Cameras
"Ideally, there should be few laws, seldom changed."
Aristotle
I've been following the brouhaha in nearby Heath, Ohio, over camera enforcement of speed limits. The city had cameras mounted on a major thoroughfare to track, picture and automate the speed ticketing process. The result: 10,000 tickets issued in four weeks. Violators all were ticketed. Protests ensued and some solutions were developed in short order.
First, I support the cameras. If you speed, you speed. The law is blind, or the camera sees all. Either way, we end up with uniform enforcement. There is not much of a question about whether or not citizens broke the law. The cameras and software work fairly well.
But I started to think about the process. Kant's universal law came to mind: Act only on maxims that can be universal law. Next to Aristotle's advice on laws (see above).
I started asking friends how they would fare under an all-seeing enforcement system. "What if there were cameras everywhere?' "What if every action you took was recorded and acted upon by law enforcement?" Every action in your car, your home, your paperwork, your conversations. We have technology to record calls, store messages, create satellite images, you name it. And we have innumerable laws regulating every aspect of life. What if behind that technology and within the framework of laws was an automated enforcement program that issued tickets and court summons for infractions?
I like the idea. I think it gets us back to Aristotle. The judicial system might be crushed under the pressure - not good. But we might be forced to examine the laws in place - good. If the absurd laws that are forever enacted by councils, legislatures and regulatory bodies had to stand up to the universal law test, we would have a massive uprising as regular citizens were transformed into outlaws by a universal, even application of those laws.
The folly of our over-lawed society would be exposed and we could begin the important return to Aristotle's maxim. We could focus on real criminals. Imagine that.
Aristotle
I've been following the brouhaha in nearby Heath, Ohio, over camera enforcement of speed limits. The city had cameras mounted on a major thoroughfare to track, picture and automate the speed ticketing process. The result: 10,000 tickets issued in four weeks. Violators all were ticketed. Protests ensued and some solutions were developed in short order.
First, I support the cameras. If you speed, you speed. The law is blind, or the camera sees all. Either way, we end up with uniform enforcement. There is not much of a question about whether or not citizens broke the law. The cameras and software work fairly well.
But I started to think about the process. Kant's universal law came to mind: Act only on maxims that can be universal law. Next to Aristotle's advice on laws (see above).
I started asking friends how they would fare under an all-seeing enforcement system. "What if there were cameras everywhere?' "What if every action you took was recorded and acted upon by law enforcement?" Every action in your car, your home, your paperwork, your conversations. We have technology to record calls, store messages, create satellite images, you name it. And we have innumerable laws regulating every aspect of life. What if behind that technology and within the framework of laws was an automated enforcement program that issued tickets and court summons for infractions?
I like the idea. I think it gets us back to Aristotle. The judicial system might be crushed under the pressure - not good. But we might be forced to examine the laws in place - good. If the absurd laws that are forever enacted by councils, legislatures and regulatory bodies had to stand up to the universal law test, we would have a massive uprising as regular citizens were transformed into outlaws by a universal, even application of those laws.
The folly of our over-lawed society would be exposed and we could begin the important return to Aristotle's maxim. We could focus on real criminals. Imagine that.
I like the cameras, too. Heath has had several instances when people were dead certain that they hadn't run red lights. But the videos don't lie. Once they saw the tapes, they couldn't help but conclude that they had in fact run those lights. Some have even apologized. Nothing any eyewitness could have said would have convinced them. But the cameras did.
Of course, that cuts both ways. New Rome was a good example of that.
I've often thought that law-enforcement officers would enjoy better relations with the public, if we had someone else enforcing the traffic laws. Cameras are better yet.
I'd even prefer cameras calling balls and strikes, since umpires can't seem to resist making up their own personal strike zones, which sometimes change according to who's at bat. Ever since I can remember, they've been talking about speeding up baseball. All they'd have to do is call balls and strikes according to the rule book. What would be wrong with that? Then, if it turns out that a rule should be changed, they could do it the honest way, rather than simply ignoring it.
Same with traffic laws. If a speed limit is too low, then raise it. If it turns out that "rolling stops" for right turns on red are as safe as full stops, then allow them. If a traffic law turns out to be virtually unenforceable, then repeal it. We might decide we don't need some of these prior-restraint laws that seem to do nothing more than allow the politicians who voted for them to say they've "done something."
Reply to this