Hacker News Reader

Comment by ianm218 | Hacker News Reader

To steelman the other side of this - you are basically wrong. One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended. If people were basically certain they would be caught their propensity for crime is low. [1]. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time you are right but they are intimidated by getting apprehended.

Now I hate the idea of Flock and think we should basically fully ban facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and similar topics. It is just too dangerous if the wrong people get in power. But we should make sure we are making real, fact based arguments.

[1]. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398

View on HN

More cameras doesn’t necessarily mean more apprehensions and convictions though.

Sadly true. Just because the people who stole your phone are caught on camera doesn't mean anyone gives a shit. It still takes policing and a DA bringing the case.

> One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended.

The strongest deterrent for the general populace.

Generally speaking, crime rates tend to be pretty low already. So the sample shifts from general populace to those who already commit crimes, or in such an emotional fervor that they gain the capacity for crime.

Among that population, I don't think surveillance cameras are stopping much.

I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here but the literature is pretty clear that their main concern is how likely they think they will be apprehended and cameras + technology + law enforcement clearly make that more likely.

I can't read the paper; did it say the criminals think they will be more likely apprehended by cameras and thus choose not to commit crime? Or did it say two separate things (criminals don't want to be apprehended, cameras lead to more apprehension) and linked them logically rather than with direct evidence?

Also, how can we know how much crime isn't happening due to cameras? If it's like "we installed a camera at location X and crimes there dropped 72%", that's not taking into account that the criminal just found an easier target, leaving the same amount of net crime.

It’s a literature study on crime deterrence and says the strongest deterrent is how likely criminals perceive apprehension.

I.e. they are much more likely to rob a grocery store if they think they won’t get caught, but the penalty for robbing a grocery store being 1 year or 10 years doesn’t have a strong effect on deterrence.

To your second point - I don’t think it is helpful to find hypothetical holes in their methodology, without reading the individual studies.

> I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here

The control group. Aka, the current crime rates right now with current infrastructure. Not a blank slate

In a lawless anarchy, you're probably right that "will I be held accountable for my actions?" Is the nost important question to ask. But we don't live in that society. The question we're asking instead is

1) how much does surveillance augment law enforcement?

2) how much does surveillance deter would be criminals compared to current deterrents that is law enforcement patrolling and reporting?

Cameras and technology don't put people in prison at all, law enforcement and prosecutors do. And, well, do they? Do we know if these cameras actually help? I don't think we do. I don't think anyone is studying this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com