Monday, January 12, 2015

A Life Lost: When Spending Millions On Surveillance Isn't Enough


On December 30th, an elevator shooting that was caught on camera was released to the public. A clear image of a hooded thug aiming his weapon at someone in a Gates Avenue building elevator – shooting the guy in the stomach – will hopefully result in an arrest.

If I had the resources, the time – and maybe an intern – I would investigate how many criminals were arrested based on surveillance findings last year and how many unsolved cases still exist despite footage capturing someone in the act.

A young man, shown on camera walking through the Bayview Houses in Canarsie in March 2014, was apprehended for robbery shortly after his image was released to the public. Whether the arrest was a result of the new technology installed at the housing development or thanks to quick-acting residents who recognized the thug in time, it’s not worth much when you realize that cameras won’t literally prevent crime from occurring.

Yes, criminals might be deterred from committing an act if they know they’re on camera, but they could easily conceal their identity and get away with murder, should they feel the need to commit one. Unless there’s a security guard behind the scenes, watching the live video feed who will act promptly before the suspect flees scene, too many tragedies will occurr with only a video camera in place.

In my opinion, it won’t be enough to spend millions upon million of dollars on installing cameras in city buildings, as per Mayor Bill de Blasio’s announcement last year. Let’s get real! When the media publishes the headline and story: “shooter/stabber/robber caught on camera,” the horrific act has already been committed. A life has already been lost, changed or impacted…A wallet or phone has already been stolen and an attack has already traumatized the victim.

Most criminals aren’t banking on getting arrested – or most of them wouldn’t be committing the crime in the first place (unless we’re under the assumption that all criminals are somehow mentally unfit, which results in them making irrational decisions)! We’ve seen plenty of camera footage where gunmen opened fire in the middle of the street outside of a club or house party. It’s great that we have images of the reckless punks, but in many unfortunate cases, police were unable to respond fast enough to catch up with the suspects – who already left multiple people with wounds that perhaps scarred them for life.

It’s satisfying knowing that justice will be served and that a criminal will do time as a result of being positively identified via technology. But for scum-of-the-earth nutcases like Daniel St. Hubert, who brutally stabbed two innocent children in an elevator in the Linden Boulevard Houses in 2014, justice can’t come soon enough even though he was arrested within a few days of the stabbings. 
We’re still waiting for him to be officially sentenced and serve his time in prison. As of this week, there’s no word on when St. Hubert will serve his 25 to life sentence. So would it have mattered if a camera were installed in those buildings? Even if he knew he was on camera, I don’t think he was in a sensible, normal frame of mind to realize what he was doing was in the first place. A normal person takes a knife to two defenseless children?

We need more human presence than we need machines and technology to simply observe a crime going down. Let’s see if the billions of dollars spent on installing cameras will spare the lives of thousands of victims waiting to be shot, stabbed, robbed and attacked.
When crime decreases in buildings that already have cameras, we might have a chance to capture the moment – and the crook – before it’s too late.

No comments:

Post a Comment