Look, I'm all for keeping people accountable (I'm a rule-follower, remember?)  Cops and prosecutors should be (and are) held to a higher standard. Use all the cameras you want to keep them in line - as long as you can get the whole story.  What's funny is that your position is that we should hold cops accountable for their behavior, but not people who are, you know, committing crimes.

In the case we are talking about, Gibbs was wrongly imprisoned.  That's very sad - he won't get those years back and no amount of money can really make it up to him.  But the detectives who investigated the case were criminals first and they are rightfully paying with their freedom.  But you have to realize that isn't the case with most cops and most prosecutors.

Justice Souter gave an excellent commencement speech at Harvard a few weeks ago. (Full text is here - I highly recommend reading it). His basic theme was why an "originalist" view of the Constitution (held by Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) was wrong. But he also made this very good point while discussing the Pentagon Papers case (although it applies across the board) {my emphasis in bold}:

Even the First Amendment, then, expressing the value of speech and publication in the terms of a right as paramount as any fundamental right can be, does not quite get to the point of an absolute guarantee.  It fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president's authority in matters foreign and military.  The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises.  The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary.  A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways.  We want order and security, and we want liberty.  And we want not only liberty but equality as well.  These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one.  The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice.  And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the [Pentagon] Papers case make up much of what we call law.