COLUMBUS (OHI) — More prisons across the country are equipping guards with body-worn cameras. This is even though correctional areas are already covered by thousands upon thousands of stationary security cameras.
Although agencies hope that the additional cameras will reduce violence and hold guards and inmates accountable, experts and unions are skeptical about their utility.
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction plans to announce, by year’s end, which of four companies won a contract worth approximately $17 million per year.
After California’s judge ordered body-worn cameras to be installed at the guards of a San Diego state prison, following allegations of abuse by disabled prisoners, the Ohio agency began investigating the matter. California expanded the use of the cameras to five additional prisons.
A death of an Ohio prisoner in January caused by a fight with guards, accelerated the examination to use the cameras, although the pilot program was in place, Annette Chambers Smith, director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, stated.
There are already about 6,000 cameras installed in Ohio’s 28 prisons. Chambers-Smith acknowledged that there are blind spots and situations where a body camera can help uncover the truth.
She said that cameras are able to capture an event and you don’t need to rely on your memory, or the tunnel vision that some people get when recounting an episode. You can see it all.
The agency provided two videos that show the differences in perspectives body-worn cameras offer. A stationary camera placed above the fray allowed for a clear view but no audio, as there was a fight between two Ohio State Penitentiary inmates on July 27.
The body-worn camera of a guard recording the same fight gave a close up view and sound. Before another guard sprays pepper spray on inmates, a guard can be heard shouting “Lock the doors” and “Stop”. It’s easier to see and hear the guard gesturing at another guard to allow him to remove the inmate.
The union representing Ohio prison workers is skeptical about the cameras. They believe the money could be better used to hire more guards. Christopher Mabe, president, Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, stated that this is especially true considering how many cameras are already in use.
Mabe stated that “Right now, we’re fighting for people to stay employed in the department corrections because of the tight labor market.” “Shouldn’t we be investing more in retention and hiring officers, and the hiring of staff rather than wasting money on technology that is redundant?”
About 6,130 corrections officers work in the state prison system, compared to 6,660 in 2019. During the same period, the inmate population dropped from 48,000 to 43,000.
Gary Daniels, Ohio’s top lobbyist, stated that the Ohio chapter of American Civil Liberties Union is closely monitoring the state’s plan. He asked questions such as when guards can deactivate cameras and how long the prison will keep the video. He said that the two-year deadline for civil liberties lawsuits in Ohio makes this question crucial.
Georgia Bureau of Prisons tested the concept last year. It plans to equip guards in two more prisons this year, and two more next year. They are not used in Florida, but specially trained officers have been equipped with body cameras at 35 of its prisons. These cameras automatically turn on when stun guns are activated.
In 2016, New York began to pilot body-worn cameras and received a federal grant of $835,000 to expand the program. The system cost $4.2 million and has approximately 2,500 body-worn camera in use in eight prisons. There are plans to expand.
Virginia plans to provide cameras for high-security facility supervisors, members of teams that enter cells in order to extract inmates and handlers who train and manage drug-sniffing and patrol dogs.
After the Legislature gave the agency an initial $591,000.00 in 2017, , Wisconsin began equipping officers in its six maximum security prisons and one juvenile facility in the hopes of decreasing staff and inmate attacks.
At a cost of $895 per camera, the agency currently has about 200 body-worn cameras in six prisons and 100 in the Lincoln Hills & Copper Lake Schools youth facility. John Beard, a prison spokesperson, said that while the view can sometimes be obscured by close-up interactions between inmates, the audio can still be heard.
Beard stated, “Follow up of allegations are easy by reviewing the incident to verify if an investigation or if the incident didn’t happen.”
Bryce Peterson, a criminal justice analyst, stated that body-worn camera in prisons will not have a significant impact on the use of force.
Nearly all prison incidents have been recorded. Blind spots, or places where a guard can record illegal activity (e.g. drug sales, fights, etc.), Peterson, is a CNA Corp. research scientist who focuses on safety. Peterson said that prison violence can be reduced by implementing changes in force policy, training, and retaining staff.
Peterson stated that it is possible that some prisons will add body-worn cameras to their system. “Just because it’s a new intervention, it’s kind of a shock and will have an effect,” Peterson said. “But it doesn’t seem to be a long-term solution for these problems.”
