Street cameras

Victimless crimes can still be immoral and thus, crimes. Prostitution has no victims but it is immoral and untraditional, not to mention against family values, and therefore outlawed with good reason.

I think after they see that they could easily becaught, most would likely quit after their first warning.

But an accident COULD'VE occured. It's a "better safe than sorry" attitude with speeding.

Then that is the venue of schools. It is the responsibility of schools to educate people on morality.

It would be more practical than jail for the first instances. Afterwards people would realize that they won't be getting away with it and that would likely cut down, if not eliminate, the crime.

Yes

Fines would be the most practical for the first instances. Afterwards we can hope the prostitutes will realise they will not be getting away with it and quit. And after that, the rest can of course be properly prosecuted.

No. I was thinking of compulsary police service.

I think this is beneficial for two reasons:
it teaches people about the law and gives them such experience as a citizen
it raises police count

Both can be done

Why?

It's your government's job to protect you where you can't protect yourself, or where you fail to protect yourself.

A violation of privacy. However, public areas are public and thus no privacy is being violated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, yes. The morality police...

I think differently.

Maybe. But an accident DIDN'T occur. (It's more effective in bold and caps, norsefire)

In part, perhaps. Along with family, elders, etc. Regardless of who's responsibility it is, we still need those morality police though, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So we wouldn't be using cameras to enforce the laws on first time offenders?

Afterwards? After what?

No.

What if they can't pay the fine? Throw them in jail?

I disagree. You weren't thinking at all.

Well, we gotta raise the police count, you've made that clear.

*sigh* I just spent an hour explaining my reasons to you...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Protect me from what?

So crime in the home is ok. That ones a real gem, norsefire.

Let's see. Does that include murder, rape, assault and robbery?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Society needs an adopted morality, so yes, extremely immoral acts can be punished. And they are. Prostitution, for instance. Law is based on a mixture of morality and logics.

After they see how easy it would be for them to be caught and that they would in fact be punished severely for their actions, after a fine they'll understand

Better safe than sorry. Or are we to do dangerous deeds and hope that nobody is harmed?

To ensure that morality is being upheld.

I wasn't referring to first time offenders as much as I was referring to offenders who, before the camera network, were not being caught. As you say there may be alot of them, so in order to ensure that they realize that they now WILL be caught, we should simply fine them.

After the much improved efficiency of law enforcement

Yes

What happens to people who cant pay their fines?

Yes, I was.
It would be like compulsary military service, except it's police. It could be basic training and teach the operation of law enforcement

It would also likely help the general populace get a better understanding with the law

All in all it'd do much help

Most definitely

And yet you've given no good reason.

Big brother won't take away your freedoms. It'd only ensure that the government is able to help when needed and that the people are safe and sound.

Crime.

It's not ok. But it's something in which cameras could not be properly justified, since they are homes and therefore private.

Cameras in public areas could be justified in both that they are in public areas and then that they would help to monitor crime

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm sorry norsefire, I've got to run now. You see, the morality police are at my door. They say they're here to protect me. It appears there is too much rampant immorality on SciForums and I have to go, for my own good.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(PS - I will try to sneak back on tomorrow)

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. I do not want routinely armed Police, and using deadly force would certainly cause me to rebel. The Police need to garner the trust of the populace to be effective, and the more force they use, the less effective they are, because the populace shun them, and stop sharing information.

Also, maybe you should ask the family of Jean Charles de Menezes about deadly force, and see what they think. Unless of course you want to be shot dead for going about your legal business.

I disgree. The govt need to do the least to secure the state. Any more is oppression. If they have no cause to look, they shouldn't look. That is freedom, maybe what you have been sold seems like freedom to you, but to those of us who know what it is really, surveilled freedom is nothing of the sort.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. I do not want routinely armed Police, and using deadly force would certainly cause me to rebel. The Police need to garner the trust of the populace to be effective, and the more force they use, the less effective they are, because the populace shun them, and stop sharing information.

Also, maybe you should ask the family of Jean Charles de Menezes about deadly force, and see what they think. Unless of course you want to be shot dead for going about your legal business.

I disgree. The govt need to do the least to secure the state. Any more is oppression. If they have no cause to look, they shouldn't look. That is freedom, maybe what you have been sold seems like freedom to you, but to those of us who know what it is really, surveilled freedom is nothing of the sort.

 

They would do both. They'd be well armed and authorized in case of a situation arising, but they'd still treat the people with care and trust.

No. Root word: govern. Therefore in order for a government to govern, they need to have information and power.

The government is not some threatening entity. It's your government, made up of people, people whose job is dedicated to protecting and helping you.

 

Because we all know that only trained police can be trusted with guns?​

Come on, let's be logical. Where might we find a bunch of people walking around with guns and knives. The military and gun shows, a couple of the safest places to be.

They say that criminals prefer easy prey. Translation—unarmed. When "dear old granny" might be packing a piece on her, stealing her purse for a few bucks for a drug fix, isn't going to look very attractive, even to the most stupid criminals.

Aren't there statistics relating those States with the most strict gun laws, to having the worst crime? Think about it. There's reasons for that. In places where most anybody can be armed, criminals probably have a fairly short life expectancy. Not much "repeated offenses" going on. So either they behave, or they move to other States with strict gun laws, where they are less likely to encounter armed citizens when they commit their terrible crimes. But then "educated" liberals are "too smart" to figure out such simple things?

old saying: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Adolf Hitler was a proponent of gun control. I wonder why? Maybe unarmed people are easier to enslave or kill off?

There's a saying that "Crime does not pay." Oh really? Wouldn't that be especially true, in an armed society?

How long does it take the police to answer a call anyway? A minute? A person could be dead in a minute. Might it help, if somebody closer by, was armed?

"Stop a riot. Buy a gun." some bumper sticker I saw somewhere

Where didn't the rioters go in LA? Wasn't it the Korean neighborhoods, or so I heard something? Because those people had guns.

 

Actually, one place that security cameras really do belong, is on police cars, for the police's own protection. To help keep them always "professional." And to add to evidence against any perpetrators that they catch. Surely a tape of a DUI driver, wobbling all over the road, can't even walk straight out on the street, isn't going to help him get off with a "techicality" or a "slap on the wrist?" Can anybody not see how "guilty" he is? Mouthing off to the policeman, acting like a complete drunk jerk?

 

Governments too often "forget" to treat us with respect, when we carelessly hand over all the power to them.​

A lot of the misperception, comes from that we have forgotten who is the government in a free society. There's too much "us and them" mentality. No, WE are the government. Read the 2nd Amendment carefully. We are the militia, we are the "minutemen." It is us, who may someday have to answer the call to arms or to duty. I want my neighbor to take up arms against a criminal, if he has to, to defend his family, that way, that criminal won't live to see the day when he can attack my family.

 

LMAO, have you ever worked for a "Government"? Most people there I would stop your description at "job", that's it. They don't give a fuck about you ,any more than your average Joe.

Governments, may not threaten, but they always grow and grow and grow until they cannot be maintained or until the people no longer want to maintain them. Then the people change the government(hopefully through some kind of mini-revolution or reform party empowered peaceful means).

So all your cameras need to be maintained and people paid to watch people. It's a clusterfuck and governments grow fast enough without paying lard asses to get their jollies watching people.

 

I don't like seeing guns on the street. We really do not have a high enough level of violent crime in the UK to make routinely arming the Police worthwhile, and it's quite clear the more paramilitary the Police look, the less support they get. They create the divide by dressing like like normal citizens, and more like an occupying force.

They don't govern. They care take. I pay them to look after stuff I don't have time to do myself. They are not my master, they are my employee.

That is true until they use 'function creep' to usurp civil rights. I won't stand for intrusion of my privacy, collection of data they have no reason to hold, increased detention periods without criminal charge, and armed paramilitary police on the streets. Freedom is not having all of these things, all of the time. Like I said, you just don't seem to undersand freedom. Freedom is not a theme park, it is not some false construct, it is a wide open space, with as few barriers and walls as possible.

 

Then we can take the power back.

I know. And that's my point. The government is just part of the people, and they are people who are dedicated to protecting society.

But more force can be tougher on crime, especially violent crime.

No, they govern. It's called the government. Their job is to regulate and monitor the society.

Privacy from the government? :roflmao:
They don't need reason to hold anything. They're the government.

Freedom is silly without regulation and protection.

 

Society is only whatever the bulk of the people agree to. If the bulk of "society" rebel against cameras, it doesn't happen. With each new intrusion on what was previously a privilege or a right, new "criminals" are created(people who will not follow the new jackass rule). When enough of "Society" becomes criminal, "Society" is about to reap what it sowed.

 

I think you are just naive. You don't understand human nature. We are not cattle. We do not like to be herded. Push us, we push back. If the Police start looking like an army, they will find a war. Public opinion is the most important factor when it comes to effective Policing. If the Police want co-operation, they must build bridges with the population.

We've had riots before, and a paramilitary police force would just encourage more.

You just don't get it. I pay them, they work for me. Maybe you want to be pushed around, but don't assume the rest of us are so docile.

Freedom is living with minimum regulation.

 

It's for the benefit of society

It isn't pushing anything around. It's the government ensuring our protecting as we go about our business.

Freedom is foolish without guidelines, as it's practically anarchy.

 

*Ahem* Norsefire, please explain exactly how you 'regulate' freedom? Isn't that an oxymoronic statement by definition?

 

Yes, total freedom is total anarchy. What's your point? Is this bad? Why?

 

There should be guidelines. So it wouldn't be total freedom. There would be guidelines, procedures, and certain establishements and specifications. It would be, however, for the greater good in ensuring stability and safety, a price we should be willing to pay.

Yes. Why? Because you can't have a society in an anarchy

 

'Should' be? Why?

For the greater good of whom?

Really, aren't we talking a matter of degree here? It seems selfevident that all societies develop a system of government in which individual freedoms are traded for 'stability and safety'. Why do you desire so much protection? Why are you willing to sacrifice personal liberty in the name of this 'protection'? Have you looked at the historical connotation of 'benevolent dictatorships'? Or do you make this up as you go along?

Sure you can. You just can't have the society you envision.