Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt has come up with a novel idea for a cost-effective method of combating crime in areas with histories of frequent criminal incidents. He's suggesting that in addition to installing security cameras in shopping malls and on downtown streets (already a common practice), private residences and in particular "large apartment complexes" should be equipped with cameras as a condition of their receiving building permits. Houston is currently reeling from a large influx of evacuees from the New Orleans area, many of whom are moving into apartment complexes in already crime-ridden neighborhoods. This has exacerbated Houston’s crime problem at a time when the police force has been depleted by a wave of retirements coupled with recruiting shortfalls. Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt proposed that cameras be placed in residences that require repeated police responses.
"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Hurtt told reporters.
Seems, reasonable, doesn’t it? Predictably, ACLU spokesperson Scott Henson, director of something called the Police Accountability Project in Texas, raised objections to the proposal, saying
”Blah blah Constitution blah blah Bill of Rights blah blah Unreasonable Searches blah blah blah.”
(But of course, that’s what those guys always say. )
Others, such as Andy Teas with the Houston Apartment Association, pointed out that although some might object to the perceived invasion of privacy presented by having a camera in their homes which feeds live video directly to police headquarters, many others would be thankful to have “extra eyes watching out for them.”
Hear, hear! The only problem I have with Chief Hurtt's proposal is that it doesn't go far enough. I mean, sure it’s a good start, putting cameras in the projects, er I mean in poor neighborhoods, er that is to say in high crime neighborhoods. After all, if the police are constantly being called in because of problems caused by those people then it stands to reason they’d have an interest in keeping a close eye on them and anybody else who happens to be in the vicinity. People who live near criminals should expect to be treated like criminals. Don't like it? Move somewhere else.
But as long as we’re pointing cameras at the places that have the highest statistical probability of having crimes occur, let’s really get serious about it. Why not mount high-powered, remote-controlled rifles on those cameras? You want to talk about deterrents to crime? How about the deterrent when you notice that, not only is a camera tracking your every move, but you just heard the bolt click on a high-powered rifle aiming directly at your head? Which now has a little red dot projected on the side of it. Still feel like committing a crime?
Since the rifles would be controlled remotely by officers well out of the line of fire, the danger presented to law enforcement would be dramatically reduced, which could also really help bring up those lackluster recruiting numbers. Also, the absence of any real threat to the officer making the decision to fire would likely reduce incidents where on-scene officers might, in the heat of the moment and believing they are acting in self-defense, mistakenly fire on an unarmed African immigrant forty-one times. Conversely, incidents when an officer mistakenly does not fire on a dangerous individual would be all but eliminated.
All of this could be accomplished using technology that has been available for decades. But there are some relatively recent technological developments that offer even greater law enforcement opportunities. Two technologies that offer huge potential for remote law enforcement are RFID chips and biometrics. Combined with recent developments in domestic surveillance database coordination, these can be powerful tools for monitoring and discouraging criminal activity in all sorts of environments. Starting in 2008, the Real ID Act stipulates that all state driver’s licenses will contain computer chips that will allow all cardholders to be remotely identified and referenced in a number of databases, with accompanying biometric information to assure that the possessor of the card is actually the person depicted on the card. Imagine if you will how such a scenario might play out:
Officers sitting in a remote monitoring room notice unusual activity in one of the low-income apartment complexes they are charged with “patrolling.” They spot an individual engaging in “loitering” or “suspicious behavior.” At this point, using the old methods, the observers would continue their monitoring until the suspect committed a crime on camera, at which point they would call for officers to respond. But with the new technology, the moment they notice something amiss, they can target individuals and, using the RFID chips and biometric information encoded in their IDs, they can access numerous databases to find out pertinent information to inform the decision of what to do next. Outstanding warrants, prior arrests and convictions, medical records, credit ratings, recent web searches -– all of these are factored in to the decision whether to issue a warning, call for an officer on-scene, deploy non-lethal force options or fire on the suspect. You say you were once arrested for disturbing the peace? Prone to violent rages? Late returning a video? Say hello to the little red dot. Always remember that everything you do is going down on your permanent record. (Those who would attempt to circumvent such measures by not carrying ID on their persons would do well to consider that not carrying ID is often in and of itself a crime.)
The possibilities really are endless. Not just for extending the reach of overstretched law enforcement agencies, but for reducing costs as well. For instance, there’s no real reason why the officers doing the monitoring have to be local. Having the work performed by trained officers in say, Pakistan or China could save municipalities millions in labor costs (providing cities can overcome the objections of law enforcement unions to outsourcing.) By targeting areas that already have a history of criminal activity, the need for patrolling officers would be further reduced, bringing down costs even more. For law enforcement agencies and for law-abiding citizens, it's be a win/win!
In the low-income housing units where such systems have already been tested they have led to impressive reductions in incidents.
Of course there is sometimes no substitute for good old-fashioned hands-on law enforcement. Which is why one proven method of crime prevention, while decidedly low-tech, remains well worth a second look. I’m speaking, of course, about cavity searches. Why, in this day and age, do people get so worked up over a simple cavity search? I mean, if you’re not storing any contraband up there, why should you be worried? It’s a relatively simple procedure, just like a trip to the doctor. Sure it’s embarrassing and a little uncomfortable when the officer asks you to bend way over so he can look shine a penlight up your anal passage and have a look around. But isn’t the momentary discomfort and humiliation worth it for the peace of mind you get knowing that nobody else in the shopping mall is smuggling plastic explosives in their ass?
If your answer is “no,” then what exactly are you trying to hide?
excellent response!
it's so sad that our culture is responding to outbreaks of crime by just thinking of more ways of punishment instead of perhaps trying to work on the source of the problem. the city of oakland has 62 empty spots on its police force right now b/c of lack of qualified applicants - no one wants to be a cop in a high-crime city. i fear that, like the Army, they're going to start lowering the qualifications standards for police just to get people on the streets, and soon we'll have a lot more "renegades" on our hands who will think your Red Dot idea is brilliant.
Posted by: amy.leblanc at March 2, 2006 02:37 PM