In the hours before the deadline to pass a state budget on Monday, July 27, legislators shifted their attention briefly to quickly approve two major bills affecting the criminal justice system in Connecticut.

One was the Second Chance Society legislation proposed by Governor Dannel P. Malloy designed to reduce the rate of incarceration in the state (338 per 100,000 people in 2013) by reducing penalties in drug possession cases and simplifying the process for paroles and pardons. The other was “An Act Concerning Excessive Use of Force,” more commonly known as the body camera bill, which encourages and helps municipalities fund the use of body cameras by police. The bill was formulated in the context of the national discussion about the use of police force in Ferguson, Mo., Baltimore, and North Charleston, S.C.

With police/community relations in the spotlight, these changes should serve to lower the stakes on low-level drug arrests and thereby the intensity of police engagement in some communities. They should also build trust through accountability and transparency with the expanded use of body cameras throughout the state. The measure also codifies the right of the public to record police officers with legal remedies for those who are unlawfully prevented from exercising that right.

Some of the language in the body camera bill is aimed at improving relations in towns and cities where there are chronic problems between law enforcement agencies and minority communities. As the president of the Newtown Police Union pointed out this week, there is no evidence that this is an issue in Newtown. Still, the opposition to this legislation by the local police union also apparently discounts the need for the trust and accountability it is designed to foster, even in towns without racial tensions and deep-seated suspicions of the core mission of law enforcement to protect and serve. Given the Newtown Police Department’s recent embarrassment by federal drug trafficking charges brought against a former police sergeant and emergency communications dispatcher, extra measures to enhance trust and accountability do not seem like such a bad idea at this point.

Newtown’s Police Commission appears to be less dismissive of body cameras than the police union. The commission’s chairman this week called the idea “meritorious” and foresaw serious local discussions about how the cameras might be used for the benefit of both the public and the police. The new legislation has built-in privacy safeguards covering protected conversations between police officers and with informants, and victims of domestic or sexual abuse. Also, recordings of the victims of homicides, suicides, and motor vehicle accidents would also be exempt from disclosure under provisions of the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

Our community has worked hard to be a coherent place in the sense that its people are invested each other’s success and cohere around principles of fairness, respect, and addressing our differences in the open and in good faith. It does not make sense for those charged with the security of such a place to be insular and cut off from public view. Opening a technological window to that community can protect the public in those rare cases when a rogue officer crosses the line from law enforcer to law breaker. More often, however, we expect it will protect the police themselves from false accusations of misconduct while demonstrating their professionalism in those moments when they are most tested.