That might serve a deterrent effect, but given how much crime is a result of poor impulse control, it may not have as strong an effect as one might like.
After the first year or two of such incidents spiking it'll go down quickly.
note: I really don't like the idea of a panopticon
It's getting them used to wearing them on a pretext of being about monitoring customers, to ease them into a shift to an always-on policy which will be promoted as a simplification that will reduce the risk of forgetting or turning them on too late, but which will also allow them to be complete records of the employee’s behavior, which is almost certainly the real target.
You’re forgetting how much crime is motivated by “merciful” judges afraid to give long sentences to people who are incapable of functioning in society.
All you have to do is look at El Salvador for the ultimate proof study. According to CNN, murders fell by 97.7%. The western academic whines about the innocent; but NGOs invited to oversee the project have yet to make a single convincing innocence story.
There’s also the issue that crime is fundamentally, at its very root, a punishment of the innocent. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the harmless.
B. “Fallen a lot” isn’t the same as “Murder rate lower than Canada.”
C. Your bias is by pointing out how much it has fallen since 2015. This is however an outlier bias - in 2015, El Salvador was the world’s most dangerous country. #1 for murders, by over 30% more than #2. The pre-mass-incarceration rate, though lower, would still be considered dangerous anywhere else. Going from “world’s most dangerous country” to “just a dangerous country” isn’t a victory, and it does not follow that following this, the country would naturally transition to “safe country.”
Additionally, wouldn’t less serious crimes (like shoplifting) be even harder to deter than murder, since they are even more likely to be committed impulsively?
I do know though, that your ability to build deterrence, or fix societal causes, will be heavily impaired to the point of impossibility if you don’t fix the marauder problem first. Deterrence is a preventative measure like brushing your teeth - but you can't brush your teeth later out of gingivitis after-the-fact.
It’s like saying fixing corrupt nations need democracy. Maybe - but if the people are starving, that’s the first problem needing fixing, or the attempt at democratic reforms will certainly fail.