An interdisciplinary examination of a gunshot detection system: The public health context of a policing technology

IF 2.3 2区社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Critical Social Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/02610183241262726

Travis Milburn, I. Syed

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gun violence is a unique, preventable problem that contributes to a significant burden of healthcare and social costs, disability, and death in the United States. To address gun violence, several surveillance technologies have been implemented in municipalities across the US which are facilitating the collection of large amounts of data with the aim of reducing the occurrence of gun violence and responding to such incidences more quickly. One tool is ShotSpotter®, a popular acoustic gunshot detection system deployed by police departments. There are, however, research gaps about the concerns of using this technology and, to our knowledge, very little discussion about the implications and its effect on vulnerable groups exists. Accordingly, in this article, we argue against the use of technologies such as ShotSpotter as current data show inconsistent results in reducing violence. We also suggest the potential for harm from such surveillance technology should be cautiously weighed, as it could exceed the benefits of using such technology, thereby warranting further examination and research.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

对枪击探测系统的跨学科研究：警务技术的公共卫生背景

枪支暴力是一个独特的、可预防的问题，在美国造成了巨大的医疗和社会成本负担、残疾和死亡。为了解决枪支暴力问题，美国各地的市政当局采用了多种监控技术，这些技术有助于收集大量数据，从而减少枪支暴力事件的发生，并更快地应对此类事件。其中一种工具是 ShotSpotter®，这是一种由警察部门部署的广受欢迎的声学枪击探测系统。然而，关于使用该技术的问题还存在研究空白，而且据我们所知，关于该技术的影响及其对弱势群体的影响的讨论也非常少。因此，在本文中，我们反对使用 ShotSpotter 等技术，因为目前的数据显示，该技术在减少暴力方面的效果并不一致。我们还建议应谨慎权衡此类监控技术的潜在危害，因为其危害可能超过使用此类技术的益处，因此值得进一步审查和研究。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Critical Social Policy Multiple-

CiteScore

4.70

自引率

8.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;