The Instigator
Taylur
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
laura_fullerton
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Taylur
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 965 times Debate No: 47892
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Taylur

Pro

I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests.

The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason:

Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him.

Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice.

You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.
laura_fullerton

Con

I don't think they should be almost everywhere. That defeats the purpose of what America is based off of, which is freedom. As far as catching all the murders, and offenders, yeah it might work. But you also have to think that it keeps the population down. Also if all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?
Debate Round No. 1
Taylur

Pro

How do cameras stop American's from experiencing freedom? Freedom to commit a crime without being caught? Cameras merely observe; they do not stop you from doing what you want to do, but if that happens to be a crime, you will be seen doing it and appropriate action taken.

Not sure what you mean by keeping the population down.

"If all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?" -- Cameras will not stop crime altogether, but it will help to bring people to justice and reduce crime. Some people do not care about consequences, so I know that there will still be crime in the world. When the bad things happen, we will deal with it by watching the recorded evidence and arresting the suspects. Simple really.
laura_fullerton

Con

Experiencing freedom is not being watched almost 24/7. There is something called privacy. "Cameras merely observe," no cameras watch. And that would be counted as stalking. Yes; I agree that it will help crime rates, but it makes people more creative. They are going to commit crimes where cameras aren't. And what happens if power goes out, or the cameras break?
Debate Round No. 2
Taylur

Pro

I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request.

Freedom: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants" [1]

Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act.

The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels.

If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now.

[1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
laura_fullerton

Con

Yes; I would ask the officer to stop watching me. I would find it uncomfortable.
"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants."
Then I can act as I want, and speak and think that it is wrong.
Do you not find it weird that people would always be able to watch you?
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Le.Doctor 2 years ago
Le.Doctor
London may have thousands of cameras but even they don't cover all surfaces and out of curiosity how much is London in debt and do the ratio of cameras to crimes caught on the cameras equal out?
Posted by Taylur 2 years ago
Taylur
I concede money and practicality can be an issue, but it's not impossible to do. London has thousands of cameras set up, and they are actually monitored 24/7 by police. All I'm suggesting are cameras that are constantly rolling but not being monitored; in the event of a crime being reported, i.e. a kidnapping, the local authorities will check the cameras (each local authority maintains their cameras) to see who did it and where they went/came from.
Posted by Le.Doctor 2 years ago
Le.Doctor
Now even if you have all of those CCTV's how do u know that once all that money is spent on buying, installing, and keeping tabs on each and every single of those BIllions of cameras, which may not even catch anything, is not being wasted or that you still have more money to have a large enough police force to help that person from getting hurt or stopping a crime.

Also in the case that two people want to make a deal and they go somewhere quiet and exchange briefcases, you see it through your all seeing "eyes" and then what you arrest them based on the fact that they exchanged briefcases?

Moreover have you ever read 1984? Because if you havent you have to go read it now, and then tell me whats the difference between you and Big Brother, and what will happen if the government pusges its boundaries and the people cant stop it bc they are being watched everywhere.
Posted by Le.Doctor 2 years ago
Le.Doctor
Ok what about the price of the cameras, and if the government cannot afford to put the CCTVs in some areas than those areas will automaticallly become the "ghettos " where the police would not be afraid to go into but would rather not. This would quickly become Chicago in the early 70s and 80s where Gang warfare was a very big thing.

Also If you have a country even the size of Britain where currently has a pop of 65ish million with basically 250k land, tell me how much money that will cost? thats only one the size of the UK.

Again The freedom of voicing your opinion can say whether to move those cameras from looking at u or a police officer from lookiing at u, granted it will raise suspicion, you can still do it.
Posted by Taylur 2 years ago
Taylur
I do not find it weird that I will be watched because I have nothing to hide; I am innocent. Thanks for the quick and simple debate.
Posted by Taylur 2 years ago
Taylur
You need to click the 'post your argument' button, not leave a comment.
Posted by laura_fullerton 2 years ago
laura_fullerton
I don't think they should be almost everywhere. That defeats the purpose of what America is based off of, which is freedom. As far as catching all the murders, and offenders, yeah it might work. But you also have to think that it keeps the population down. Also if all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 2 years ago
GaryBacon
Taylurlaura_fullertonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Although I disagree with Pro's stance, Pro did provide a more convincing argument.