Maybe your neighbor is an asshole who pissed someone off. One anecdote doesn’t constitute a trend especially when you haven’t given us the whole story. If you make me, I can link to at least 3 news stories of crimes being committed on camera, where the criminal was cognizant of the camera. While there may be some merit to people behaving better when they’re surveilled, chances are they’d only deter the opportunistic, not the career criminals, not the desperate, nor the revenge minded, nor the plain old stupid (which is probably the biggest category).
Have you stopped to wonder why that is?
Based purely on my experiences with the police (here in the UK), they don’t bother half the time because they know that if they do spend the time (possibly hours) analysing the CCTV footage, it usually won’t tell them anything useful anyway. A typical setup will involve a camera at height, covering a fairly large area. Add in the loss of clarity when recording at night (when most violent street crimes occur) and all you’ll be able to tell from the footage is that the crime did indeed happen. At best you’ll get a vague description of the perpetrator - nothing you could really use to identify them. They’re most useful if you already have a suspect and can use the footage for additional evidence.
When my house was burgled a couple of years ago, I spoke to the police about putting some cameras in and around the house. They said it probably wasn’t worth it - unless they specifically knew the burglar by sight, then even having a clear picture of them wouldn’t help to track them down. It would certainly help secure a conviction, but that’s not helpful if they don’t know who the guy is in the first place.
CCTV does have its uses, but it’s not that much of an effective deterrent and in most cases, its capacity to actually help solve crimes is sketchy.
Why would it have? People who are so unconcerned with potential prosecution as to ignore the consequences of prosecution as to commit such an assault are already pretty far beyond reason (they could well be caught by other witnesses, ID by the victim, physical forensic evidence). If they don’t care about any of that, why would video change their mind? Video is no guarantee of positive ID - the picture may be insufficiently details, disguises can be worn, they may be facing away from the camera, there are blind spots, etc.
Also don’t forget that such a system would be very expensive (hardware, networking, storage, and monitoring aren’t free) - you need to show that spending the money on that would be more effective than spending it on other things (like education).
Dibbs, quit beating around the bush. Did you go get the beer for your neighbor, or didn’t you?
I predict that as CCTV gets more and more prevalent, there will be a proportionate rise in sales of ski masks.
We do have cameras on some public spaces in Philly. Off the toppa mihed, I can’t remember them being responsible for solving a single crime. One could argue that they prevent crime. I would disagree.
Further, I don’t want cameras everywhere.
You’re smarter than that. Do you really think people that have cameras over their garages sit in their homes 24/7 watching to see who might be vandalizing their property? Of course not. But if someone does something to their stuff they see it (damage/loss), then go in and rewind the vid and call the cops.
Cameras don’t have to be located every one inch apart everywhere, just enough to keep a reasonable sector monitored at a distance that allows for some vid detail to be there, acuity.
It goes without saying that no system is likely to be 100% perfect but, still, you really are stretching it.:smack:
My God-given commonsense tells me you’re wrong.
I’m not able to take you by the hand and go out and get with someone that’s a bit of an expert on what excellent camera to get … and where to position it … and do the whole inferred set-up … and all the rest of it. But I can at least tell you that there’s a reason why banks have them inside and outside and it’s because they work a GOODLY amount of time.
Yes; and sometimes man bites dog.
Like on education?? So how does THAT work? Like: “Gee, punk, instead of clobbering an old lady over the head to grab her purse, would you mind getting a job and make your own dough instead?”
Indeed I did.
Though I was frightened due to there not being any CCTV cameras being around to make sure I made it across the street and back … BECAUSE THE THUG HANDN’T BEEN CAUGHT. 
I kid you not. At this VERY MOMENT ABC Nightly News is reporting on some scumbag murder – killer of UVA student – having been caught DUE TO A SURVAILLENCE CAMERA HAVING RECORDED HIS SORRY IMAGE!
I wonder why so much opposition … I know I have no intention of going out and committing a crime. Hmmm.
Crime is relatively rare and rates continue to drop. Cameras are costly. Storing their information is costly. Having someone analyze all that information is costly. Spreading cameras to cover the areas where there’s very few crimes now would be exorbitantly costly on a crime prevented/solved basis.
How much should we spend as a society to prevent that one assault on your neighbor. $1000? $10,000? Tens of thousands?
Yes, because they know exactly where criminals will be if they intend to rob an ATM or a bank teller at a branch. Bank robbers or ATM thieves can only operate in a very limited and well-defined space. Banks and ATM’s are practically automated photo booths like you advocate everywhere and yet people still rob banks and mug people at ATM’s. That isn’t a very convincing argument.
You are proposing cameras that monitor virtually every building, street, shrub and tree in the U.S. in case of random crime. That is completely different and not even remotely feasible. It is hard enough to get good camera coverage for a single convenience store parking lot let alone the whole street, neighborhood, city, county, state and then the nation. There are about 1.9 billion acres of land in the U.S. Let’s say that only 10% of those are populated enough to warrant your proposed camera coverage. I would say it would take about 5 - 10 really high quality cameras to monitor an acre (roughly the size of a football field). You are looking at over 1 billion cameras to do what you are asking for. Who is going to pay for them and monitor them?
I am making only practical arguments here and that don’t even start to address the very legitimate Orwellian privacy concerns even if the government could implement such a thing.
Dibbs, I can turn on virtually any local newscast anywhere in the country and see stories about crimes that take place at liquor stores, car dealerships, banks, pawn shops, etc. And the reason those stories are on TV is precisely because there is security footage available.
Yet, those places continue to be magnets for criminals, despite their certain understanding that they WILL be seen on camera and those tapes WILL be reviewed by the police. Furthermore, you rarely hear about people being arrested because they were identified by a security camera.
The only thing that universal cameras will improve is the sales figures for hoody sweatshirts.
Really, which part?
Or one could ask the question this way: How much would be too much if that poor little kid in D.C. recently had not been tortured by the SOB and then him and his parents and the families helper murdered?
As you probably know, they actually caught the sewage running down the street after he ate the pizza and ran out the door. Unfortunately, they didn’t have enough cameras along his path and, too, the one or two that they did have the quality wasn’t there.
In my own vision of using the things, it would be a complete and quality job, not this half-baked stuff that we see too many times at gas stations and the like where the picture is of poor quality.
Btw, if the Construct of a society can allow for a sports figure to make in excess of $200-million to contribute to society, then shelling out serious bucks to save human lives seems like a bargain by comparison, no?
You need more of the old “can do” attitude!
The technology gets better and the prices go down as more dollars flow that way. Also, adding to my grand proposal, those birds 200-miles up are another means to make it all happen.
Like it or not, this IS the age of the CAMERA.
You make my argument and then you go a little crazy and drive things into the ditch.:smack:
And did you not read where I posted real time that ABC News said the UVA student’s killer was caught on CCTV, and that they had him in custody BECAUSE OF THE FILMAGE?
Like what does it take!!!
Pretty much the whole thing, though I’m not going to dissect it point by point or waste anymore time with it other than to say – whether you believe me or not --that my neighbor REALLY is a good guy, not an “asshole.” And the bad guy that made a mess out of his right eye-socket REALLY is a piece of shit. Period.