InfoTech and Public Policy

The benefits  of technology have made people live longer, enjoy a higher quality-of-life, and increased our daily enjoyment and health in countless ways. So, as technology has progressed, there is no reason NOT to let it enter into the world of police enforcement and lawmaking. To that end, it is very important to consider the unintended consequences of any new surveillance policy.

Like Sam, I respect the institution of law, and think that if we pass laws, it is silly to argue against enforcement because it is TOO efficient. The proliferation of laws that are not easily enforceable nor universally accepted degrades public respect for the institution of government. Therefore, the ability to create laws that are ACTUALLY enforced would be very beneficial for society. Imagine if thugs could not get away with murder, or thieves would be caught red-handed. These are the benefits of increased surveillance in the best case. As such, society would actually be more efficient if technology were to be used increasingly in law enforcement.

However, the gulf between policy intention and policy as executed is wide. There are certain important, likely unintended consequences from any unanticipated shock to the level of sophistication in law enforcement. First we must acknowledge that laws on the books are not some objective force of morality keeping people from committing harmful acts. Rather, they are a set of rules passed by those in power through sophisticated mechanisms of favor-trading and political game-playing. One need look no further than the dramatic difference in punishment for crack versus cocaine use to see the arbitrary nature of many of the laws in America.

While increased enforcement would certainly provide greater reason to refrain from committing illegal acts, it would likely come at the cost of greater arbitrariness in the application of the law. It is fair to say that few white collar crimes would be caught on a CCTV television. Also, the drug delivery services in metropolitan areas provide their services to rich clientèle within the safe, protected walls of the upper west and east sides of Manhattan. On the other hand, those more prone to making use of public services, like the poor and most minority groups, would be increasingly monitored with an increase in public surveillance. Given this increased surveillance would unfairly spread the burdens of government spying, certain groups would likely be targeted and the arbitrariness of our legal system would only increase.

Another unintended side-effect of a hastily-created surveillance system is crime displacement. The argument put forth by many criminologists is that crime would simply move down the street, away from the densest camera coverage. Also, stepping up prosecution for laws that were passed with the intention that they would be hard to efficiently enforce (for, example, to create a deterrent effect) would be a retroactive increase in the punishment for a certain crime. The principle of retroactive prosecution is not one favored by American jurisprudence.

These concerns are only the most easily apparent upon contemplation of new policy. Thus, it is safe to say that a strategic plan is needed to fairly increase the efficiency of law enforcement. Without realization of the potentially harmful and non-negligible unintended consequences of new policy, good intentions can (and often do) create more problems than those they set out to solve.

This entry is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.