Body cams: a step in the right direction

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/11/2024 (326 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It just passed its 100th birthday, but it’s such a fine legal sentiment that it’s well worth repeating.

“(A) long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” That sentence was written in a judgment by Chief Justice Lord Hewitt in the British Court of King’s Bench in the case of The King v. Sussex Justices Ex parte McCarthy — a case involving a crash between two motorcycles (one with a sidecar attached) — and delivered on Nov. 9, 1923.

In order for justice to truly be done, both the prosecution and the defence have to be able to present as much evidence as can possibly be delivered — and that evidence has to be handled in as even-handed and fair way as it can be for everyone involved. And even the most just of cases has to be able to withstand the broadest of public scrutiny.

Justice being seen to be done is one reason why the RCMP’s recent announcement that it will roll out body cameras for all of its front-line officers by this time next year is a good move — with some caveats.

Setup costs for the program will be $240 million over six years, along with an additional $50 million per year in operating funding. It’s a cost that’s well worth it, giving both police officers and those they interact with a clear — and, to the extent possible, impartial — record of what happened in a particular incident.

It will help to explain the context of police actions and the actions of the accused, and should help to exonerate both police and other citizens accused of misconduct.

But now the caveat.

Seeing may be believing, but video alone is not the whole and complete story — it is, however, extremely compelling. Having body cam video evidence will be a help in the court system — but don’t suggest it will always present the absolute truth of a situation. It’s another piece in a broad puzzle that is evidence, and not the sole source of evidence — which is why we have courts, judges and juries to rule on guilt and innocence, rather than just a television or online audience pressing a button that says “guilty” or “not guilty.”

And one other point about RCMP body camera footage that is a plus: in the U.S., police body cam footage has turned into a theatre of the macabre.

Want to see someone shot multiple times and killed by police? U.S. bodycam video footage of all types and horrors is only a click away on Facebook, YouTube and X social media sites, but Canadian privacy law means that the footage won’t be as easily abused for clicks in this country.

The RCMP’s director-general of the force’s bodycam program, Taunya Goguen, says footage will only be released “on an exceptional basis. … And only when the public interest outweighs the invasion of privacy of an individual.”

That is a situation where exceptions should be few and far between. It does no one any good to see people facing, arguably, the worst situations of their lives — and in some cases, even facing their deaths — and having those moments treated as prurient entertainment for people idling away time in front of their computers.

Video and sound recordings as part of an effort to get the most accurate representation of what happened in a given circumstance? Well worth having, to protect both the accused and the police officers who are intent on their jobs protecting and serving the public.