2 ms·
Regardless of whether they might catch those people in some other ways or not, the rate of 2000/32mil is just too low. Of course, this could mean either that th
by NhanH 13y ago
Regardless of whether they might catch those people in some other ways or not, the rate of 2000/32mil is just too low. Of course, this could mean either that the base rate of such crime is low, or the system is ineffective. Either way couple with the (possibly relatively) low damage, the result would be the same.
(I'm not trying to contradict you, just expanding on your point).
- new299 13y agoIt could also be acting as a deterrent and thereby preventing the crime. I mean if you're smart, and you know they're going to catch you due to fingerprinting you'd avoid the system entirely. I'm not saying I agree with the system, but it's the argument that might be used. Same argument applies to CCTV cameras, you would (and I think do) see a reduction in crime when CCTV are installed [citation needed] (though I believe it just moves to other areas).
- crpatino 13y agoMaybe new laws should be created and applied retroactively... you know, to increase the conversion rate ;)