Electronic Data recorders- Why not?

The suggestion that beat cops should wear sound and video recorders has been widely ignored, but why? Paramedics have similar system. Reduced load on legal system, freeing court time, saving public money, serving justice better. Fewer withdrawn confessions made after felons consult their lawyers. Undisputable, audited, secured data- the infrastructure already exists. No reliance on 1800's pencil and notebook technology. Less need for time wasting paper reports. Judges have to be pragmatic when taking police statements and therefore sentences are often compromises. The current system clearly suits lawyers, criminals and bent cops. Situation reports, eyewitness accounts, records of crime scenes. Additional protection for police as criminals realise that every encounter is recorded electronically, put simply, which junkie is going to spit on a policeman if he knows he's being filmed? Accountability of police force and protection of public with transparent policing- currently only 0.025% of complaints against police are upheld. A system, proven, feasible, neither too expensive, nor too difficult to implement- technology already in use- ready to roll out to all beat cops. We, the public need a 4th official in matters where decisions are more important than a game of football.

Conversation with a policeman.
After just a year in the force, I expected some idealism as regards the video recorder proposition. Not so.

"We'd never be able to arrest anyone".

Apparently things are not done "by the book". Police may forget to issue a caution, the lawyers could easily throw out the case on this, or any other technicality. Is a signed witness statement really more powerful evidence than video footage?

"The witness could still say they were lying on camera...or even say it wasn't them"

 Does it prevent you from doing your job properly? Or prevent you from doing your job improperly? Video evidence would clearly demonstrate that a statement made was not taken under duress. The police who were supposed to be arresting Rodney King didn't much care for cameras either.

"It would be against my human rights to film me at work" "...everyone does things at work that they could be sacked for".

Who isn't filmed at their place of work these days; people working in pubs, garages and in banks? No doubt many people commit the odd misdemeanours, but gross misconduct when working as a public servant; why shouldn't a person be shown the door? A transparent system protects the innocent; if loopholes exist which prevent the police from doing their job properly they should be closed; not compensated for by those who are supposed to uphold the law. When acting with the best of intentions, should those who twist the rules still be considered "bent"? It's a thin dividing line between a policeman acting pragmatically and a state legislated vigilante who perverts the law to suit their own interpretation of justice. So much for Judge Dread just being a comic book character.

Q. How many cops does it take to smash a light bulb?

A. None. It was smashed before they got there.

Where does the equilibrium lie? Is it worth it; giving the system the power to detain the "guilty" without following the rules? At what price, we don't know. When the system isn't transparent it's impossible to know, departments close ranks, documents are shredded; it's for our "own good" that we can't find out the facts. Those who attempt to counter the system are discredited and marginalised. An internal investigation takes place with predictable results. With the government heavily influenced by lawyers and the civil service, it seems unlikely that the unaccountable, sometimes quasi-vigilante behaviour of the police force will be brought to book, for fear of an increase in crime figures or a need to reform the justice system.