3 ms·
Apprehension after the fact does actually prevent the perpetrator from committing a substantially similar crime, as least for as long as they're in custody. In
by repiret 10y ago
Apprehension after the fact does actually prevent the perpetrator from committing a substantially similar crime, as least for as long as they're in custody. In addition, things that increase the likelihood of getting caught serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals.
Which of course is not to say that on balance mass surveillance of public spaces is a net benefit. But it does have some benefits, and it does the debate disservice to deny them.
- belorn 10y ago> In addition, things that increase the likelihood of getting caught serve as a deterrent for other potential criminals. Heard studies that proves the opposite. The kind of crimes that substantially deterred by the chance of getting caught are crimes which the perpetrator has had time to consider for a length of time. Violence of the moment is generally not deterred by the chance of getting caught, and is practically unaffected by surveillance of public spaces. Or to mention a few practical examples, road rage isn't effected by surveillance. A person being enraged at a bar isn't effected by surveillance, through a fight outside the bar could. Premeditated murder is deterred by the punishment/likelihood of getting caught, but other forms of murder isn't. Based on the theory, I would also guess that sexual harassment is decreased while rape isn't.
- repiret 10y agoI absolutely agree that not all crimes are deterred by the likelihood or consequences of being caught. But the intersection of crimes that are committed in public and crimes that are committed dispassionately, where the likelihood of being caught can deter them, is non-zero; therefore public surveillance can deter crimes, and one cannot simply dismiss that possibility when considering the pros and cons of mass public surveillance