« Assessing Pain in Infants | Main | ACLU on NY Proposal for Mandating Cameras in Bars »

October 19, 2006

Baltimore - Cameras Not Useful for Prosecutors

From ABC2News:
Just a snippet from the article:

Police say crime is down about 15 percent in neighborhoods with cameras. But enthusiasm for the surveillance system has dimmed at the city prosecutor's office because many cases involving cameras have had to be dropped. Baltimore State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy said the quality of the images hasn't been what she hoped. She also said many of the arrests resulting from cameras are for minor crimes and small drug busts. For the most part, the cameras haven't been helpful in violent crime cases, she said.

Between December and July, about 40 percent of 600 charges resulting from cameras had to be dismissed, the state's attorney's office said, many because of insufficient evidence stemming from poor image quality and a lack of physical evidence. Problems arise when cameras are running automatically without a person to focus in on a crime, and the video only captures a fragment of what happened. . . . Even with good video, Jessamy said police still need physical evidence. "They're perceiving the cameras as the be-all and the see-all, and it's not," Jessamy said.

Antonio Gioia, a prosecutor for the city's narcotics division who has handled cases involving cameras, said they are a helpful tool, but he believes significant crime cuts will only come with more focus on job training and drug treatment. "They are tools in law enforcement, but the public should understand there are limits to what prosecution can achieve by itself," Gioia said. Gioia also has heard that criminals are just moving their business to parts of the city where there aren't any cameras, although it's not clear where they're going.

Posted by rshah at October 19, 2006 03:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rajivshah.com/~rshah/directory/mt-tb.cgi/219

Comments

Post a comment