Tragedy strikes emotion, but do the results actually lead to tangible differences?

The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, has been called a variety things ranging from police brutality to racism to an attack on the police.

No matter the events’ interpretations, the ambiguity that resulted from the conflict has highlighted proposals requiring police body cameras. Many who believe  Brown was the victim of police brutality believe these cameras would hold police accountable and would prevent other tragic deaths. A petition on the White House website asking for requiring body cameras on police exceeded the goal of 100,000 signers.

Backers of the proposal see these body cameras as a sort of insurance policy that the police will follow protocol and will not exceed the bounds of their position.

But insurance policies work both ways. These body cameras could serve as defense for police officer clearing their names and defending their actions.

It would seem that if the officer who encountered Michael Brown had worn these cameras, there would not be ambiguity over who was in the wrong. Or would there? Would these cameras prevent cops from going rogue? Would it serve as this beacon for justice because we would know who is right and who is wrong? Would it prevent cops from being accused of wrongdoing?

Could it really be that simple?

Interpretation is part of the law. It is something that has always been part of the law and will always be a part of the American system. It is the purpose of the judicial branch. When the legality of action comes into question for the police, like it has with the Michael Brown case or with any individual, it is the judicial branch’s duty to weigh in. Since there is not an all-seeing camera that decides what is right and what is wrong, there needs to be a presentation of events. Some believe that this leaves room for spinning events to create innocent or guilt. While there is power to do that, a judge still has to interpret these events and how they are told.

Even if a camera filmed an officer, a judge and jury would still have to watch and determine whether the actions were warranted. A camera does not always present absolute truth. This means there will still need to be a great deal of interpretation and therefore cases would still be ambiguous, just maybe a little less so.

Generally speaking, body cameras would be an insurance police for both the police and the people to ensure that a valid interpretation of an event comes out. This would theoretically eliminate any bias from the telling of a story in court. However, this raw film is only part of the process in determining guilt and innocence. Per the judicial process, individuals could still spin the events and bias would remain in the judicial process, so legitimate questions remain over whether these cameras would actually be fully effective.

Amy Hasenberg ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science with a certificate in African Studies.