I’ve never understood how a passive camera is supposed to actually stop such a $30k heist. I get that it records it but it doesn’t stop anything. Unless you include deterrence but an unplugged fake camera does the same.
Allowing suspects to refuse to answer questions--a/k/a "remaining silent"--means that some people who commit crimes won't self-incriminate, and won't wind up being "punished."
Interrogating suspects without a lawyer present is a related tool for solving more burglaries.
Allowing suspects to have a lawyer present during interrogation definitely means that some people who commit burglaries won't be "punished."
So advocating for the right of suspects to remain silent, and to have a lawyer present during interrogation are both indirect ways of advocating for people committing burglaries to not be punished.
Same for advocating that police evidence which is "fruit of the poisoned tree" not be admissible in court. Or really, for any limitation on enforcement.
It's all implicitly choosing that allowing some people who commit crimes to go free, serves a greater good.
TL;DR The phrase "Advocating that people committing burglaries not be punished" has a lot of nuänce to it. Best not to try to spin it as a simple boolean.
---
There's another thing, which is the word "punished." Punishment is not, and should not, be a goal in any civilized society. That's a whole 'nother discussion, but for the purpose of discussing surveillance, let's agree that we are talking about convicting people who commit crimes, and leave the discussion fo what to do after obtaining a conviction for another day.
As written, the question positions a discussion about the uses of surveillance technology and the social side-effects as an accusation that people with concerns are against “punishing burglars.”
The problem here is with that kind of, “So, you’re in favour of more crime” rhetoric. In the past, that has been used in extremely dangerous ways.
1. Currently no legally recognized right is being violated by police when they are given Ring surveillance footage from a homeowner to prosecute a potential criminal.
2. But perhaps we should codify some right that prevents the police from obtaining Ring surveillance footage from a homeowner to prosecute a potential criminal.
I agree with 1, but I disagree with 2, and further I suspect you're going to have quite the uphill battle convincing the majority of people some right should exist that prevents homeowners from providing surveillance footage to the police.
Win or lose, such arguments are about the appropriate amount of surveillance and the rights of people who may not be criminals but who are caught on "film," who has access to that film, and what can be done with the evidence in that film.
I'm totally up for an argument that what Ring does is appropriate. I'm just not up for arguing that questioning Ring is "Arguing that criminals go unpunished."
Specifically the comment author was insinuating that just by eradicating a group of individuals out of the society (as punishment) would stop other people to do the same. It seems a very dangerous way of thinking.
Longer answer: People who commit one burglary often commit multiple burglaries. State's Attorneys won't prosecute cases if they don't have strong evidence. The number of burglary victims in a month is basically given by (number of burglars active in a month)(average frequency of burglary in a month). To reduce the number of victims, you could reduce the number of active burglars in an area, and/or you could work to reduce the frequency of burglary by hardening the world, which would be prohibitively expensive. The former strategy is much less expensive, as video evidence is strong evidence, and video cameras have become very affordable and convenient to operate. This helps build stronger cases, which can remove predators from communities, which averts all of the offenses that the predator would have committed had they not been jailed. It is possible to burgle a home with cameras, just as it's possible to get the flu despite a flu shot, but both the cameras and the flu shots help defend more of society against harm.
B. It's a preventive control. People doing recon on your place will see that visible security is in place and that you have done some level of risk management. Perhaps you have other security measures there as well such as an alarm, or maybe you secure your valuables with a safe or they are stored off site which they can't know until they get in. It makes you a less appealing, higher risk target. Additionally, in most neighborhoods you can't walk around in a ski mask without attracting attention, so many burglaries will be done with faces exposed. If someone bursts in and sees they are on camera, maybe they leave without taking anything.
I know that there's a lot of (possibly astroturfed) youtubes out there about thefts being deterred but what are the actual stats?
TLDR: Yeah, there are many investigations that are only cleared because of CCTV footage, including Ring footage. No, that data isn't public.
Be sure to read the whole thing.
( nice username tho )
How many of these kinds of things actually happen to prevent crimes? And how many of these are break-ins rather than package theft?
You have 20 seconds to comply.