I guess you could look at major European cities like London where CCTV is pervasive and other cities with considerably less.
It seems to me that most of the justification for surveillance systems is focused on edge cases, terrorism and paedophilia which are statistically unlikely of affect the vast majority of people.
If you watch some of the reality TV you see in UK about CCTV surveillance you’d think the county is suffering from a crime epidemic when in fact a lot of the situations are minor and often escalated by overly aggressive police officers interacting with uneducated angry drunk people.
Better social policy regarding education and alcohol would be the better solution.
> If you watch some of the reality TV you see in UK about CCTV surveillance you’d think the county is suffering from a crime epidemic when in fact a lot of the situations are minor and often escalated by overly aggressive police officers interacting with uneducated angry drunk people.
I couldn't find London's murder rate further back than 1990 for some reason, but for England, the murder rate is higher now than it's been since at least 1900.
We don't know if CCTV surveillance, gun bans, and silverware purchasing restrictions have had an effect reducing violent crime, but at the very least it hasn't been enough to counter the increase.
> Better social policy regarding education and alcohol would be the better solution.
I'm pretty skeptical that this would decrease violent crime and/or murders. Do you have any evidence for this?
Murder rate or murder rate per capita? Please, please source stats on this kind of thing or we end up talking past each other.
Watch out for "exceptions" causing confusing numbers, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/20/official-fig... : "The official figures [for 2017] also show a 26% rise to 723 in the homicide rate, which includes the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989."
This article also mentions consistently falling police numbers. The police and court services are stretched very thin.
I never said it would decrease either, I said that better social policy would reduce the need for surveillance and aggressive policing — which seem to be more reactionary and designed to appease the typical Daily Mail reader. There are a lot of angry young men with little or no skills in the U.K. with nothing to do. This ASBO generation is who should be helped with better social policy.
The fact is that the homocide rate has utterly collapsed[0].
It’s difficult to compare the murder rate today with 1900 due to economic and cultural shifts. We may as well compare the execution rate, the domestic violence rate and the sexual assault rate too.
What happens when you remove "angry drunk picks a fight" type of crimes from those stats?
Drunk people getting in fights is categorically different from violent crime committed for material gain (robbery, carjacking, etc). The causes for the problem and the way to go about solving the problem are totally different. Keeping people from getting angry drunk is not going to stop a home invasion. Stopping a home invasion is not going to improve crime stats because it's a single instance of violent crime. It's very possible to have a society relatively devoid of "violent crime" in which drunken brawls are fairly common. It's also possible to live in a society with lots of violent crime but no bar fights.
Including or excluding drunks to make the crime stats look how you want them to is no more honest than using gang violence to make the "mass shooting" statistics look how you want them to.
You can't just paint with a broad brush when it comes to violent crime (well you can but it's stupid and counterproductive if your goal is to understand crime for the purpose of advocating for public policy that reduces it). A drunk guy getting in a fight is different from domestic violence is different from robbing a delivery driver but they'll all show up when you "select * where includes_assault = true;"
Of course, it’s not something I would normally watch. It is however very popular with my parents generation. They get very invested in the whole idea of the world falling apart when the data shows that crime is falling.
Maybe because of the "it was better when we were young" kind of ideas? Obviously it was and it will be for us too. We were younger, healthier, stronger and living in the environment we were raised into, not something made by younger and unfathomable minds.
I've seen some English reality / cop TV, it's entertaining enough - mostly because most of the crime shown there is benign, like idk, people driving without a license or drunk people. They probably make those shows on purpose though, showing on the one side that crime isn't that bad, and on the other to remind people to keep their insurance up to date because the cops are watching.
There appears to be a good bit of literature on the Stop and Search tactic[0] and also the examples of the harassment of law abiding photographers in the U.K.[1]
It’s race to the bottom policing that’s approaching the US model. Assume everyone is a criminal (when crime is at an all tome low), dress police officers up in tactical gear, and turn them into enforcers rather than protectors.
You can visit many town centres in the UK on a Friday evening and witness it yourself, to a degree. The Police also have a habit of speaking some other kind of language that has the effect of causing people who are already bad tempered to become even more so.
The current Mayor of London (Sadiq Khan), his religion (Islam) and immigration are unrelated.
Sadiq Khan is the Labour candidate who succeeded the previous Conservative mayor by majority in a democratic vote. Swings between the two major parties are common.
In other totally unrelated news, 12% of the population of London are Muslim.
Your reckless conflation of facts paints you as a troll of religious discrimination if not outright racism.
While I may disagree with the parent post, I do not agree with this one either. Just because some people did horrible things in the past from the country that I had no control over does not mean that these evil things should be done to me, too. It does not justify it. Not at all.
The point is that many of the Rule Britannia white nationalists in the UK point out anyone who is not white Anglo Saxon as immigrants who should all be deported when in fact many of the wide range of ethnicities that call the UK home first settled there during the days of empire or from commonwealth countries.
I guess it’s not unlike the situation with the recent treatment of Puerto Rico by the US.
I did not intend to say that legal immigration is an "evil thing". As far as I am concerned the parent comment tried to justify it in such a way that just because some people from England colonized some parts of the planet through aggression in the past, then somehow it necessarily follows that people who live in England today must agree to open borders, or say, illegal immigration. Illegal immigration because, "after all, people from England colonized the planet through aggression before! You deserve it!". See what I mean? This is what I thought the parent meant. It might be the case that I am biased because I did argue with too many people holding this belief: "your ancestors did terrible things, therefore you should keep quiet and take it!". I do not agree. In case this is not what the parent meant, or you think he meant something else, please do not hesitate to correct me.
It seems to me that most of the justification for surveillance systems is focused on edge cases, terrorism and paedophilia which are statistically unlikely of affect the vast majority of people.
If you watch some of the reality TV you see in UK about CCTV surveillance you’d think the county is suffering from a crime epidemic when in fact a lot of the situations are minor and often escalated by overly aggressive police officers interacting with uneducated angry drunk people.
Better social policy regarding education and alcohol would be the better solution.