Comment

I tweaked that first line, dingoeater. Didn’t mean to offend anyone — or provoke, really. Saying Gacy paid for his crimes was more meant to point out that the criminal justice system has limits, one of them being that death is the most severe punishment at our disposal. (And it’s not, for what it’s worth, at anyone’s disposal in Illinois anymore). I’m sure if Gacy could’ve been killed 33 times, that would’ve been preferable to the victim’s families.

And if you’re interested in alternatives to “killed 33 times,” a few are discussed here: http://trueslant.com/mattstroud/2009/11/02/crowdsourcing-the-capital-murder-debate-on-facebook/

12 days ago on Grave mistake: the controversial, high-tech search for John Wayne Gacy's lost victims 1 reply 12 recommends

Comment

There’s nothing about magic in this piece.

Though I’ll admit it’s a little buried in the text above, I point out that there are “studies, and anecdotes, and journalism showing that CCTV cameras don’t deter crime.” And then I quote someone — who is, I’ll admit, from the ACLU, and therefore stereotypically in favor keeping the surveillance state in check — who supports the contention that CCTV hasn’t been able to deter crime in Boston or elsewhere.

The main study I looked at is linked in the report above and you can read it in full here:
http://bit.ly/CCTVstudy-Verge

From the study’s conclusion:

“…we found no persuasive evidence that the introduction of CCTV and ancillary electronic monitoring equipment to PCV in Manhattan reduced the incidence of crime…”

If you want to debate the legitimacy of that study (it’s not perfect) or the numbers used in this story or this story, which are also linked in the report above, go for it. I’m happy to talk it through with you here or via email at matt.stroud@theverge.com.

28 days ago on They're watching: why city-wide surveillance failed to stop the Boston bombing 3 replies 1 recommend