Why CCTV does work.

[Evergreen]

ignore the homo ad the clip plays after and long may more twats be caught day after day after day till our prison systems are full and we make a penal colony on the moon.

[Demon Dave]

couldn't you have linked directly to the video, instead of to some other weird forum?

also, the kid got charged didn't he? i'd say that without the CCTV pictures he would have probably been let off, or not got as sever a punishment as he did

[edit] oops, misread thread title, thought you were saying that it didn't work

[JonnyBGood]

Yeah because nobody else was there at all to witness that and it would have been impossible to prove he did anything am I ****ing right?

[Madina]

thats quite bad - not as bad as i used to see on my school bus, some real nasty stuff (worst was 8 people beating 1 up) - i think people that are worried about privacy due to the increase in cameras are stupid, using them lowers the amount of scum

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

and we make a penal colony on the moon.

...or better, recommence deportation to Australia.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah because nobody else was there at all to witness that and it would have been impossible to prove he did anything am I ****ing right?

with the legal systems in both america and here in the uk, i wouldn't be surprised

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Madina

i think people that are worried about privacy due to the increase in cameras are stupid

Yeah, because it's not like they lower privacy or anything.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

with the legal systems in both america and here in the uk, i wouldn't be surprised

"Sir, we've run out of ammunition." "In that case start making papier-mache pictures sergeant!"



Or don't fix one problem by creating another one.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Madina

using them lowers the amount of scum

How does it do that exactly?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

How does it do that exactly?

It has been conclusively proven that the higher the number of cameras in the area the lower the probability of the DNA of children aged 15 and below having a tendency towards crime.


Edit: I feel like I've trolled this thread before

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yeah, because it's not like they lower privacy or anything.

the only people who have to worry about CCTV are the people with something to hide i.e. the guilty ones

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

"Sir, we've run out of ammunition." "In that case start making papier-mache pictures sergeant!"



Or don't fix one problem by creating another one.

in the words of the Virgin Mary, come again?

[Kurashima]

The 3 strikes and youre out rule should include castration. Prevent the criminal gene pool from reproducing.

Oh, or a single sentence in excess of 10 years should come with the same penalty.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

the only people who have to worry about CCTV are the people with something to hide i.e. the guilty ones

I don't know who's trolling who in this thread.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

in the words of the Virgin Mary, come again?

The fact that the legal systems of the US and the UK aren't fully effective is cause for changing the legal systems of both countries so they are. Not putting cameras on street corners, in buses, on mars and next to my bath.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

The 3 strikes and youre out rule should include castration. Prevent the criminal gene pool from reproducing.

Yes, because once we isolate the criminal genes all our problems will be over!

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

The 3 strikes and youre out rule should include castration. Prevent the criminal gene pool from reproducing.

Oh, or a single sentence in excess of 10 years should come with the same penalty.

You may have been joking, but I agree. Sterilisation, anyway.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

the only people who have to worry about CCTV are the people with something to hide i.e. the guilty ones

I support strip searches for all people alighting on trains.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes, because once we isolate the criminal genes all our problems will be over!

well i'm sure that if you were faced with the risk of having your balls chopped off you'd be a little more hesitant about commiting a crime eh?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

well i'm sure that if you were faced with the risk of having your balls chopped off you'd be a little more hesitant about commiting a crime eh?

As opposed to the risk of being put in prison, or being killed?

Hey, I think threats work! There's SO much evidence for it!

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yes, because once we isolate the criminal genes all our problems will be over!

Since when did any solution to any given problem claim to solve all problems?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Since when did any solution to any given problem claim to solve all problems?

First, prove to me that there is a 'criminal' gene.

[Nondescript Human]

I'm no geneticist, but imho all character traits are either inherited or result from experiences.

[Madina]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yeah, because it's not like they lower privacy or anything.

what have you got to hide?
ok if your breaking the law your going to be annoyed cos its more likely your gonna get caught - but if your that bothered that a camera is watching you when you walk home (for example) please explain why? or a camera that monitors the traffic?

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

How does it do that exactly?

well its more likely that the scum (thugs etc.) will get caught doing something there not supposed to do and get banged up - hence lowering the amount of scum - or is my logic on this ****ed?

[Phang]

i would support a move to castrate or hang all people who posted in favour of CCTV or weighed up the merits of criminal castration in this thread

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

I'm no geneticist, but imho all character traits are either inherited or result from experiences.

You forgot 'result from mutation'.

Even then, that doesn't mean that 'criminality' has a genetic component, or a decisive genetic component. It also doesn't mean that there is one 'cause' of criminality, or that there is one isolatable genetic group associated with it.

Genetics is unbelieveably complicated.

[Madina]

Originally Posted by Phang

i would support a move to castrate or hang all people who posted in favour of CCTV or weighed up the merits of criminal castration in this thread

for what reasons?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Madina

what have you got to hide?
ok if your breaking the law your going to be annoyed cos its more likely your gonna get caught - but if your that bothered that a camera is watching you when you walk home (for example) please explain why? or a camera that monitors the traffic?

Speed cameras don't actually record anything long term, they just take isolated images of the road.

I oppose it because it's a reduction of freedom, which is inherently bad. If you don't believe it's inherently bad, then there's no point in arguing with you, and I shall direct you to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

[Madina]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Speed cameras don't actually record anything long term, they just take isolated images of the road.

I oppose it because it's a reduction of freedom, which is inherently bad. If you don't believe it's inherently bad, then there's no point in arguing with you, and I shall direct you to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

ok which part did i say speed cameras? i said TRAFFIC cameras - the ones that monitor the traffic

ok its a reduction of freedom i wont deny that - but its safer having them - surely you can see that

[queball]

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

the only people who have to worry about CCTV are the people with something to hide i.e. the guilty ones

And the people paying for them, ie. everyone.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Madina

ok which part did i say speed cameras? i said TRAFFIC cameras - the ones that monitor the traffic

They do what now?

Originally Posted by Madina

ok its a reduction of freedom i wont deny that - but its safer having them - surely you can see that

It's also safer to have a 3pm curfew, and armed guards outside every domicile.

[Ebany]

They have found that prisons have a higher than usual proportion of men with XYY chromosomes.

Just as a little point. But that isnt something castration will have much effect on.

Also I'd imagine if its being used for preventative effect then castration would be far more effective than sterilisation. 'You wont be producing any more little brats for their mums to bug you for maintenance for' or 'you will never have sex ever again'. Which would YOU be more put off by (for the sake of argument, imagine you live on a council estate full of very easy women and you actually had a chance of having sex ever again in the first place )

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

"Sir, we've run out of ammunition." "In that case start making papier-mache pictures sergeant!"



Or don't fix one problem by creating another one.

You'll be surprised how many assault cases fall apart without CCTV evidence.

[MrL_JaKiri]

As I said, preventative measures never work to stop crime.

[Madina]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They do what now?



It's also safer to have a 3pm curfew, and armed guards outside every domicile.

ok traffic cameras (on motorways usually) work the same as a camera you see in the high street of your local town - they are said to just monitor conjestion and warn drivers of roads not to go on due to gridlock of whatever. but im sure they have a much more sinister role, something i wont deny

and cameras stop us having to have such stupid measures you just suggested - they lower crime - and dont say they dont cos they clearly do

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You forgot 'result from mutation'.

Even then, that doesn't mean that 'criminality' has a genetic component, or a decisive genetic component. It also doesn't mean that there is one 'cause' of criminality, or that there is one isolatable genetic group associated with it.

Genetics is unbelieveably complicated.

True, but the child of a criminal is surely more likely than the average person to become a criminal. Whether this results from inheritance of some gene or group of genes conducive to criminality or upbringing, crime rates would therefore fall if repeat offenders were sterilised.

However, this would probably open the door to all sorts of questions about state interference and individual liberty. Additionally, forfeiting a person the chance to live for their parents' crimes seems unfair when they are born innocent, and the absence of those lives left unlived due to the introduction of this measure would probably outweigh the gain to society from the absence of the small amount of them who become criminals.

So, what I'm trying to say is, I was wrong.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Madina

and cameras stop us having to have such stupid measures you just suggested - they lower crime - and dont say they dont cos they clearly do

Even if they do result in more convictions, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's less crime.

[queball]

I'm actually quite impressed that they feel the need for CCTV on a school bus.

[Madina]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Even if they do result in more convictions, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's less crime.

so the fact that there is a big camera looking at you just as your about to beat up and rob someone? as most of these types of crimes happen in towns (where the cameras are) surely that means less crime will take place?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Madina

so the fact that there is a big camera looking at you just as your about to beat up and rob someone? as most of these types of crimes happen in towns (where the cameras are) surely that means less crime will take place?

As has been said repeatedly, axiomic statements aren't good unless you can justify them to be axiomic. Just stating that something 'must be so' doesn't necessarily mean it IS so.

[Madina]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

As has been said repeatedly, axiomic statements aren't good unless you can justify them to be axiomic. Just stating that something 'must be so' doesn't necessarily mean it IS so.

define axiomic for me

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Madina

define axiomic for me

An axiom is something which is taken to be self evident, and requires no justification.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Madina

so the fact that there is a big camera looking at you just as your about to beat up and rob someone?

If I wanted to beat someone up, I'd be happy to do it on camera. If for some reason I was trying to avoid getting caught, I'd wear womens' legwear on my head.

as most of these types of crimes happen in towns (where the cameras are) surely that means less crime will take place?

I'd have assumed so, but it seems this just hasn't to the extent we expected it would in Britain, where CCTV was put in shopping centres etc. As a theory, the people who get caught tend to be the stupider criminals who aren't as responsive to deterrence.

I feel crime is a bit of a red herring. CCTV gets put in places with low crime rates. Using CCTV on children seems Clockwork Orange-esque. Eliminating crime seems a rather horrible idea, unless it's done in line with our fairly mundane ideas of reparative justice. But I doubt I'm going to convince you of that.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Ebany

They have found that prisons have a higher than usual proportion of men with XYY chromosomes.

I know an even more obvious indicator of genetic tendency towards criminal behavior. And it is inherited. See if you can guess.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by queball

I know an even more obvious indicator of genetic tendency towards criminal behavior. And it is inherited. See if you can guess.

I have an idea what you're talking about and I hope I'm wrong and I won't say what I think you're thinking of because if I do and I'm wrong I'll get attacked for thinking of it

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

I have an idea what you're talking about and I hope I'm wrong and I won't say what I think you're thinking of because if I do and I'm wrong I'll get attacked for thinking of it

Racist.


OK I've done everything I planned to do in this thread.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yeah, because it's not like they lower privacy or anything.

I dont really understand how they lower privacy. As long as the laws of a country are fair, I think sensible use of CCTV is a good way of protecting civilians from potential danger. I utterly object to them being used to catch drug dealers and suchlike, but thats an issue of the law they are being used to enforce rather than the mechanisms of enforcement.

I think that the people making a big deal out of CCTV camera use are making a parody out of the very real issues of privacy and civil liberties. Having a camera watch you on a public street is not an invasion of your privacy.

[LHC]

Hitler was already forgiven in another thread.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I think that the people making a big deal out of CCTV camera use are making a parody out of the very real issues of privacy and civil liberties. Having a camera watch you on a public street is not an invasion of your privacy.

exactly, it would be like me complaining about people looking at me as i walk down the street (which thankfully, as an RPer, i don't do all that often) because it's an invasion of my privacy!

[Nodrog]

On a sidenote, I think this is pretty much the only scenario I've encountered where the 'If youve nothing to hide, its not going to hurt" you cliche is actually semi-valid. Where is the potential for state abuse of CCTV? Where exactly is your freedom belng violated more than if the camera was a person looking out of their front window at you? If the police decided to replace CCTV cameras with an actual policeman stationed in the street, would this somehow be less intrusive? In the future when/if street patrols are performed by robots rather than humans, will the privacy issues still apply?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont really understand how they lower privacy. As long as the laws of a country are fair, I think sensible use of CCTV is a good way of protecting civilians from potential danger. I utterly object to them being used to catch drug dealers and suchlike, but thats an issue of the law they are being used to enforce rather than the mechanisms of enforcement.

I think that the people making a big deal out of CCTV camera use are making a parody out of the very real issues of privacy and civil liberties. Having a camera watch you on a public street is not an invasion of your privacy.

It's more the idea of every move you make in public being recorded by the government and stored in a big secret vault for future use at your trial for crimes against the people and the state that makes everyone rather uncomfortable about the whole thing.



PS I did your argument about 3 weeks ago in another thread! (As in from the cctv isn't that bad really angle.)