[braythwayt]

Sometimes, yes!

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.

[Dylan16807]

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.

[braythwayt]

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.

[bendbro]

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.

[braythwayt]

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."

[stevenhuang]

We are talking about those who have commited crimes & are caught in the act, not alleged/unsubstantiated claims.