ABC TV news, among others, has reported how in some urban jurisdictions, authorities have begun requiring police to use camera and sound to record their actions. See the video here (but you'll have to look at a couple of seconds of another report, about David Letterman and the guy who extorted him, first). There's some dramatic footage that makes interesting viewing, but otherwise, the question that arises is "why."
One interpretation is that we don't trust our law enforcement officers to do their jobs right. This is the view taken, I think, by many law enforcement professionals, even if they don't necessarily say so. Indeed,concern about overstepping may be part of the reason, and the occasional video of a police arrest or other action that has gone terribly wrong fuels the ardor for this kind of thing. (No one bothers to take live video of an operation going right, or if they do, it never gets seen by the public.)
The other interpretation is that filming helps protect the police by providing evidence to the public, in cases that may become controversial, that everything was on the up-and-up. Politicians and lawyers probably subscribe to this view.
I question whether the filming is necessary, or even desirable. It adds a burden to an already difficult job -- not just physical, but the psychological one of having somebody always looking over your shoulder. That has to some extent become our societal norm - cameras watch over offices, stores, factories - but not (yet) in high-stress jobs requiring split second decisions and adrenalin rush.
I also doubt the value of the tape in reducing public concern. Most people don't know the work and are likely to be swayed into a negative reaction by the unaccustomed violence, rapid movement, shouting, and gunplay they might see in even the best-executed operation. Meanwhile, any lawyer worth his salt is likely to be able to find a half-dozen technical objections in that same film of a routine, well-executed operation. It will be interesting to see how it all works out in those jurisdictions that have adopted it, but for now, it appears the only ones who will really benefit will be defense and personal injury lawyers.
Comments