Regardless of whether this works or not, it is becoming clear that the future will involve a lot of cameras practically everywhere. Historically crimes were pu

Regardless of whether this works or not, it is becoming clear that the future will involve a lot of cameras practically everywhere. Historically crimes were punished severely because it was hard to catch people and prove they did something so the expected value of committing a crime had to be lowered through strict punishments. For example: If $1,000 in cash was in an envelope sitting on a table in an outdoor cafe with no visible video cameras, it would very likely be stolen if someone walked by who A) needed the money, B) didn't have a strong moral compass. He would calculate like this: IS (Chance of not being caught X value gained by crime) more or less valuable than (Chance of being caught X Punishment). The equation is balanced when it is just slightly less valuable to commit the crime. With the advent of cameras it appears that the % chance of being caught has gone way up, so I feel like we need to reduce the punishments to balance the equation. Having longer punishments is not positive for society, it is expensive, doesn't help the person doing the time and doesn't help the victims. Reducing punishments as we can catch a higher number of crimes makes sense. I hope that the discussion about crime and punishment shifts to reduce sentences to help balance that equation. I'm sure there are better ways of putting what I said, but hopefully people get the idea.