1. Ariel, B. et al. (2016). "Report: increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cameras are driven by officer discretion". Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 347-363.

This study examines officer discretion in the use of force and suggests that body cameras could unintentionally lead to increases in police violence. The researchers constricted that the knowledge of being recorded may encourage some officers to legitimize their aggressive behaviour.

2. McIntosh, S. (2015). "Police Body-Worn Cameras: a mixed method approach assessing perceptions of efficacy". Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(2), 157-167.

McIntosh's work delves into the perceptions of efficacy surrounding body-worn cameras by police officers. It details the mixed reactions among the law enforcement community, pointing out that the tool is not universally embraced.

3. White, M. (2014). "Police officer body-worn cameras: assessing the evidence". Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

White＊s extensive research focuses on the use of body cameras in various police departments across the U.S. It underscores the potential benefits of body cameras including their ability to reduce use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints.

Perspectives on Body Cameras for Police

With rapidly advancing technology, especially in the field of digital media and communication, body cameras have emerged as an essential tool for many vocations, not least for our law enforcement departments. The thought that our local police officers should adorn these pieces of technology has received significant attention, especially against the backdrop of several instances of alleged police misconduct. Opinions on their usage are mixed and heavily dependent on perspective, rooted in various research studies.

A study by Ariel et al., 2016 found that the presence of body cameras could paradoxically encourage increased use of force by police officers. Their research found that the increase in use of force was driven by officer discretion, suggesting that knowing they were being recorded might embolden some officers to employ aggression, assured that their actions were justified. This unanticipated revelation paints an intricate picture of psychological implications concerning body cameras' usage.

On the other hand, McIntosh's 2015 mixed-method approach affirms the ambiguous perception of such cameras within the force. It discovered the law enforcement community＊s mixed reactions to this technology, with some doubting its efficacy. In contrast, others saw it as a critical means of protection〞not just for the public, but for the officers themselves. As technology becomes more embedded in our lives and careers, it's not surprising that its effects evoke varied response. That said, this response should only guide us to consider the needs of those who these technologies directly affect.

In a report by Micheal White, he emphasized the potential ability of body cameras to reduce use-of-force incidents and citizen complaints. Drawing upon data from numerous police departments across America, he showcased the effectiveness of body cameras at boosting transparency and accountability. He highlighted scenarios where false accusations were debunked thanks to camera footage, saving the careers of many officers.

The question of body cameras for police is complex and multifaceted. The impact differs on a case-by-case basis, considering the officer＊s comfort and the community's trust. While it is not a panacea to all issues related to policing, body cameras have proven their worth in imparting transparency and accountability. Technology adoption in law enforcement, like all sectors, requires thoughtful and comprehensive consideration of all its effects, intended and otherwise. Understanding all these perspectives, we should work towards an effective and moral employment of such technologies, aimed at the betterment of society as a whole.