Kristen Gyles | Civic engagement or ‘donmanship’?

After some years of muddy communication and mixed signals coming out of parliament on the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) by our police, it is finally becoming clear. Apparently, the issue was never over whether or not the JCF should implement the use of BWCs, but over who gets to use them. The JCF’s website has article which speaks to the force’s commitment to utilising BWCs. It says:

“…body-worn cameras (BWCs) have become a vital tool for police forces, serving as an impartial witness to interactions between officers and the public. For the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), the introduction and strategic implementation of BWCs signals a commitment to accountability as well as the values of transparency and fairness.”

These sentiments align with statements Dr. Chang made recently in his capacity as minister of national security. He admitted that cameras are “good for transparency and accountability” and said the government will continue to acquire them. So, it is clear that the use of BWCs have been embraced, both by the minister and by the JCF.

In fact, earlier this year, we were told that the JCF had acquired 1,000 BWCs and had started distributing them.

Come to find out, they were being distributed primarily to the officers responsible for public safety and traffic enforcement. So rather than capturing footage of violent encounters that could actually result in loss of life, the cameras have instead been capturing a whole lot of ‘cut-eye’, ‘kiss-teeth’ and impassioned cussing from disgruntled civilians who are being given a ticket or otherwise being reprimanded by police. That kind of footage might have some entertainment value, but is not greatly useful otherwise.

By the way, this is all within a context where allegations abound of excessive use of power by some officers engaged in high-risk, planned operations.

While murders have plummeted in recent times, there has been a significant increase in fatal police shootings, so concerns surrounding police overreach are not necessarily unfounded. If BWCs are in fact being used to bolster transparency and accountability across the JCF, then it is precisely in high-risk operations that they need to be used most.

Were the JCF to adopt this approach, they would be operating no differently from the police forces of numerous developed countries including the US and several European countries in which police are outfitted with BWCs before heading into planned operations. The reason is simply that without BWCs, there is often an absence of any independent witness to corroborate the claims of the police that they acted in self-defence when firing their weapons.

COUNTLESS TIMES

This sentiment has been expressed countless times already, by many. However, the position Dr. Chang expressed in parliament last week is that “We have acquired BWCs and they have been deployed, but deployment is decided by the Commissioner of Police. BWCs are part of modern police equipment and the only person who has the authority and the professional capacity to instruct where they should go is the Commissioner… No civil society organization can tell us where to put them.” He went on to suggest that the police have been hampered by the ‘donmanship’ of civil society groups who want to tell the JCF how to police.

First off, let’s take this argument to its logical end. Dr. Chang’s position seems to be that the only opinion that matters regarding the use of BWCs is that of the Commissioner. So, if the Commissioner decides tomorrow that only female officers should wear cameras, or that only officers born in January should wear cameras, should we just accept that the Commissioner knows best? Somehow, in making this argument about ‘donmanship’, Dr. Chang is the one sounding like a don. Why are Jamaicans expected to simply accept the strategy of the JCF without question?

All Jamaicans want is a reasonable explanation as to why officers who are engaged in planned operations are not being outfitted with BWCs. And why should they not get one? Neither the Minister, nor the Commissioner, nor anyone in parliament is above being questioned, especially with regards to the use of the resources that are purchased from the public purse.

MIXED MESSAGING

Further, what is now forming a wedge of distrust between the police and the general citizenry on this matter is the mixed messaging that has been coming from the force. At first, the argument seemed to be that the necessary digital infrastructure to operationalise the use of BWCs was still being worked on. That is fair. Good things take time. The problem is that the posture taken by the Minister has now shifted from one that centres around the operational challenges in acquiring and setting up BWCs, to one that now suggests that there is hardly any intention to widen the deployment of cameras to officers engaged in high-risk operations. So, was the issue ever about digital infrastructure?

Anyway, we actually can’t force the Minister’s hand or that of the Commissioner. Ultimately, the only recourse Jamaicans have at this point is to equip themselves with their own surveillance tools. After a car accident, the dashboard camera becomes the hero. So does the doorbell camera after a house robbery or break-in. Lies often abound in times of disaster and this is why records matter. And where there is no public record, we sometimes have to rely on our own – not just for personal benefit but for the benefit of the wider community.

In many instances where crimes are committed, it is privately obtained camera footage that helps uncover the identity of perpetrators or provide the information needed to bring the criminals to justice. A doorcam might not capture the discharge of a gun during a shootout, but it could go a far way in establishing a timeline or simply providing well-needed context.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com