Smile! You’re On Camera
Chicago’s doing it. Baltimore, New Orleans, and D.C. are doing it—hell, even Frisco is doing it. So, should we be doing it? Should we accelerate police camera deployment in L.A.’s worst neighborhoods to help fight crime?The idealist in me warns of a slippery slope, but the realist sees what cameras did for MacArthur Park (hat tip: CM Reyes), what they’re doing for east Valley residents (hat tip: CM Greuel), and wants the same for my neighborhood.
Of course, police cameras wouldn’t replace the need for police (we probably need seven times the 1,000 officers promised by Mayor Villaraigosa) but they would help officers police the streets more effectively—catching criminals in the act, helping secure convictions, and reducing response times.
Critics argue we are exchanging privacy for the promise of safer cities without accountability or evidence that cameras reduce crime, but the results have been real in Chicago; a drop in murders and over 1,400 camera-assisted arrests since February 2006. Once standoffish, residents reportedly now welcome them as the city mulls another phase of high-tech devices able to analyze images in real time.
I appreciate the privacy concerns. On the other hand, I see graffiti and gang activity trending upward, police recruitment barely keeping pace with retirement, inexcusable incompetence downtown, and I’m growing impatient.
What’s your take?
Labels: crime, ed reyes, gangs, graffiti, lapd, Los Angeles City Council, mayor antonio villaraigosa, wendy greuel
Posted by solomon @ 10/09/2007 10:55:00 AM
7 Comments:
...
...
...
AW,
As long as they don't ask the Neighborhood Councils to pay for them or tax us more to buy them.
The ACLU will come out and say it violates people's right to privacy. Such crap, I'd much rather have my privacy in a public place given up in order for cameras to be installed to catch the criminals any day.
How about using the "MILITARY DRONES" to fly over areas of "DRUG DEALINGS" and high crime ??
As for ACLU they should get a lift. Most of these cameras are able to be programed (digital blocking enhancement) to prevent looking in private areas.
As for the drones, good idea however I believe LA County Sheriff wanted to try it but FAA said no way.
How about drones flying over the Mayor's house, we want to se what Mirthala is wearing, does she have Prada shoes?
Caught in the middle between the Avenues, Frog Town, Cypress Park, and Rascals gangs, I would say yes to cameras. CM Garcetti put the Juntos park in a few years back in the Drew/Estara area for the residents to enjoy. If you go there during the day,(don't go at night), you would think you would see families using that park. It's like Mac Arthur Park use to be, nobody uses that park except the Avenues. One mother told me she's afraid to use that park, "too many gangs"
What is even sadder, CM Garcetti got funding to put cameras in two "undisclosed" areas in Glassell Park and Atwater Village. Come to find out, the equipment set up was stolen before the cameras could be installed. They were trying to hide it. Are you kidding me? Why not announce it and have a big news conference. I all for ridding rid of these plague of gangs we been living with for over 40 years+. But no more taxes!!!
I see the logic in it. But why prioritize so low? Why not put cameras on the biggest criminals? Corporations? Our Government, most of it perfectly content with a meaningless war and impoverished neighborhoods across America becoming increasingly violent? Sure, never mind releasing non violent offenders (drug only offenses, etc), teaching them a skill, and letting them provide for their broken families. Never mind putting as much tax dollars into public schools in poor areas as they do in public schools in rich areas. Let's just slap cameras on the street corners! You have to wonder if we're more obsessed with WATCHING crime than we are stopping it...
Put the cameras on the crooks who are running this country. It's their policies throughout history that have lead to the crime we know of in cities, anyway.
Also, while acknowledging that cameras can bring results, remember that the crime previously being committed in these now under surveillance places have just moved down the street, out of camera shot. And that's where they'll continue to move, until you put cameras up on every street corner. That's a lot of money going to something that can be used to prevent the very crime we're trying to catch on film to begin with. And, even if we did do it, cameras on every single street? Poor people that find financial security in the drug market and stability in the street gang won't give a shit, anymore. The average drug deal or drive by will just be followed with a "hi mom".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home