Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Automated Speed Enforcement System (ASE)


Traffic enforcement is one of the leading responsibilities of law enforcement officers. Speed enforcement is perhaps one of the leading issues within that of traffic enforcement. However, one prevalent problem exists in the enforcement of speed amongst our law enforcement officers. In order for a police officer to ensure that civilians are properly abiding by the speed limit regulations, a police officer needs to be present and witness the infraction first hand. In today’s tough economic times the number of police officers on the streets is in decline and the importance of traffic enforcement is decreasing due to the limited available resources available to law enforcement. A solution may have been developed that can help in the enforcement of speeding motorists, yet make available police officers to focus on more pressing concerns. The Automated Speed Enforcement System (ASE), has been developed and tested in recent times in Europe. Due to recent economic this same system may very easily find itself being utilized in our society.

The Automated Speed Enforcement system utilizes “one or more motor vehicle sensors producing recorded images of vehicles traveling at speeds above a defined threshold” [1]. “Images captured by the ASE are processed and reviewed in an office environment and violation notices are mailed to the registered owner of the identified vehicle” [1]. Working much like red light cameras, the ASE can regulate speeds of motorists in designated areas without the need of a police officer by issuing fines for speed violations and creating a deterrence effect.

The ASE, like most technological advancements in law enforcement, will most likely be met with opposition and controversy. One such argument already made brings forth the fact that a police officer is not present, and the ASE does nothing to physically stop a motorist from speeding [2]. Another argument questions the motives of cities implementing the system and where exactly the ASE can be and will be used [2]. While these are valid arguments, I believe they do not have the weight to offset the benefits the ASE can yield. While it is true a police officer is not present and the ASE does not have the ability to physically stop a motorist from speeding, I believe the deterrence effect the ASE creates would help to lower the number of speeding motorists in designated areas. Additionally, without the ASE and a police officer being absent there is nothing that deters motorists from speeding, as opposed to at least the deterrence the ASE offers. As for the concern regarding when and where the ASE can be deployed, I feel some simple regulations or assurances can bring about the most benefits. If the ASE were to be deployed in random stretches or highways or city streets I feel the ASE would join red light cameras with the intentions of cities to simply earn more money from hard working citizens. If the ASE were to be only deployed in approved locations for specific reasons I feel it could be ensured that the ASE was truly being used for public safety and traffic enforcement rather than a money making operation. Limiting ASE’s to school and construction zones, where motorists are already supposed to reduce their speed, would further add a deterrence factor to such zones and a punishment would be in place for motorists disobeying speed limits despite the absence of a police officer.

Still a technology that has yet to be commonly utilized in our society, I feel we will soon find Automated Speed Enforcement systems throughout our roadways. However, until the system is actually put into place the arguments for and against such a system remain simply theory and speculation. Unforeseen factors may present themselves once such a system is implemented in our community, but as it stands now I feel the ASE is a viable system that would aid in the deterrence of speeding violations in certain areas, and would help to increase safety issues surround areas such as construction and school zones in relation to passing motorists.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

CCTV

Big Brother, often the term deemed behind the fear of a Government in which it has too much access into the private lives of it’s citizens. CCTV, a closed circuit television system commonly used in the security systems of buildings, banks, casinos, etc. The combination of the two is a subject of great fear to some, while the possible benefits to others warrant a look into the utilization of CCTV systems by the Government for monitoring purposes. One Government has taken this step, the United Kingdom is currently known by some as the most watched society in the world. Hosting the worlds most vast CCTV system the United Kingdom monitors nearly every major public space from the comfort of a central viewing station, located within the city’s local police agency. To some this is perceived as an efficient form of crime control technology by which fewer officers can monitor a much larger area and respond accordingly, typically without the need of an emergency phone call. To others one phrase comes to mind, “big brother is watching”. The vast CCTV system utilized by the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom is often the subject of great debate, controversy, and fear. In looking at the CCTV system of the United Kingdom, we will determine the pros and cons of such a practice as it can apply in American society.

The central debate of our Government utilizing a CCTV system to monitor the public activities of individuals for criminal justice purposes centers around how exactly our Government intends on using them. While the benefits of a CCTV system can be seen in instances such as the Bulger case, in which a 3-year old boy was murdered and a CCTV system caught the murderers luring the boy away from a public shopping center [1]. In contrast, individuals fear that the Government can greatly impose fear on the American public due to the fact that one is always being watched, via a concept such as CCTV use in the UK. Additionally opponents of the CCTV system make the argument that while certain aspects of society can be monitored, crime will simply adapt and move beyond the view of CCTV systems. This is a common theme in the struggle between crime and crime prevention, that has been witnessed with nearly every technological advancement made available to both police and criminal. Perhaps the greatest fear of CCTV opponents lies in the fear that a CCTV system will simply open the door to further Government monitoring of the private lives of society. Intentions such as this have already been seen in the United Kingdom in which the Government use of CCTV systems is common ground.

Aimed at deterring and controlling problems associated with antisocial families in the United Kingdom, Secretary Ed Balls has had 2,000 CCTV cameras installed in the private homes of dysfunctional families across the UK [2]. The reason for such intrusion is that if a child has a more stable home life, they will be less likely to stray into the life of drugs and crime [2]. In addition to such monitoring, a private police force has been developed in which the Government can enforce certain changes in the homes of certain individuals subject to the CCTV systems [2]. From this we can see what the evolution and progression that Government monitoring of the private lives of it’s citizens can entail.


Proponents of a Government-run CCTV system argue that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear in regards to being watched by the Government. Police agencies could also greatly benefit from the implementation of such a system due to the ability to save resources by having fewer officer monitoring a greater area, and responding to situations preventatively rather than reactively. In the United Kingdom, police officers are dispatched faster due to the ability to witness a crime via the CCTV and no need for an emergency call to report it [2].

The benefits of such a CCTV system being utilized by our Government can be noted, and seriously considered as the results in the United Kingdom do speak to the effectiveness of such a practice. Unfortunately, as it relates to our society I do not feel a CCTV system would provide more benefits than it does problems. Our society is greatly based off of personal freedom and privacy, and the implementation of a CCTV speaks largely against such liberties. Additionally, it is my personal opinion that CCTV systems already in place, via banks, casinos, etc, already have the benefits available to crime control practices to negate the need for a Government-run system. This also creates much of the same benefits associated with a Government-run system, without the fear of Government intrusion into the private lives of it’s citizens. While CCTV systems do create some form of crime deterrence and benefits to criminal justice agencies, I feel our society is one based greatly on independence, privacy, and personal freedom. The implementation of a Government-run CCTV system would create much opposition of the general public and an unnecessary fear of our Government.

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Red Light Cameras


We see them in an ever increasing number of intersections. We receive the tickets in the mail without any warning. Generating millions of dollars in revenue for cities across our nation, red light cameras have become a real force to be recognized and feared in our daily commutes. One side of the issue will argue that if you simply didn’t break the law, you wouldn’t be getting a ticket for a red light infraction. On the other hand, individuals argue that red light cameras are an injustice and have no object of safety, simply money and greed.


“According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 22 percent of all traffic accidents in the United States are caused by drivers running red lights” [1]. In order to help combat this issue an advancement in police technology was developed. However, this technology did not allow police officers the ability to be more efficient in catching individuals guilty of red light infractions. Instead, it negated the need for police officers all together, allowing police officers to focus on more important issues. Red light cameras started to appear on intersections throughout the country. A completely automated system that would take the picture of an individual, the make/model of the car, the license plate, and the infraction in process. Shortly there after a ticket complete with picture evidence would be mailed to the address of the individual guilty. These fully automated devices collect all of the evidence authorities need to prosecute red light-runners.

Red light cameras have proved to be incredibly successful in recent years, and across the country cities are simply looking to add more. “Los Angeles' red-light traffic camera program netted more than $6 million last year after expenses” [2]. Due to such success “Los Angeles will be looking to renegotiate contracts and eventually double the overall reach of the program to 64 intersections city-wide” [2]. Currently the LAPD red light camera system issues out approximately 3,600 tickets monthly [2].

Opposition to red light camera systems argue the usage of the cameras by stating success is not measured by safety and the reduction of traffic incidents, but simply by the amount of revenue earned. Unfortunately this argument can be recognized as valid when the Governor of California states “this [red-light cameras] is a revenue producer” for the state and has future sights set on modifying red-light cameras to catch speeders as well [2]. It is motives such as these that has pushed some citizens to call for the banned use of red-light cameras in their state, such as that in Illinois which will undergo a vote to determine the future of red-light camera use.


While the current intentions of red-light camera use may be far less than noble due to the obvious desire of easy money for the cities that deploy them. The technology and original intentions of public safety are worth not ignoring. Active Alliance Transportation acknowledges this in their statement to motorists that “red light cameras are one of many tools for traffic safety and an outright ban or limiting of them eliminates one of these tools” [3]. The truth is red-light cameras are a valuable tool that enable police officers to focus on matters of greater importance by taking the burden of red light infractions off of them. “Red-light and speed cameras can be a valuable traffic enforcement tool if properly focused on safety and altering driver behavior”, as opposed to a revenue generating machine for cities [2]. This is not that apparent truth of today, and until it is red-light cameras will be met with controversy and opposition of the general public.


Works Cited:

[1] Harris, Tom. "How Red-light Cameras Work." How Stuff Works. Discovery Communications, LLC., Web. 28 Feb 2010. .

[2] Connell, Rich. "Los Angeles might expand red-light camera program." L.A. Times. 03 Feb 2010. Tribune, Web. 28 Feb 2010. .

[3] "Red Light Camera Bill Faces Crucial Vote Today." The Expired Meter. 16 Feb 2009. Word Press, Web. 28 Feb 2010. .

[Image 1] http://tsnroundup.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/red-light-cameras.jpg

[Image 2] http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200706/man-sues-red-light- c_460x0w.jpg


[Image 3] http://theexpiredmeter.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/redlight-camera- 3.jpg