However, just as a thought experiment, wouldn't total surveillance actually help stop #1?
If there existed video proof of illegal bias, it could be targeted and stopped, vs now, where you just have to imagine that all groups are committing crimes at the same rate and police are only focusing on minorities.
How would it? Prosecutors decide who to prosecute based on available evidence. It's systematic societal bias (and obviously, personal bias, too.)
But it's not like video surveillance would show anything new - we already have statistics on which groups get sent to jail over minor crimes, and which ones get slaps on wrists.
You answered your own question!
> we already have statistics on which groups get sent to jail over minor crimes, and which ones get slaps on wrists
I think you will find those statistics correlate almost exactly to income and only overlap race because there is also a correlation between income and race in the US.
So without video that is hard evidence of actual racism (eg. arresting blacks and ignoring whites committing the same crime) we have to do a two-step mental trick to get to the racism. Poor people that are arrested can't afford lawyers (or good lawyers) and have worse outcomes. Black people tend to be poorer than Whites, so the courts are racist!
I believe it would be a different case altogether if you had "actual" direct proof (ie. video that could be counted and compared to outcomes), not just correlational proof that involves a lot of other noise that may or may not be racism or that is a couple of steps removed.
> You answered your own question!
The point is that they don't have to prosecute everyone. It's hard to not see this as a willful misunderstanding of my point.
> a two-step mental trick
Just what I'm thinking, but mirrored, actually.
> I believe it would be a different case altogether if you had "actual" direct proof
I think some people will never be convinced. Also, I'm going to stop responding to this thread. Without direct video proof, there's no way to prove the two are related.
No.
Problem #1 is unfair and biased prosecution. If every time someone smokes a blunt, the police get alerted, but only minorities are actually arrested and prosecuted, that's bullshit.
Problem #2 is that not every crime should be punished, period. Nobody is harmed if I walk across a street without waiting for a green light.
Problem #3 is that every crime being captured means that literally every citizen has a backlog of blackmail material waiting for them that the government could use to pressure them for one reason or another. Commit a more serious crime, and you could be pressured into a plea bargain in exchange for not bringing the others to bear. Speak up against an unpopular policy the government is trying to push, and suddenly you're being arrested for something that happened three years ago.
No thanks. This would be a nightmare world.