It's almost impossible to say that Police shouldn't be wearing cameras these days, particularly in the context of the deaths last year of unarmed people as well as the abuse by some who wear uniforms against the public that they are supposed to be serving and protecting.
To deal with the issue, cameras are being used. According to the Scientific American editors (December 2014, p 10):
Tantalizing hints that camera use could minimize clashes exist in the five small field trials that have been published so far. Although several of them were subject to biases because conditions were not well controlled, the tests nonetheless suggested that overall, body camera use decreased the number of times officers resorted to force, as well as the number of times citizens complained about police behavior.
That isn't a bad thing. But the use of cameras by police has some other issues that aren't being spoken of and should be - not to halt their use, but to better understand and plan for their use in the context of law enforcement and society in general.
For example - would eyewitnesses be as willing to come forward regarding an incident if there are police worn cameras? Before arguing that point, realize that sometimes the life of an eyewitness can be put into danger and that during discovery, defense attorneys would have access to the cameras as well. Not everyone is going to be an eyewitness to a drug cartel assassination as seen on television, but there should be a plan for that.
Also, it has been shown that video interpretations can vary. As the editors at Scientific American pointed out (ibid):
Even when video images are available, they are not always conclusive. For instance, after watching surveillance recordings of a 2012 arrest in Denver, in which the head of a handcuffed woman was slammed into a wall, the police chief concluded the use of force had been appropriate. But the city's independent monitor found it excessive. Still, more evidence in most cases, even if it is not always conclusive, may turn out to be helpful.
Everyone will have an opinion on cases, but anyone who has spent some serious time behind a camera knows that things aren't always as they appear to be. The fire truck on the left is not actually floating, but because you can't see the hydraulic jacks, it appears to be.
This gets more complicated with people. Context can be lost as someone runs through the frame of the video. Context can be lost when equipment fails. Context can be lost in a riot (which is almost the definition of 'riot'). Context can be lost in many ways.
And who gets to sit around and watch these videos? If you have 10,000 cops on shift for 8 hours, who will be watching the 80,000 hours of video being recorded? Where will all of that data go? It becomes a part of Big Data to at least some degree, and questions as to how the videos will be used are very important to ask.
None of this is to say that cameras shouldn't be in use, but it's not as simple as strapping some cameras on cops and putting them back in the street. There are very legitimate issues that do need to be addressed, and until they are addressed we could be creating deeper problems that will show up years from now.
Sadly, that's likely to be exactly what happens.
