Slashdot Mirror
In NJ, Higher Tech Lowers Crime
crimeandpunishment sends along this snip from an AP story carried on Skunkpost.com: "High tech means low crime in a New Jersey city that has used an arsenal of advanced technology to sharply lower one of the highest crime rates in the nation. And now East Orange is poised to become the first city in the country to take high tech crime fighting to a whole new level ... surveillance cameras with sensors that can be programmed to identify crimes as they unfold."
If the goal were to lower the "mugging rate" most of us would support that. If the goal were to lower the "murder rate" most of us would support that too. What we don't support is lowering the "crime rate" because this goal is indiscriminate. Lowering the crime rate in a recession can have many unintended consequences or perhaps they are intended?
Some questions to ask are does lowering the crime rate result in an increase in the incarceration rate? If it does then lowering the crime rate does not make us safer. Does lowering the crime rate increase the arrest rate for victimless crimes? If it does then it does not make us safer.
The goal should be to lower the rate of VIOLENT CRIME. The goal should not be to lower the rate of ALL CRIME. The goal should be to lower the arrest rate for VICTIMLESS CRIME. The goal should be to lower the INCARCERATION RATE.
The problem isn't the technology. It's the goal. The goal is to lower the crime rate, not to reduce violence or keep citizens safe. Since most everyone is a criminal or knows a criminal, this brings increased risk to everybody in the neighborhood.
We have an economy where nobody can find work, lowering the crime rate only resutls in making the people who are already desperate even more desperate.
Of course law enforcement is going to be war. The organized criminals are warriors and so too must the cops be. The problem is most of the laws aren't designed to keep ordinary people safe. The laws as they are today can be used to arrest anyone for just about any reason. You don't have to cause harm to anyone else, and there need not be any victims. You can break the law just because a cop pulled you over and you had something in your possession you shouldnt have had. This could be anything from drugs, to being a lobster of the wrong size.
What crime is dropping? Lets stop discussing it in terms of "dropping of the crime rate" as if thats saying anything. That's like saying "keep it real" or "yes we can", it's a meaningless political slogan.
I suppose we should start with the pedophiles right? They have some of the most disgusting thoughts of all.
There are two distinct things: religion and what mankind has made of religion.
Only fools confuse the two.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
And in the void left by the eradication of religion, what do you think would fill in? Utopian enlightenment and a dreamy new world of scientific achievement and the finest arts?
The christian religion has served a vital role in the development of the advanced civilization that has given you the philosophical tools and freedom to criticize it as 'terrible, awful.'
I think you would find that something much more terrible than Christianity would rush in to fill the void, and all your grandiose dreams of philosophical perfection would be for naught. We're dealing with failliable humans here, not your enlightened select.
I used to think as you do. Then I grew up, and realized that not everyone before me was a complete moron, and the things they did served a purpose. 'Controlling the people' is the obvious dorm-room bullshit session reply. 'Teaching the people to control themselves' is part of the actual equation.
Whether or not any of it true isn't provable (Lollerskates!?@?! can't prove or disprove the easter bunny either!). Whether or not we gain by acting as if it were true is something you can observe by comparing various societies around the globe. When doing so, try to set aside the typical juvenile rejection of your parents and/ or the institutions that have been a part of your life thus far.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The poverty line for a single person is $10,830. That doesn't allow for luxuries but it does mean that you can afford to eat, so stop with the Jean Valjean justifications. Most poor people are not criminals and never would be. Thieves are a despicable section of humanity, regardless of how much money they make, and I'd happily have them executed if I could be certain they were guilty. I have a strong practical opposition to the death penalty, but morally I have no qualms about it.