Surveillance cameras in action - pros and cons
This is not at all a brawl-porn post, but, in fact, a thoughtful analysis of the use of surveillance camera evidence in a recent trial in the United Kingdom.
But first, the brawl porn:
English hooligans clash with each other and attack random people before a game against Wales in Manchester in 2004 (opens in new window, double click the movie to get full screen viewing - please note that there’s graphic violence in this clip).
All those clips were captured by the nearly omni-present surveillance cameras that dot cities and towns in the United Kingdom. The cameras obviously provided valuable evidence in the trial. Without such evidence it can be difficult to get convictions since eyewitnesses often have a hard time remembering whom they actually saw do what. Their memories become blurs of kicks and punches and people running and yelling, and that’s just not conducive to getting convictions.
On the other hand, all those cameras did nothing to prevent or stop the violence when it happened. They just recorded what was going on, just as they always record what’s going on, crime or no crime. Even with all those cameras, it still took a year and a half to get convictions.
But then again, to be honest, if I were mugged and the crime was captured on a camera, wouldn’t I be happy to have that evidence available to the prosecution? of course I would. But what if the camera missed the first few seconds of the mugging and only capture the last few where I punch the assailant in self-defence, only the camera doesn’t show that, it just shows me punching a guy for no reason?
No, at the end of the day, I just don’t see surveillance cameras as the way to go. We need cops, we need citizens who look out for each other, we need families who raise so many good guys that the bad ones are swamped. Surveillance cameras move strength - moral strength, in particular - from individuals and communities to government. The latter has far too much power as it is today, and far to little is bestowed on the former.
