Some Thoughts on Ferguson and Police Transparency

We don't know what happened when Michael Brown was killed, but the way the Ferguson police department is acting makes them hard to trust. Washingtonpost reporters have been arrested in two cities this year: Tehran, Iran and Ferguson, MO.  It is likely that the non-police witness's version of the story is true. an unarmed black teen was killed with his hands up by a white police officer. The way the Ferguson police department is refusing to even name the officer is reminiscent of the way police departments around the country often respond to investigations - by protecting their own. And the records indicate that Ferguson police are racially biased - the percent of whites found with contraband that are arrested is just 15% compared to the almost 50% for blacks (Presumably not all of these arrests are related to the contraband found, but it's a way to control for how police treat members of the groups who have committed some type of crime).

Rand Paul's op ed on the excessive militarization of police is dead on. It's interesting that he is walking the fine line and taking what can be construed as an anti-law and order stance because he is one of the front runners for the GOP nomination. 

It's probably because he is aiming to win the nomination that he didn't go farther: Active duty police officers need to be automatically recording everything they do. With recordings, incidents such as those happening in Ferguson can be quickly resolved one way or another. When tested in Rialto, California, recording reduced both complaints filed against police officers and the incidents where use of force was required. There will still be cases where police officers use excessive force in murky situations but by and large transparancy via recorded police and citizen interactions should protect the innocent parties, see more guilty parties punished and cause better behavior all around.

The main obstacle for making officers record everything is the political reaction to how such policies impact the status of police officers. The word of a police officer is generally trusted more than the word of a suspect. Telling officers "We are going to make you record every interaction" sounds less like "We are protecting you from false allegations" and more like "Officers, we know you often risk you life as you protect citizens but we don't quite trust you." The way many police officers currently respond to citizens legally filming on duty police is telling - many officers would prefer to remain in control of situations without anyone looking over their shoulder. And the options on the table aren't just "Recording or no recording" - there is also the option of letting police officers record when it protects the officer and not record when it might incriminate themselves. 

Even if recording was always on there is still the issue of structuring the system so the police are unable to delete incriminating evidence. There is also the problem of whether or not pervassive recording might have unintended negative side effects when recording technology is combined with facial recognition and prosecutorial discretion. 

Despite its potential flaws, the upside of preventing police misconduct (murder/manslaughter, for instance) and the potential riots that follow are likely bigger than the downsides. The idea that interactions between police and citizens needs to be recorded as a matter of course needs to be a bigger part of the discussion after these types of events.