On Police Body Cameras

There is a lot of commentary and discussion coming from the Ferguson MO story that revolves around the idea that Police Officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty. I want to give a brief account of my own thoughts on this issue as it pertains to the need and the effects of pursuing this endeavor.

In response to the Ferguson story, where a young man was fatally shot by an Officer it has raised new concerns for law enforcement and renewed debate over the role, scope  and authority of the Police in America. In the discussion there has risen voices of both complacency and of concern.

The first is the voice of many people who defend the actions and the means of todays police forces. In that defense many will call for any actions necessary for police to "do their job" and will subjugate others to fund their ideas by the use of government and a ballot box. In these claims, the newest want is that of cameras to be worn by all officers, to record at all times, and the video to be made available to the public upon request. This idea is one of accountability and in that respect I would agree. Transparency and accountability is something that has been too long gone from government, even at the police or local sheriff level. Those that do not agree with the means or justifiable excuses by these departments should agree that accountability is needed and wanted in all government positions.

The other aspect of this idea is that of the economic impact it will have. As the calls for police issued cameras are thrown around an important thought has escaped the discussion altogether. The way police departments and law enforcement agencies are funded is through taxation, and in that, all new equipment purchased will be made through these funds. As someone who advocates for an end to legalized plunder (taxation) this idea goes against my own opinion and belief. I have said it time and again that whatever cannot be done through voluntary means should never be forced upon people. For those who call on their local and state police and law enforcement agencies to be equipped with cameras a fundraiser or donation from concerned citizens would be a rather better way to handle this. The subjective value theory again makes an appearance here. If those who do not see a relative value for the cameras (and other services and products for that matter) the forced extortion of them serves as a punishment by which they are victimized by a majority of people who "want without conscience or consequence". These new victims are the result of a economic fallacy that what is publically funded is publically endorsed, even though those that do not endorse the idea will be subjected to its use against them. When any dissent from the idea or even the forced acceptance and funding of the idea is exposed it is usually met with some variance of the phrase, "it is for the betterment of the community and you get to experience it through safer streets and accountable officers." But with this again the value placed on the idea by one does not always carry over to others. This idea of "social positives" through third parties or alternate means is the same argument made in relations to public schools and public welfare programs.

Another caveat to add to this is a comparison of costs to savings. When a police officer receives a compliant or if an officer has to go to court the ultimate financier is the taxpayer. All legal matters are paid for through their funding by the citizens. If these cameras were to have a positive impact of the number of incidences (meaning the number of incidences declines) leading to costly court battles and time lost, lawyers fees and compensation or settlements in and out of court (also paid for by the taxpayer) , the cost to savings benefit should be considered.

In the case of body cameras for police officers the idea to make these agencies and officers accountable and transparent is a noble goal that loses its appeal in the economic light of forced compliance and mandated funding.