Body Cams: A Win for Demilitarization, or Another Pointless Police Reform?By Carey Wedler This isnt to say that cameras arent effective in reducing police violence. In cities likeSan DiegoandRialto(both in California), instances of police violence have dropped by respective rates of 40% and 88%. The problem, however, is that unless the body cameras are always turned on, they are not going to be nearly as effective. In places like Denver and Albuquerque,body cams make little differencebecause officers have the option to turn off their recording devices. Some encounter technical difficulties. This problem presents itself across the country. From theDistrict of ColumbiatoTennessee,Florida, Michigan, and North Dakota, state bills that implement body cameras include caveats to keep some records, if not all, from the public. A recently announced Department of Justice pilot program thatgrants $20 million for body camerasto local police will only apply to a small fraction of departments, meaning others will still patrol the streets without observation. Even thepublic records policyoutlined by the DOJ program is murky and does not clearly indicate how and when body camera footage will be made public. Another reason that body cameras deserve a level of skepticism is that police departments and theDepartment of Justicehave already been accused ofcorporate collusion with a prominent body camera company. Taser Inc.s stocksoared after the DOJ announced its pilot programwhile sheriffs promote Tasers products to departments, often taking consulting jobs with the corporation after they retire from law enforcement. While police insist there is no conflict of interest, it is difficult to ensure total accountability when the company supplying the cameras is receiving paychecks from those it claims to hold accountable. If the government is going to engage in predictable crony capitalism, at least this manifestation moves in the general direction of accountability. Whatever the technical effectiveness of body cameras, however, two simple realities prove that they will never solve the problem of brutality. First, video evidence has shown that a significant portion of violent cops do not care whether or not they are being recorded. This was the case in the Texas cop whoshot and killed a friendly pit bull puppy. It was the case with Eric Garner, where video of his death failed to secureso much as an indictmentfor the accused officer. Countless cases of violent officers caught on film show that simply being recorded is not enough to stop them from committing unnecessary violence. Second, consider the sharp drop in police violence that occurs when policeareforced to use working body cameras. This progress is not to be discounted and, rather, is encouraged. Even so, the fact that instances of inappropriate behavior drop specifically when cops are recorded speaks volumes about the intentions of officers. That they consciously become less violent when they know they are being watched demonstrates not only that they are aware that using such force is wrong, but that if theywerentbeing watched, they would likely commit it. Regardless of how effective body cameras may be, the American public should not be comfortable having people protect and serve them and enforce their laws when those peoples ethics are not intact. The fact that officers must be surveilled in order to prevent egregious violations of liberties is not an indictment of body cameras but, rather, the institution of government. When authority is held by the barrel of a gunas cops exemplifyit is unsurprising that those who wish to commit violence will become police officers. They are free to inflict brutality with little worry of punishment because they know that departments, unions, and the justice system will protect them. As such, the solution to police brutality cannot come in totality from recording cops. Police violence is a symptom of a far deeper problem, which is a government that is as corrupt as police forces themselves. After all, the laws and codes officers enforceand in doing so, inflict abuseare passed by those who rule the police: bureaucrats and politicians. The politicians and agencies (from the FDA to the Department of Justice itself) offer no accountability to the publicjust like cops. This reflects broad, institutional corruption. Instead of looking at police brutality as the core problem, the policies that have enabled such a police state must be re-examined. The Drug War is a prime example of this. It has led to America having thehighest incarceration rate in the world. It has led to increased police militarization and power. But it is not the only policy that enables police mayhem. According to civil liberties lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, theaverage American commits three felonies a day. As the Roman historian, lawyer, and politician, Tacitus, famouslynoted, The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. Because of the lack of accountability that results from an over-bloated government with thousands of pages of federal regulations and rules (not counting state and local laws), those who salivate for violence are drawn to police forces. It is much easier to be a cop committing aggression when committing violence is just doing ones job in the name of defending the law. Because of this, it ultimately does not matter whether or not officers wear body cameras. Their use certainly will not increase brutality and will help treat the symptoms of an authoritarian government. However, it can never ameliorate the root of a problem that comes with an all powerful government whose authority is enforced by guns. Related selfnews Post Article: Carey Wedler writes for The Fifth Column and TheAntiMedia.org Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. 