I’ve never understood how a passive camera is supposed to actually stop such a $30k heist. I get that it records it but it doesn’t stop anything. Unless you include deterrence but an unplugged fake camera does the same.
It stops this shit over time. So, in other words, the people that would be heisting are now in jail, had ring been popular 10 years ago. If, indeed that doesn't change anything, then the blame would at least be on the police or our laws or something.
Allowing suspects to refuse to answer questions--a/k/a "remaining silent"--means that some people who commit crimes won't self-incriminate, and won't wind up being "punished."
Interrogating suspects without a lawyer present is a related tool for solving more burglaries.
Allowing suspects to have a lawyer present during interrogation definitely means that some people who commit burglaries won't be "punished."
So advocating for the right of suspects to remain silent, and to have a lawyer present during interrogation are both indirect ways of advocating for people committing burglaries to not be punished.
Same for advocating that police evidence which is "fruit of the poisoned tree" not be admissible in court. Or really, for any limitation on enforcement.
It's all implicitly choosing that allowing some people who commit crimes to go free, serves a greater good.
TL;DR The phrase "Advocating that people committing burglaries not be punished" has a lot of nuänce to it. Best not to try to spin it as a simple boolean.
---
There's another thing, which is the word "punished." Punishment is not, and should not, be a goal in any civilized society. That's a whole 'nother discussion, but for the purpose of discussing surveillance, let's agree that we are talking about convicting people who commit crimes, and leave the discussion fo what to do after obtaining a conviction for another day.
You're mentioning things where not getting a verdict is an unfortunate side effect in pursuit of more important goals. That's not what the question was supposed to be about; it's a complete tangent that doesn't help the discussion.
If that’s not what the question was supposed to be about, rephrasing the question, is the best way to get the conversation back on track.
As written, the question positions a discussion about the uses of surveillance technology and the social side-effects as an accusation that people with concerns are against “punishing burglars.”
The problem here is with that kind of, “So, you’re in favour of more crime” rhetoric. In the past, that has been used in extremely dangerous ways.
Giving your argument the benefit of the doubt, I think you're saying:
1. Currently no legally recognized right is being violated by police when they are given Ring surveillance footage from a homeowner to prosecute a potential criminal.
2. But perhaps we should codify some right that prevents the police from obtaining Ring surveillance footage from a homeowner to prosecute a potential criminal.
I agree with 1, but I disagree with 2, and further I suspect you're going to have quite the uphill battle convincing the majority of people some right should exist that prevents homeowners from providing surveillance footage to the police.
I'm not saying either of those things in that comment, what I was saying is that when arguing those things, whether you win or lose that argument with the judicial courts or with the courts of public opinion, it's not correct to summarize the argument as "Arguing that criminals go unpunished."
Win or lose, such arguments are about the appropriate amount of surveillance and the rights of people who may not be criminals but who are caught on "film," who has access to that film, and what can be done with the evidence in that film.
I'm totally up for an argument that what Ring does is appropriate. I'm just not up for arguing that questioning Ring is "Arguing that criminals go unpunished."
It seems pretty obvious that punishment doesn’t work and it is a path to worse disasters for the whole society.
Specifically the comment author was insinuating that just by eradicating a group of individuals out of the society (as punishment) would stop other people to do the same. It seems a very dangerous way of thinking.
The comment author was not insinuating that, you just assumed that. What I was insinuating was that you can't allow unlawful behavior to go unchallenged or else you will have a breakdown of society. Even rehabilitation programs are a form of punishment. If you catch a criminal and they say "I don't want to go to your rehabilitation program", are you just going to say "oh ok" and let them go? Of course not, you force them to go. That is corrective action aka punishment. I just happened to use a term which is loaded on this forum in this context.
The Code of Hammurabi is almost 4000 years old and we still have crime. Punishment is not a deterrent because nobody commits a crime believing they will get caught.
Short answer: Cameras produce the evidence needed to build prosecutable cases that can put burglars in jail (thereby preventing them from victimizing/terrorizing people while they're in jail).
Longer answer: People who commit one burglary often commit multiple burglaries. State's Attorneys won't prosecute cases if they don't have strong evidence. The number of burglary victims in a month is basically given by (number of burglars active in a month)(average frequency of burglary in a month). To reduce the number of victims, you could reduce the number of active burglars in an area, and/or you could work to reduce the frequency of burglary by hardening the world, which would be prohibitively expensive. The former strategy is much less expensive, as video evidence is strong evidence, and video cameras have become very affordable and convenient to operate. This helps build stronger cases, which can remove predators from communities, which averts all of the offenses that the predator would have committed had they not been jailed. It is possible to burgle a home with cameras, just as it's possible to get the flu despite a flu shot, but both the cameras and the flu shots help defend more of society against harm.
It's part of my overall security solution. I also have an alarm system among other things. After being the victim of a $30k heist, I learned not to rely on just 1 method of detection/prevention.
A. It's a detective and corrective control so you can more easily claim losses with insurance and the police, see what has been taken, and know that someone was there.
B. It's a preventive control. People doing recon on your place will see that visible security is in place and that you have done some level of risk management. Perhaps you have other security measures there as well such as an alarm, or maybe you secure your valuables with a safe or they are stored off site which they can't know until they get in. It makes you a less appealing, higher risk target. Additionally, in most neighborhoods you can't walk around in a ski mask without attracting attention, so many burglaries will be done with faces exposed. If someone bursts in and sees they are on camera, maybe they leave without taking anything.
I'm a crime researcher in Chicago and I work mainly on aggravated battery (shooting) and homicide cases. There have been many homicide and shooting investigations that have been substantially aided by Ring footage (always received with the (often enthusiastic) consent of the homeowner). But it typically takes at least 3 years before homicide cases are tried in court, and no responsible law enforcement agency would release information that could impede cases, so it will be a while before any agency does this kind of analysis and decides to publish it (very unlikely without being incentivized by a consent decree or something). A lot of people (read: relatively well-off (white) people who live in safe neighborhoods) are pretty irrational about cameras and law enforcement in general, but the people who live in the neighborhoods where homicides and shootings happen generally hate living with the constant possibility of their loved ones being accidentally shot in a spontaneous shooting, they want these threats removed from their community, and it's much easier and safer to provide footage rather than testify as a witness over many court dates 4+ years later.
TLDR: Yeah, there are many investigations that are only cleared because of CCTV footage, including Ring footage. No, that data isn't public.