Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Police have been putting cameras up in the worst hoods for years. In fact, on 183rd street, the drug dealing got so blatant and in your face that the 46th precinct put cameras up on 4 consecutive blocks! They have cameras on 183rd and Jerome, a block up on Walton, a block up Morris and finally a block up on Creston. The cameras changed the landscape tremendously. The drug dealing on those 4 blocks were more controlled, but the drug dealers moved to the west side of Jerome (elevated train) and infected the 183rd area and Davidson, Grand, and Aqueduct. Nowadays, the west side has more drug dealing than the areas originally intended. But the original areas of Jerome all the way to Creston, still have drug dealers parked on their corners 24/7. They just go into stores or down a few blocks to sell. So really IMO, cameras have made matters worse. Instead of the drug dealing being concentrated, it is now more spread out. Although the original areas are no longer the drug factories that they once were in 1990. Still among the worst however.
I have also seen cameras on 162nd and Amsterdam avenue in Washington Heights. This was said to be one of the worst blocks in the city back during the crack days. I havent really been around this area at night, but during the day I still see people on the corners. So I dont really know how much, or if it has actually improved.
Again in the Bronx, I seen cameras on Southern BLVD and Freeman street. I didn't really see drug dealers here but I saw plenty of junkies and bums.
IMO, cameras work in buildings or in projects. My building recieved cameras on every floor and in the lobby. All the drug dealers apparently have moved on elsewhere.
But in the streets, the dealers are just going to move on to another block. I think this applies less to robberies and other crimes. If a criminal sees a camera, they wont rob someone on that block or building. The ones who get caught on camera, dont see the camera. But if not there, then somewhere else.
Cameras really do nothing.
I see what you're saying but the issues runs alot deeper than just drugs and crime.
Police have been putting cameras up in the worst hoods for years. In fact, on 183rd street, the drug dealing got so blatant and in your face that the 46th precinct put cameras up on 4 consecutive blocks! They have cameras on 183rd and Jerome, a block up on Walton, a block up Morris and finally a block up on Creston. The cameras changed the landscape tremendously. The drug dealing on those 4 blocks were more controlled, but the drug dealers moved to the west side of Jerome (elevated train) and infected the 183rd area and Davidson, Grand, and Aqueduct. Nowadays, the west side has more drug dealing than the areas originally intended. But the original areas of Jerome all the way to Creston, still have drug dealers parked on their corners 24/7. They just go into stores or down a few blocks to sell. So really IMO, cameras have made matters worse. Instead of the drug dealing being concentrated, it is now more spread out. Although the original areas are no longer the drug factories that they once were in 1990. Still among the worst however.
I have also seen cameras on 162nd and Amsterdam avenue in Washington Heights. This was said to be one of the worst blocks in the city back during the crack days. I havent really been around this area at night, but during the day I still see people on the corners. So I dont really know how much, or if it has actually improved.
Again in the Bronx, I seen cameras on Southern BLVD and Freeman street. I didn't really see drug dealers here but I saw plenty of junkies and bums.
IMO, cameras work in buildings or in projects. My building recieved cameras on every floor and in the lobby. All the drug dealers apparently have moved on elsewhere.
But in the streets, the dealers are just going to move on to another block. I think this applies less to robberies and other crimes. If a criminal sees a camera, they wont rob someone on that block or building. The ones who get caught on camera, dont see the camera. But if not there, then somewhere else.
Cameras really do nothing.
I have to agree with you on this one Mario. I've noticed that 183rd Street between Jerome and University Avenues is one of the most drug and crime-ridden strips in the whole borough.
As for Southern Blvd and Freeman St, there are many drunkies and homeless folks there. I have even seen prostitutes there sometimes.
Police have been putting cameras up in the worst hoods for years. In fact, on 183rd street, the drug dealing got so blatant and in your face that the 46th precinct put cameras up on 4 consecutive blocks! They have cameras on 183rd and Jerome, a block up on Walton, a block up Morris and finally a block up on Creston. The cameras changed the landscape tremendously. The drug dealing on those 4 blocks were more controlled, but the drug dealers moved to the west side of Jerome (elevated train) and infected the 183rd area and Davidson, Grand, and Aqueduct. Nowadays, the west side has more drug dealing than the areas originally intended. But the original areas of Jerome all the way to Creston, still have drug dealers parked on their corners 24/7. They just go into stores or down a few blocks to sell. So really IMO, cameras have made matters worse. Instead of the drug dealing being concentrated, it is now more spread out. Although the original areas are no longer the drug factories that they once were in 1990. Still among the worst however.
I have also seen cameras on 162nd and Amsterdam avenue in Washington Heights. This was said to be one of the worst blocks in the city back during the crack days. I havent really been around this area at night, but during the day I still see people on the corners. So I dont really know how much, or if it has actually improved.
Again in the Bronx, I seen cameras on Southern BLVD and Freeman street. I didn't really see drug dealers here but I saw plenty of junkies and bums.
IMO, cameras work in buildings or in projects. My building recieved cameras on every floor and in the lobby. All the drug dealers apparently have moved on elsewhere.
But in the streets, the dealers are just going to move on to another block. I think this applies less to robberies and other crimes. If a criminal sees a camera, they wont rob someone on that block or building. The ones who get caught on camera, dont see the camera. But if not there, then somewhere else.
Cameras really do nothing.
You said it yourself...cameras deter criminals. In your case they moved AWAY from the area that had cameras, therefore that qualifies it as a successful deterant.
Last edited by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow; 01-23-2009 at 09:16 PM..
You said it yourself...cameras deter criminals. In your case the moved AWAY from the area that had cameras, therefore that qualifies it as a duccessful deterant.
Wow, guys. I can't believe that there are so many people who really can't see ANY problem with these cameras.
Here's where the problem lies for me. If there is initially a reason for the authorities to suspect you of a crime, then they should be attempting to gather evidence to prove or disprove that suspicion. However, being recorded any time you are in a certain vicinity essentially means that the police are gathering information about you without any independent reason to believe you have committed an offense. People do have a certain expectation of privacy in public; I believe that it is reasonable for people who are not suspects of any crime to expect that their actions will not be scrutinized by some governmental body. It's the difference between investigating criminal activity and fishing for it. This is exactly the reason that evidence of a crime can be suppressed when it's obtained through an illegal search-and-seizure. There is a legal precedent in this country that the ends does not justify the means when it comes to law enforcement. It's not enough just to prove that someone committed a crime, it's necessary also to show that you obtained the evidence proving that crime only after you had a good enough reason to look for it. Even people indisputably in possession of illegal contraband are granted an expectation of privacy.
Edited to add, also, that if we are going to be honest about our "conservative/liberal" allegiances, the argument I'm putting forth is really a conservative one in the purest sense, because to say that government should not be observing or interfering in your life without prior reason to do so is actually to advocate limiting governmental power. Why is it that "conservatives," as the term is usually construed, are so in favor of strict constitutional readings when it comes to, say, the right to bear arms, but when it comes to things like the government's ability to monitor American citizens, they're so willing to grant the government all sorts of leniencies that don't exist in the Constitution?
Last edited by dixiecupdrinking; 01-23-2009 at 10:32 PM..
Wow, guys. I can't believe that there are so many people who really can't see ANY problem with these cameras.
Here's where the problem lies for me. If there is initially a reason for the authorities to suspect you of a crime, then they should be attempting to gather evidence to prove or disprove that suspicion. However, being recorded any time you are in a certain vicinity essentially means that the police are gathering information about you without any independent reason to believe you have committed an offense. People do have a certain expectation of privacy in public; I believe that it is reasonable for people who are not suspects of any crime to expect that their actions will not be scrutinized by some governmental body. It's the difference between investigating criminal activity and fishing for it.
We're already being scrutinized in public spaces - for the safety of our country, our neighbors, and ourselves. It sounds fantastic on paper to talk of constitutional rights to not be photographed, etc.
I much prefer a tradeoff and have authorized law enforcement look out for me than have a bunch of ACLU guys running around screaming violation of rights.
We're already being scrutinized in public spaces - for the safety of our country, our neighbors, and ourselves. It sounds fantastic on paper to talk of constitutional rights to not be photographed, etc.
I much prefer a tradeoff and have authorized law enforcement look out for me than have a bunch of ACLU guys running around screaming violation of rights.
The problem is that where these trade-offs end is ultimately a matter of degree and not of kind. You're right that people can be scrutinized in public anyway; you're right that if a cop happens to see a crime be committed in public, they're allowed to make an arrest; and you're right that having a human police officer on the street may not be categorically distinct from having cameras on the street. (In a sense it is distinct, though, in terms of the government's ability to accrue data.) However, for me, there's an intuitive line that gets crossed when you automate the surveillance in this way. I believe this is because there is some remaining privacy that is inherent in the random nature of whether a cop is going to see you at that particular time and place, which is obliterated when a camera's rolling 24/7.
This is probably a basic and unresolvable philosophical issue. I also tend to feel that crime is not best combated by simply locking up whoever commits it, and that much of it is symptomatic of greater social ills. At least things like drug sales. Outright sociopathic behavior like murder, rape, etc., is completely different.
The problem is that where these trade-offs end is ultimately a matter of degree and not of kind. You're right that people can be scrutinized in public anyway; you're right that if a cop happens to see a crime be committed in public, they're allowed to make an arrest; and you're right that having a human police officer on the street may not be categorically distinct from having cameras on the street. (In a sense it is distinct, though, in terms of the government's ability to accrue data.) However, for me, there's an intuitive line that gets crossed when you automate the surveillance in this way. I believe this is because there is some remaining privacy that is inherent in the random nature of whether a cop is going to see you at that particular time and place, which is obliterated when a camera's rolling 24/7.
This is probably a basic and unresolvable philosophical issue. I also tend to feel that crime is not best combated by simply locking up whoever commits it, and that much of it is symptomatic of greater social ills. At least things like drug sales. Outright sociopathic behavior like murder, rape, etc., is completely different.
I hear ya, dixie, but I'm still for it. I do appreciate your sincere and well presented arguments. You write well and I know you mean well.
Wow, guys. I can't believe that there are so many people who really can't see ANY problem with these cameras.
Here's where the problem lies for me. If there is initially a reason for the authorities to suspect you of a crime, then they should be attempting to gather evidence to prove or disprove that suspicion. However, being recorded any time you are in a certain vicinity essentially means that the police are gathering information about you without any independent reason to believe you have committed an offense. People do have a certain expectation of privacy in public; I believe that it is reasonable for people who are not suspects of any crime to expect that their actions will not be scrutinized by some governmental body. It's the difference between investigating criminal activity and fishing for it. This is exactly the reason that evidence of a crime can be suppressed when it's obtained through an illegal search-and-seizure. There is a legal precedent in this country that the ends does not justify the means when it comes to law enforcement. It's not enough just to prove that someone committed a crime, it's necessary also to show that you obtained the evidence proving that crime only after you had a good enough reason to look for it. Even people indisputably in possession of illegal contraband are granted an expectation of privacy.
Edited to add, also, that if we are going to be honest about our "conservative/liberal" allegiances, the argument I'm putting forth is really a conservative one in the purest sense, because to say that government should not be observing or interfering in your life without prior reason to do so is actually to advocate limiting governmental power. Why is it that "conservatives," as the term is usually construed, are so in favor of strict constitutional readings when it comes to, say, the right to bear arms, but when it comes to things like the government's ability to monitor American citizens, they're so willing to grant the government all sorts of leniencies that don't exist in the Constitution?
I wish I knew the answer to that. I would also like to add more to your argument. The government throws around the words "terroism" and "Al Quieda" so much that this literally strikes fear into the public and they go into total submission because they want they're government to protect them. Here are some more FACTS: In mid 2008, the U.S. Attorney General ACTUALLY PROPOSED that Congress officially declare war on terroism (lol). As of July 2008 there are over 1million U.S. citizens on the U.S. Terroism Watch List. What will it take for us to see that these "counter terroism" measures have nonthing to do with safety but protecting the ESTABLISHMENT against the growing Anti-American sentiment both domestically and internationally. Also I will reiterate my previous FACTS.
In 2007, the DoD (Department of Defense) received 168 Billion dollars to fight the "War" on terroism. According to the Counter Terroism Center, in 2004 roughly 2000 people (I believe the exact number was 1907) were killed by significant international terroism. Out of that number of people, 68 were Americans.
Using that number as an average, 70 Americans die each year as a result of terroism (which by the way I'm being EXTREMELY generous). Did you know that TWICE as many people die each year from peanut allergies? Another interesting FACT, the leading cause of death in Americans is Coronary Heart Disease which kills roughly 450,000 Americans each year. In 2007, the governmental allocation of funds on this issue was 3 billion. Therefore, this means that in just 2007 the government spent 54 TIMES the amount on preventing terroism than it did on preventing a disease that kills 6,600 times more people annualy than terroism does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
