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.
No comments:
Post a Comment