did you mean to say are not?

Nope, I was responding to Invictus saying that they're good for both parties. My contention is that they're not good for the police, because it restricts their power.

I'll never deny that police corruption and abuse exists, but it isn't this dystopian world you think it is, mendax. False accusations against police happen all the time. They ruin careers and slow the justice system down.

In many jurisdictions police interrogations have to be recorded. Police opposed that reform. But now that it's happened it's popular among police because unmerited claims of coerced confessions and police brutality can be instantly shown to be false. The same would happen with body cams.

It's just as ridiculous to think police are constantly doing bad things as to believe they only do the right thing.

What's the downside to cameras aside from the cost?

To the public, nothing. To the police, it restricts their power.

Sure it does, but it's not as if their power is being challenged. The police are still the police. We are simply looking out for ourselves, and just as interrogation room cameras have proven, cameras also help them look out for themselves. If they do something wrong, they get to face the consequences just like anyone else in any other occupation, but if they are wronged against, they can prove it. For those with no morals, it should be relatively neutral, and for those who actually want to do their job properly, it should be a huge positive change.

I don't even think it restricts their power. I've talked with a lot of police officers from the area I live in (fairly rural, but for some reason a lot of my neighbors are state cops) and they're almost all in favor of body cameras. They say it wouldn't change how they operate in the field, and it can only serve to benefit everyone involved.

It will only change how those who don't currently follow proper protocol operate.

I agree. Its had a big positive to both sides and that is unambiguity. Police who abuse their power, while its not all the time, its enough to make a large part of society feel marginalized. Its also to protect police officers who are doing their job in the midst of civilians who abuse the system. false accusations like Invictus said will be far fewer.

At this point, abuse of power in the police for isn't just a few bad people - it's an institutional thing.

It would have*

"At this point, abuse of power in the police for isn't just a few bad people - it's an institutional thing."

Bull. Problems exist. A great many. But your position is ludicrous.

To take New York as an example, since that's where this thread started, you don't get more stops of young black men per year than the population of young black men without there being some seriously institutional problems.

I don't support stop and frisk because I think it's plainly unconstitutional. However, I don't think that the disparity of stops for young black men relative to their share of the population is necessarily the result of institutional problems.

All the different types of people in the world do not commit crimes at a rate equal to their share of the population. Poor people of any kind are more likely to commit a crime than better-off people. Men commit far, far more crimes than women. Young men commit more crimes than old or middle age men. There is, after all, that saying that the best thing to keep someone from being a criminal is a 30th birthday. Under stop and frisk, police are going to stop young men of any sort more often than, say, old women.

So you needn't address the racial dimension, because it's just a truism that young men, especially poor ones, are *exactly* the people police should be on the lookout for. Young men are the ones who commit crimes. Racist cops certainly exist and must be a non-trivial part of any discrepancy, but it's hardly determinative to prove serious institutional problems of the root-and-branch sort you're proposing.

So you just want to ignore the fact that young men, especially poor ones, are far more likely to be black in this country than they are white...

Oooooooooooooooookayyyyyyyyyyyyyy.......

I guess the question is what practical changes can be made to reform the institution? You can't exactly set limits on the number of young black men an officer can stop per month.

"So you just want to ignore the fact that young men, especially poor ones, are far more likely to be black in this country than they are white..."

First off, young men in this country are much more likely to be white than black. African Americans are holding steady at around 14% of the population. The demographic shift away from a white majority is almost entirely the result of an increased Latino population, not a general blossoming of all non-white groups.

As for black people being more likely to be poor, sadly that is true. But I'm not sure how I'm ignoring that, nor am I really sure what point you're trying to make.