By Selwyn Duke
If you know anything about Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley, you may understand that he is one of the truly odious characters on the American political scene. He is the quintessence of a leftist: Ever ready to wax sanctimonious, act paternalistically, and micromanage people lives while being thoroughly corrupt in his own.
His latest boast is that no one will have to worry about terrorism if the Windy City gets the 2016 Olympics because, by that year, Chicago will have "a surveillance camera on every corner . . . ." And if I know anything about Daley, he probably proclaimed this while brimming with pride, as if it's a real badge of honor.
Fran Spielman at the Chicago Sun-Times writes about the camera plan:
But even before that blanket coverage begins, the “Big Brother’’ network is being put to better use.
Call takers and dispatchers now see real-time video if there is a surveillance cameras within 150 feet of a 911 call, thanks to a $6 million upgrade to the city’s “computer-aided dispatch” system.
When live video appears, call takers can pan, tilt and zoom those cameras to get the best possible view of a crime or disaster scene.
Daley isn't alone in kvelling at the idea of this brave new world. Joining him is a lackey named Jody Weis, who appears to have been elevated to the position of police superintendent. She said that the camera system's crime-fighting potential is "limitless.'"
Yes, I'm sure it is. It would be even more effective if we placed cameras in every room of every home. Why not? That way, we could eliminate all domestic violence and child abuse as well. However, we should begin where crime prevention is most needed. Thus, I suggest starting with the homes and offices of Chicago officials; in fact, we should also tape every one of their conversations. And I'm sure they wouldn't mind. As they might say, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
As many of you no doubt know, surveillance cameras are being embraced by an increasing number of localities. And the English seem to be taking to them more than tea time and plum pudding. London, for instance, is known for its "Ring of Steel," a citywide network of 500,000 cameras. Yes, that's 500,000, Mr. Winston Smith.
A "civilization" that believes it necessary to surveil its population is hardly worthy of the label. It is a dying civilization. In a healthy one, people are largely moral and will govern themselves rightly, for the most part. They don't have to be watched like two-year-olds.
Also true is that a healthy nation will punish the relatively few miscreants it does have harshly enough to deter criminal behavior. I addressed this factor in a WorldNetDaily piece I penned titled, "Why lovers of freedom are camera shy." When talking about how to effectively thwart crime I wrote:
. . . one begins with the understanding that risk is determined by a combination of two factors:
* The actual punishment administered.
* The probability that a transgressor will be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted.
This means that as punishment becomes less severe, the apprehension rate must increase to maintain a given deterrent. And one reason we don't thwart crime as effectively as we could is that we forget the second factor when assessing risk; we only take the punishment into consideration. This creates an economic calculus that favors the criminal.
For instance, it's said that theft entails only a .6 percent chance of being caught and convicted; therefore, a thief has to commit an average of about 167 crimes before he will be incarcerated. Now, since the average sentence for theft is only about two months, this means a thief may serve an average of less than nine hours per robbery.
It's not really hard to understand -- except for a morally corrupt people. Then it's a matter of, as the Bible says, "eyes blinded by sin."
Regardless, I'm not inclined to sacrifice liberty for security. Unfortunately, though, too many Americans today are content to be a bird in a gilded cage.
© 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved
Big Brother is Watching You: A "Camera on Every Corner"
If you know anything about Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley, you may understand that he is one of the truly odious characters on the American political scene. He is the quintessence of a leftist: Ever ready to wax sanctimonious, act paternalistically, and micromanage people lives while being thoroughly corrupt in his own.
His latest boast is that no one will have to worry about terrorism if the Windy City gets the 2016 Olympics because, by that year, Chicago will have "a surveillance camera on every corner . . . ." And if I know anything about Daley, he probably proclaimed this while brimming with pride, as if it's a real badge of honor.
Fran Spielman at the Chicago Sun-Times writes about the camera plan:
Call takers and dispatchers now see real-time video if there is a surveillance cameras within 150 feet of a 911 call, thanks to a $6 million upgrade to the city’s “computer-aided dispatch” system.
When live video appears, call takers can pan, tilt and zoom those cameras to get the best possible view of a crime or disaster scene.
Daley isn't alone in kvelling at the idea of this brave new world. Joining him is a lackey named Jody Weis, who appears to have been elevated to the position of police superintendent. She said that the camera system's crime-fighting potential is "limitless.'"
Yes, I'm sure it is. It would be even more effective if we placed cameras in every room of every home. Why not? That way, we could eliminate all domestic violence and child abuse as well. However, we should begin where crime prevention is most needed. Thus, I suggest starting with the homes and offices of Chicago officials; in fact, we should also tape every one of their conversations. And I'm sure they wouldn't mind. As they might say, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
As many of you no doubt know, surveillance cameras are being embraced by an increasing number of localities. And the English seem to be taking to them more than tea time and plum pudding. London, for instance, is known for its "Ring of Steel," a citywide network of 500,000 cameras. Yes, that's 500,000, Mr. Winston Smith.
A "civilization" that believes it necessary to surveil its population is hardly worthy of the label. It is a dying civilization. In a healthy one, people are largely moral and will govern themselves rightly, for the most part. They don't have to be watched like two-year-olds.
Also true is that a healthy nation will punish the relatively few miscreants it does have harshly enough to deter criminal behavior. I addressed this factor in a WorldNetDaily piece I penned titled, "Why lovers of freedom are camera shy." When talking about how to effectively thwart crime I wrote:
. . . one begins with the understanding that risk is determined by a combination of two factors:
* The actual punishment administered.
* The probability that a transgressor will be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted.
This means that as punishment becomes less severe, the apprehension rate must increase to maintain a given deterrent. And one reason we don't thwart crime as effectively as we could is that we forget the second factor when assessing risk; we only take the punishment into consideration. This creates an economic calculus that favors the criminal.
For instance, it's said that theft entails only a .6 percent chance of being caught and convicted; therefore, a thief has to commit an average of about 167 crimes before he will be incarcerated. Now, since the average sentence for theft is only about two months, this means a thief may serve an average of less than nine hours per robbery.
It's not really hard to understand -- except for a morally corrupt people. Then it's a matter of, as the Bible says, "eyes blinded by sin."
Regardless, I'm not inclined to sacrifice liberty for security. Unfortunately, though, too many Americans today are content to be a bird in a gilded cage.
© 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved
Posted at 06:07 AM in Crime and Justice, Politics, Snap Commentary, Social Issues | Permalink