Watching Fox's "Wildest Police Videos" leads a philosophical man to contemplative waters.
While I probably don't like most cops too much as people, the same as I don't like most people, I respect the hell out of anyone who rushes headlong into danger in order to protect other people. Cops have a shitty job most of the time (and deserve large pay raises), dealing with the wretched excesses of the worst elements of humanity. But cops, firefighters, EMTs, and others risk themselves to save people in danger. We have a professional hero corps in America. That's a pretty wonderful thing.
What "Wildest Police Videos" makes most clear, though, is the absolutely extraordinary impact of video cameras on law enforcement. It is a tremendous stride forward in ensuring the punishment of criminals and the protection of civil liberties. WPV's stock-in-trade is police cruiser dashboard-mounted video camera footage. While I understand that WPV is cherry-picking the available video for clarity and drama, nonetheless, it's clear than an impartial record of events from the earliest involvement of law enforcement advances the cause of real justice.
Because the camera cannot be impeached, there is no dispute over the relative credibility of the officer who claims one thing happened and the defendant who claims another. The jury can view the tape and know, Rodney King notwithstanding, what happened. This works in the officer's favor--most of the time, the perp is guilty--but also to the officer's protection, because he is more easily immunized against false claims of abuse, excessive force, or civil rights violation.
It also works for the accused as well, because with an impartial observer ready to testify against him in court, the officer knows that he has to be scrupulous in his procedures and respect the civil liberties of his target.
The video camera, as a record of the interaction between an officer of the state and an individual member of the public, clearly acts in the best interests of both the state and the individual. Contrast this with video cameras statically mounted to observe a public place. These cameras allow the state to observe the interactions between individuals, not the interaction of an officer and an individual. Such cameras rightly stir up fears of "Big Brother is watching" as a genuine invasion of personal liberty that offers advantages to the state with no corresponding protection to the individual.
WPV viscerally appeals to some of our worst impulses, but it actually represents the correct application of technology. We must encourage applications that provide a balance between the power of the state and the protection of the individual and prohibit applications that have no such balance.
Posted by Greg at June 19, 2003 9:41 AM
I haven't seen this, so I have to ask about the technology - is the camera fixed, or is it following the movement, or perhaps the officer (wearing a beacon).
How expensive is it to ensure that the video evidence has not been tampered with?
The camera is fixed in place, though we're only a technology generation or two from personal cameras. In a traffic stop, though, you're mostly likely to have everything important in view (and officers are probably trained to help ensure this). Some of them have darned impressive mikes, as well, able to pick up conversations outside the car with good fidelity.
In principle, ensuring the sanctity of the tapes is handled by treating them like any other evidence. You may allow yourself a ruesome chuckle.
In practice, videos are timecoded, which gets you most of the way there. I don't know about other security measures--I would hope, e.g., there's some kind of interlock on the audio track.