study found two challenges in the technological aspect, namely related to the budget for the implementation of BWCs and bandwidth as well as the IT capabilities of the implementing police force. In the challenges related to cost, no solutions can be applied to overcome these problems are explained. Next, related to bandwidth and IT capabilities, proof image storage must be uploaded, and logs must be installed so BWCs can be billed at the end of the shift.
B. RQ2. Public’s perceptions of police officers who use BWCs
The results found regarding to public perceptions of the implementation of BWCs, can be categorized into two views: the reasons for supporting the implementation of BWCs and the reasons not supporting the implementation of BWCs. Here, 12 reasons are found for the public to support the application of body cameras by the police, namely that it can increase police behavior [12], [27], accountability [12], [19], [20], [27], legitimacy [12], [20], [21], [27], transparency [12], [20], evidence [12], quality of treatment [12], compliance [12], trust [12], [19], procedurally justice [13], [18], distributive justice [19], crime control [19], dan lawfulness [12]. This shows that citizens fully support using BWC by police officers [27]. Support often comes from the community’s believes that benefits are associated with a police officer's use of the BWCs. However, perception has little consensus when determining what benefits will be realized [27].
Public support for the BWCs is based on the idea that the BWCs can improve transparency and accountability within agencies by encouraging officers to engage with more appropriate levels of force and be more respectful when interacting with members of the community [12], [20], [27].
Some studies have also shown that BWCs can reduce police use of force and complaints of officer misconduct [19]. In addition, BWC may make agents less willing to engage in certain types of agency-initiated activities and community interactions, especially stop activities and other discretionary activities may lead to negative interactions with the community.
The extraction results show that five components affect communities’ rejection of implementing BWCs. These components stated that the application of BWCs will not increase public trust when dealing with officers [27], will not increase factors outside the law [19], will not improve relations between the police and citizens, will not increase public respect, and will not increase existing trust [25]. There are differences in results between studies conducted by Wright et al. [27] related to the effects of implementing BWCs from a community perspective. Based on research from Demir [12]
and Braga et al. [19], trust will increase. However, Wright et al. [27] found that using cameras by officers would not increase public confidence in officers’ performance.
V. Conclusion
The use of BWCs in carrying out police duties is expected to positively effect various complaints that have occurred and may occur in the future. The purpose of implementation that has been carried out by various developed countries in the world, especially in the USA, Latin America, and Turkey, resulted in positive outcomes that can be used as a reference in the implementation in Indonesia.
One of the main concerns of the authors is the problems found by Braga et al. [19] namely the lack of scientific research conducted before the implementation of BWCs in a country. As it is known that the plan for implementing BWCs in Indonesia has only been initiated in 2022, as recommended by the NPC. Hence, this research can trigger further research related to BWCs in Indonesia in hopes that problems will not arise, as seen in other countries that lack scientific research before implementing BWCs.
Problems or challenges related to trust and privacy concerns also need to be considered considering that Indonesia is drafting a Personal Data Protection Law. Some things that may need to be prepared are regulations regarding the use of recordings made by officers. For example, it needs to be stated who can access the recordings, for what purposes the recordings can be used, how long the recordings are stored, where will the recordings expire, and various other things. When viewed from the public perception in the application of BWCs from the results of the literature, it can be concluded that there is still a lot of support for the implementation of BWCs rather than rejection. Of the total 17 categories of public perception, 12 (70.5%) support the implementation of BWCs, while 5 (29.5%) mention things that have no effect on the implementation of BWCs. This is in line with the expectations of the NPC in recommending the application of BWCs to the Indonesian National Police.
By contributing to the literature on the application of BWCs, the results of this study are expected to be a reference for researchers and practitioners on the challenges and solutions to implementing BWCs and how the public perceives them. The authors hope this study will generate interest among researchers and serve as a starting point for furthering the authors' limited understanding of the application of BWCs.
Despite efforts to review several previous studies systematically and comprehensively, this study still has some limitations. First, this SLR research is only limited to research in the past five years. If we want to see the challenges of implementing BWCs more comprehensively, more research can be done ranging back to when BWCs were first implemented within police duties.
Second, this study aims to predict the application of BWCs to the Indonesian National Police based on the literature on the application of BWCs in other countries that have previously applied to their own police force. Additionally, there is no literature that the author can find on the use of BWCs in Indonesia, as the use of body cameras by the Indonesian National Police has only been recommended in 2022. Finally, this literature review is limited by the lack of empirical analysis.
Therefore, we recommend confirming this study’s findings by performing empirical case studies for future studies.
Acknowledgment
This research was conducted by the author with the assistance of tuition fees by the Ministry of Communication and Information of the Republic of Indonesia through the Domestic Masters Scholarship program.
References
[1] C. Lum, M. Stoltz, C. S. Koper, and J. A. Scherer, “Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know,” Criminol. Public Policy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 93–118, 2020, doi: 10.1111/1745- 9133.12412.
[2] J. E. Gaub, D. E. Choate, N. Todak, C. M. Katz, and M. D. White, “Officer Perceptions of Body- Worn Cameras Before and After Deployment: A Study of Three Departments,” Police Q., vol. 19, no.
3, pp. 275–302, 2016, doi: 10.1177/1098611116653398.
[3] M. S. Crow and J. O. Smykla, “Police Body-Worn Cameras: Research Developments on an Emerging Technology,” Crim. Justice Rev., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 257–262, 2019, doi: 10.1177/0734016819854789.
[4] N. Graffin and J. J. Garcia Blesa, “Racial profiling in immigration control,” Int. Hum. Rights Law Rev., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 245–273, 2019, doi: 10.1163/22131035-00802005.
[5] Kompas, “Polisi akan Dibekali Body Kamera Saat Bertugas,” Kompas.com, 2022.
[6] D. H. Polri, “Worn Camera di Tubuh Polisi, Sayonara Pungli,” 2022.
[7] M. Lee, E. Taylor, and M. Willis, “Being held to account: Detainees’ perceptions of police body-worn cameras,” Aust. New Zeal. J. Criminol., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 174–192, 2019, doi:
10.1177/0004865818781913.
[8] C. McKay and M. Lee, “Body-worn images: Point-of-view and the new aesthetics of policing,”
Crime, Media, Cult., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 431–450, 2020, doi: 10.1177/1741659019873774.
[9] F. Coudert, D. Butin, and D. Le Métayer, “Body-worn cameras for police accountability:
Opportunities and risks,” Comput. Law Secur. Rev., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 749–762, 2015, doi:
10.1016/j.clsr.2015.09.002.
[10] M. D. White, “Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras,” 2014.
[11] J. Maskaly, C. Donner, W. G. Jennings, B. Ariel, and A. Sutherland, “The effects of body-worn cameras (BWCs) on police and citizen outcomes: A state-of-the-art review,” Policing, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 672–688, 2017, doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2017-0032.
[12] M. Demir, “Citizens’ perceptions of body-worn cameras (BWCs): Findings from a quasi-randomized controlled trial,” J. Crim. Justice, vol. 60, no. September, pp. 130–139, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.09.009.
[13] M. Demir, R. Apel, A. A. Braga, R. K. Brunson, and B. Ariel, “Body Worn Cameras, Procedural Justice, and Police Legitimacy: A Controlled Experimental Evaluation of Traffic Stops,” Justice Q., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 53–84, 2020, doi: 10.1080/07418825.2018.1495751.
[14] M. J. Page et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, 2021, doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
[15] M. Petticrew and H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. 2006.
[16] M. L. Rethlefsen et al., “PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews,” Syst. Rev., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 39, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s13643-020- 01542-z.
[17] A. Liberati et al., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, vol. 62, no. 10. 2009.
[18] M. D. White, N. Todak, and J. E. Gaub, “Assessing citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras after encounters with police,” Policing, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 689–703, 2017, doi: 10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016- 0105.
[19] A. A. Braga, W. H. Sousa, J. R. Coldren, and D. Rodriguez, “The effects of body-worn cameras on police activity and police-citizen encounters: A randomized controlled trial,” J. Crim. Law Criminol., vol. 108, no. 3, pp. 511–538, 2018.
[20] R. J. Mitchell et al., “Measuring the effect of body-worn cameras on complaints in Latin America:
The case of traffic police in Uruguay,” Policing, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 510–524, 2018, doi:
10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2018-0004.
[21] E. M. Kerrison, J. Cobbina, and K. Bender, “Stop-gaps, lip service, and the perceived futility of body-
worn police officer cameras in Baltimore City,” J. Ethn. Cult. Divers. Soc. Work, vol. 27, no. 3, pp.
271–288, 2018, doi: 10.1080/15313204.2018.1479912.
[22] I. Adams and S. Mastracci, “Police Body-Worn Cameras: Effects on Officers’ Burnout and Perceived Organizational Support,” Police Q., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 5–30, 2019, doi: 10.1177/1098611118783987.
[23] M. Demir and A. Kule, “The effect of body-worn cameras on satisfaction and general perceptions of police: Findings from a quasi-randomized controlled trial,” Eur. J. Criminol., 2020, doi:
10.1177/1477370820905105.
[24] P. S. Thompson, B. E. Peterson, and D. S. Lawrence, “Community perceptions: procedural justice, legitimacy and body-worn cameras,” Policing, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 495–509, 2020, doi:
10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2019-0161.
[25] D. Sivasubramaniam, K. C. Burke, A. Saulnier, R. Szabo, E. J. Agius, and B. L. Bottoms,
“Supplemental Material for International Perspectives on Procedural Justice: Trust and Respect Matter Even When Body-Worn Cameras Are Present,” Law Hum. Behav., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 440–455, 2021, doi: 10.1037/lhb0000454.supp.
[26] P. M. Kopp and C. L. Gardiner, “Public support for body-worn cameras: the need for inclusion of more comprehensive measures of public concerns,” Crim. Justice Stud., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 289–305, 2021, doi: 10.1080/1478601X.2020.1868455.
[27] J. E. Wright and A. M. Headley, “Can Technology Work for Policing? Citizen Perceptions of Police- Body Worn Cameras,” Am. Rev. Public Adm., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 17–27, 2021, doi:
10.1177/0275074020945632.
[28] N. Lawshe, “Investigating the influence of institutional perviousness on the adoption of body-worn cameras by United States police agencies,” Crim. Justice Stud., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2022, doi:
10.1080/1478601X.2021.1910507.
