I normally try not to respond to
I seriously worry about the creeping effects of these things. In some ways, yes, its great, it removes justification for use of excessive force, it exposes the process to more scrutiny, more opportunity for outrage when it goes wrong and is fully documented without a primary witness who is legitimately afraid to say the wrong thing, even if he was in the right. In terms of the simple individual engagement, it is all wins all around...and in the long run....probably cheaper too.
However it ignores two huge problems.
1. The obvious, liability. When it does go wrong, and it will.... something always goes wrong given enough chances, who is liable? Not just in terms of renumeration but, in terms of taking steps to be reduce the likelyhood of it happening again? Who is responsible if lessons are not learned?
Admittedly, the answer today seems to be nobody at all, but I to be frank, that is one of the things I already find unsettling.
2. If costs of enforcement go down, we will have more of it. I am not sure we know what that means. Laws can be flawed, we have never actually lived in a time in history when it was possible to monitor as much as we can monitor, or to enforce laws on such scale as this could allow for, I am left very uneasy by the proposition of just how uncharted this territory actually is.
Can we hope that as enforcement becomes universal, laws begin to see themselves reviewed and fixed more quickly? Are we sure we can determine the difference between problems that need more law and more enforcement to fix and problems caused by them?
Overtreatment can cause diseases just as deadly as it is meant to cure. At least the medical community is aware of this and even has a word for it: iatrogenic. Disease caused by exposure to medical treatment. Its very real.
Look at Nelson Rockefellar. I genuinely believe he wanted to help people. He saw addicts and he tried instituting programs and forcing them into treatment under some belief that they needed it and he was helping. Eventually, in seeing this not work, he got more and more radical in his "treatment". Soon "zero tolerance" programs were springing up all over the nation....modeled after his sincere frustration at such an intractable disease.
What was the result? Well that was right around 1970, by 1980, HIV was an epidemic in full swing and nobody even knew it yet. How did it happen? Simple, needle sharing. Needle sharing spurned on by zero tolerance policies that put people in prison for being caught with paraphenelia like needles.
I am not convinced that making law enforcement cheaper and allowing it to be transparent is a panacea or even going to make things much better, since so many diseases look the same on camera.