“Cameras Help, but Hurt”: The Role and Use of Prison Cameras for Accountability

• Published date: 01 November 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10439862241272333
• Author: Victoria Inzana,Jasmine Kaur,Janet Garcia-Hallett,Ashley Givens,Beth M. Huebner,Elizabeth Taylor,Kelli E. Canada
• Date: 01 November 2024

https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862241272333

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2024, Vol. 40(4) 619 –639

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10439862241272333

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Original Article

“Cameras Help, but Hurt”:

The Role and Use of Prison

Cameras for Accountability

Victoria Inzana1, Jasmine Kaur2, Janet Garcia-Hallett2,

Ashley Givens3, Beth M. Huebner4, Elizabeth Taylor3,

and Kelli E. Canada3

Abstract

The context of the carceral environment is based on the logic of surveillance and

relies on cameras to act as the ever-present eyes of the institution. We explore

the investigative roles that cameras play in the institution from the perspective of

correctional staff and residents. A qualitative study was conducted in a medium-

security institution in the Midwest region of the United States as part of the Prison

Research and Innovation Initiative (PRII). The findings are based on semi-structured

interviews with people who are incarcerated and correctional staff (including custody

and noncustody staff). Upholding accountability was a perceived benefit of reviewing

footage from prison cameras during investigations, yet the harms of selective

enforcement against the resident population and the perceived misuse of cameras

for staff disciplinary actions thwarted the benefits of having and using cameras.

Keywords

surveillance, incarceration, prison, punishment

Introduction

Surveillance is a central pillar of carceral institutions, evidenced by Bentham’s panop-

ticon (Bentham, 1995). Prison culture and architecture, like watchtowers, reflect the

penal reliance on surveillance for the control and management of people who are

1University of Missouri-St. Louis, USA

2University of New Haven, CT, USA

3University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

4Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

Corresponding Author:

V. Inzana, Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA.

Email: victoria.inzana@umsl.edu

1272333CCJXXX10.1177/10439862241272333Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeInzana et al.

research-article2024

620 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 40(4)

incarcerated (Moran & Jewkes, 2015). As technology has developed, surveillance

cameras have become the new eyes within correctional institutions. Camera surveil-

lance is expected to monitor the behaviors of all parties, instill obedience from indi-

viduals who are confined, and maintain control of the correctional facility (Allard

et al., 2006; Moran & Jewkes, 2015; Van Hoven & Sibley, 2008). When expectations

for control and obedience are not met, and incidents occur inside prison walls, the

notion of visibility (vis-a-vis camera surveillance) is expected to be used during inves-

tigations and to help satisfy the correctional interest to hold individuals accountable

for any perceived wrongdoings (Debus-Sherrill et al., 2017; Dodd et al., 2020).

Although the use of cameras within correctional institutions is typically focused on the

confinement and control of people who are incarcerated, recent interest includes

responding to misconduct by correctional staff who are tasked with upholding safety

and security (Dennehy & Nantel, 2006; Santo et al., 2023; Shukla et al., 2021a).

Based on interview data from correctional staff and residents1 in a Midwest cor-

rectional facility, this article seeks to understand the role of cameras, specifically

closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, as a surveillance tool within penal institu-

tions and how these perspectives differ between those who work and live in these

environments. We find that CCTV cameras are consistently implicated in how institu-

tions enforce punishment and uphold accountability. The findings demonstrate that

staff perceived upholding accountability as a benefit of reviewing prison cameras dur-

ing investigations. However, this benefit was complicated by the double-edged sword

of accountability, whereby CCTV cameras were seen as appropriate tools for punish-

ing facility residents but were perceived as a misuse of power to discipline staff for

misconduct. As such, this article has important implications for understanding the role

of CCTV cameras within carceral environments and their function in upholding

accountability.

Camera Footage for Investigations

In the aftermath of altercations inside correctional facilities, institutions rely on cam-

eras to gather evidence and enhance transparency of what occurred. The ability to

review camera footage provides some investigative benefits to observe incidents and

investigate complaints to resolve issues retroactively. As such, the presence of cameras

and the review of camera footage imply that the involved parties will be held account-

able for misconduct.

Detection and the Accountability of the Resident Population

Much of the discussion regarding the use of prison cameras to encourage and uphold

accountability is focused on the resident population as the targeted and primary recipi-

ents of this accountability (Dodd et al., 2023; Gill & Loveday, 2003). Accountability

for violent or serious infractions, like assault and forcible sexual abuse, may result in

placement into restrictive housing—more commonly known as “solitary confine-

ment.” Other forms of accountability may be more modest, such as verbal warnings