While some surveys have questioned video's ability to prevent and solve crime, in my personal experience as a law enforcement officer, the use of video has been very helpful. Sure, while the potential for abuse still remains, it remains as well with all forms of new technology. Remember, public places have not expectation of privacy governed by the 4th amendment in the US. That being said, other forms of government may not even ask the public weather they want camera or not.
Crime cameras have a lot of benefits. They reduce crime and reduce costs because they are cheaper than Patrol Officers. Anything that anyone does in a public setting is not private and so I don't see any concerns with invasion of privacy. Things you want kept private should be done in a private setting, not on the public streets.
Although I enjoy privacy as much as anyone does, I believe the use of crime cameras creates transparency and accountability, and they are a good idea for public places. I base my answer on the fact that cameras reveal many actions. Recorded film or photos show what actually happens, unless something is blocking the view. In knowing there is one that sees everything that I do, the reminder is clear to me that nothing I do remains hidden. Therefore, I should never do anything I would not want the camera to see. In my opinion, if I would not want a camera to record what I do publicly, I probably would not need to engage in anything that I would not want revealed publicly.
Many cities only have one or two police officers to every five hundred or more people. It makes it impossible for the police to catch every crime that is going on in the city, and protect every resident. Putting up crime cameras throughout the city is a great way to give the police an extra set of eyes and ears to any crime. With crime cameras they would be able to solve a crime on one side of the city, and come back to solve another crime that happened on the other side at the same time. Right now our police officers are stuck with having to choose which crime is more serious, and needs their attention more. Crime cameras could help them work every crime.
While some people argue that crime cameras are an invasion of privacy, I believe that, because the cameras are only posted in public places, they only capture what anyone else in those places could or would see anyway. These cameras are an economical way for cities to expand their surveillance.
Crime cameras are a good idea for cities to reduce crime. People will know that they are being filmed, which I think will reduce the chances of them acting out. Plus, it can help police officers catch criminals if they are caught visibly on tape. When you are in a public place, I think it is fine to have cameras filming you at all times.
There are numerous times a crime happens with no witnesses, or no witnesses that will come forward. Cameras are a non-judgmental witness that can provide clear, and often damning, evidence that a crime happened, and who was involved. They can also scan less populated areas, like alleys and parking lots, cheaper than security guards.
An good example of this are the cameras at some traffic lights that help identify people who are speeding or committing other offenses. Some people drive more carefully because of them. They are more aware of the possibility of being caught. Those that don't heed them do get caught and penalized, which sets an example for other drivers.
I'm not opposed to surveillance cameras on public streets and in public venues. I think as long as areas are posted as "under surveillance", they aren't an invasion of privacy. I'd feel safer if I knew cameras were in use, because I think they'd deter criminals, and also help investigators solve crimes.
Crime cameras are an excellent tool for recognizing and apprehending law breakers. Whether they are small ones used in convenience stores or the more sophisticated ones used on city streets, they have helped law enforcement identify criminals worldwide. They make it difficult for law breakers to commit crimes without being seen, and this should cause criminals to think twice about their actions.
Most public spaces and privately owned businesses are already monitored by security cameras. Most actions in the home are not crimes and therefore crime cameras would not be placed in private homes. They would be an affordable way to prevent crime in public settings.
Use of crime cameras means a little dent on our privacy, a lot of people will oppose this. But in this turbulent days, if a little loss of privacy can give us a more secured society, a lot more people will welcome it. Crime cameras placed in critical locations can provide us with valuable footage of crime scenes. It may also deter criminals from committing the crime in the first place.
The use of crime cameras as a tool in stopping crime in cities throughout the world may be an effect tool. It may also encourage the populations back to some areas increasing revenue to many areas. The issue of privacy does come into play, but one must choose if to frequent an area with cameras or not.
Crime cameras are a good idea in cities to help police solve street crime that might otherwise go unpunished. As a deterrent, crime cameras serve to let the criminal element know that crime is not tolerated, and their apprehension if engaged in crime will be swift. For the average citizen, crime cameras provide a measure of security that at least a crime perpetrated upon them will be resolved.
Crime cameras placed randomly in cities all over the world are a great idea. If a person is thinking of committing a crime but realizes that he's pretty much caught red-handed before he even commits the crime, he might be more likely to take a pass and just do something else. Of course cameras won't stop crime altogether, but there's no harm to be done and they could definitely help.
Cities that have cameras on city streets that can be used to help stop crime are a good idea. They can be used as evidence in trials when the criminal has been caught. A camera does not lie and is more reliable than eyewitnesses that can have faulty memories. Crime cameras are also good at helping catch criminals. More and more sophisticated software is being developed that matches up databases of criminals that can be " read " and used with the crime cameras. The idea of privacy is valid, but if a person is not committing a crime, there is no problem.
I believe these cameras are a good idea, although some might see it as an invasion of their privacy (even though they are out in public). I think having these could be a deterrent to someone who was perhaps thinking of committing a crime, and these can provide information about acts which have taken place already. Having these cameras can help to offer proof if someone is apprehended and is caught on tape, as they say. They can help to make us safer.
Cities around the world are becoming dangerous places for its citizens. Gang and drug activity in city centers result in many good citizens staying well clear of the city particularly at night. Unfortunately many people who work and travel through the city are still forced to face the risks. Installation of crime cameras would act as a deterrent for would be perpetrators as well as allowing the police to more easily apprehend those who commit crime. The cameras would also afford good citizens some comfort.
Most of what I've seen are cameras at intersections and on the side of the highway! It looks to me like another way for the government to rape and pillage the people, as if the 14 amendment didn't already do enough. This is a scam to rake in more money! What's next, chips in cars that record your speed then have a ticket mailed to you for going a mile over the speed limit?! Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Any societal ill is a consequence of a deeper problem. Although I understand that some may want to protect individuals from being mugged or even murdered, I don't believe that cameras are an effective way to reduce violence. Crimes will only take a different shape, to skirt around the government's futile but costly intervention. The problem stems from the social conditions (often extreme poverty) of the attackers. This can be proven by the fact that not all societies face this situation to the same extant. Nations where the gap between poor and wealthy is not so drastic as it is in the US have a much less important fear of street attacks. Instead of investing money on surveillance cameras, which will become obsolete the moment they are put in place, the government should invest in long-term action by supporting poorer areas financially.
Furthermore, cameras are not perfect. It is impossible for people to be under surveillance everywhere, unless of course cameras are placed everywhere, which is an unconstitutional, abhorrent idea. For the cameras to be effective in preventing violence, the tapes would also have to be watched round the clock. This demanding, boring job would probably be low-paying, possibly even executed by members of the same social class as the ones committing the crimes. That is, for those who didn't stop to consider the very uncomfortable idea of being recorded and observed anywhere you go. If you don't think of it as a problem in our 'advanced' society, do consider the disastrous consequences of this technology in an e-totalitarian regime. As citizens, we deserve privacy, regardless of our social background or of that of the people surrounding us.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin
“If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.” Dwight David Eisenhower
Big brother has arrived. They watch everything and although I like the idea of them helping to catch criminals, they intrude into everyone's personal life.
While so-called "crime cameras" may, in fact, occasionally record someone committing a crime, for the most part they will record everyday citizens going about their business, which they have a right to conduct privately and without government intrusion. Crime cameras would increase the level of paranoia and distrust that already exist toward the governments of countries around the world.
People should be able to walk the streets and not have to worry about constantly being watched. Crime is going to happen, and there are people whose job it is to deal with it. I dont think a camera can replace a good honest police officer. And plus if the government really wants to have a look they can just use one of their satellites.
This is an invasion of privacy. It would never be accepted by civilians like myself and would outrage activist around the world. Freedom is what America was built on and it is being pulled away from American civilians. One day we will all go all out to attack the government for their petty crimes against humanity. Someone should be allowed to walk down the street, so help me god I'm right, and rob someone for cash.
I do not think crime cameras are a good idea around the world. They are an infringement on people's basic rights of a right to living privately. Crime cameras will also cost more for public infrastructure in order to obtain the technology and monitor it, which is something that many communities can not afford. In addition, crime cameras may show something that is happening but it does not explain why the situation is happening. It may appear that someone is breaking into a car, although it is their own car and they locked the keys inside. This person would be seen on the crime camera and charged with a crime, even though it is not the case. There is too much grey area in the justice system to have a camera be used to charge people with crimes.
I don't think that having crime cameras around the city will truly benefit crime. I think that you should be able to walk down the street with out feeling like your being watched. The only way to really combat crime is to clean up areas with high crime rates. I think the money that would be spent on these cameras should be better spent improving poor or high crime areas.
While I am sure that cameras would have some impact on crime reduction, the negative effects to individual privacy far outweigh any benefits. Those who have committed no crime are, in effect, punished for the crimes of others. The temptation for government officials to use such cameras for other than their intended purpose has often proved irresistible.
I believe that crime cameras are not a good idea for any city around the world due to the fact that the cameras invade a person's privacy. Already, people are being tracked online, and what not, and people need a sense of safety against the cameras which won't be possible if there are cameras installed everywhere trying to catch crime while invading a person's privacy. Crime already around the world might be dropping at a rate due to the tactics of the police force increasing.
Crime cameras are not a good idea for cities around the world because it's too invasive of a policy. Instead of being used to catch criminals after a reported crime, they could be monitored to look for crimes or sketchy behavior. No free society thrives when there is surveillance by others.
Most bank robbers know that they are being video taped when they go into a bank to make the robbery attempt. This has been the case for as long as most of us can remember. This hasn't stopped bank robbery from occurring. If this hasn't deterred a bank robber, what makes you think that putting cameras in the streets will deter street crime?