poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (08/10/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 10 Aug 85 Volume 5 Number 32
Contents: Sanctions
Nicaragua
Crime and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 85 20:56:37 PDT
From: Michael Pazzani <pazzani@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Sanctions
I am interested in finding out more about sanctions or other means
countries use to try influence the behavior of other countries. I am
more concerned with actual examples than theory, but I'd like
references on either.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Pazzani
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 85 09:01:41 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nicaragua
Somebody remind me why we are so excited about the government of Nicaragua.
I just spent two weeks there, doing low-grade technical consulting
for the their Ministry of Education. I can testify, without expecting
anyone to believe me, that the government there is a far cry from the
totalitarianism our government portrays. Moreover, there is universal
fear and distrust of the United States and an immeasurable sense of
relief and pride in the revolution having gotten rid of Somoza
directly and the US indirectly, which indicates to me that any
solution imposed by the US will be resented and resisted. Third, I
noted that the national hero, iconified ubitiquitously, is not Marx,
Lenin, either Ortega, Borge, or any other Sandinista, but Sandino
himself, whose primary (I was told virtually only) doctrine was
"Nicaragua for Nicaraguans." I don't see Soviet influence extending
much beyond accepting aid from them.
Most importantly, though, I wish someone would explain to me why,
if Nicaragua is a totalitarianism, waging economic and military war
against primarily civilian targets, with no realistic chance of
victory, is not the greatest favor we could possibly do their
government? In the absence of real achievements, a great way to unite
a people behind an unpopular government is to impose an external
threat, especially from an adversary historically feared. Thank you,
United States.
<flame on, momentarily> In Nicaragua, reports of contra attacks on
schools, hospitals and farms are routine. The Ministry of
Construction has lost 35 men killed in the last nine months alone. In
Nicaragua, you hear stories of atrocities told by the family and
friends of the victims: yes, well, my husband was flayed alive with a
machete, my daughter was raped and my son was kidnapped. See that guy
over there? He was a teacher; his arm was cut off by contra. etc etc.
To this extent the contra are indistinguishable from the terrorists
our government so rousingly and righteously deplores elsewhere. To
the extent that our government's support represents a projection of
power into a situation for which we have no understanding (this lack
of understanding, at least, is indisputable), it is indistinguishable
from Soviet hegemony (and don't tell me we are doing it for their own
good; blowing people up and destroying their support facilities does
them remarkably little good).
Somebody please explain to me why I should not be embittered and cynical
about this whole experience.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Date: Wed 31 Jul 85 11:18:32-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Camera's on every block
My first response to the "camera on every block" method of
crime prevention was Gasp! I thought we got rid of 1984 last year!
Then, a thought occurred to me. We have a great many dumb, over
restrictive laws in our society. I suspect these are tolerated, in
large part, because everybody knows you don't get snagged most of
the time. How long do you think the 55mph speed limit would last if
everyone who ever went 56+mph got a ticket, every time? About one
legislative session, I imagine! In addition to reducing the incidence
of real (ie violent) crime, significant enforcement might encourage
rationalization of the entire legal system.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 31 July 1985 16:32:06 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: criminal quarantine
Robert Heinlein wrote about this long ago in his story "Coventry" where a
section of desert was surrounded by a force shield. Criminals were allowed
to take whatever supplies they wanted (and could pay for) inside, but after
that, they were on their own. The interior had a frontier society.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Aug 1985 11:22-PDT
From: Craig E. Ward <cew@isi-hobgoblin.arpa>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 00:57:33 cdt
From: Laurence Leff <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Ok satire. Not quite up to the standards of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" but
better than most of the stuff that comes across the Poli-Sci list.
Keep on writing.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 85 14:04 MST
From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Crime and Technology
Being a reserve police officer for the City of Phoenix I found Laurence Leffs'
( <leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>) mail on this subject interesting.
From Leff
"A cost-effective solution is putting a movable camera on every
corner and pipe the input into the police station..."
"One person at the police station can observe 30 TV screens
simultaneously looking for crime."
"...a camera can be put up and connected via a cable television
system in reverse for about $6,000 per corner (on a one time cost)."
Reminds me of a movie I once saw which was, I believe, called "The
Anderson Tapes". In any event, Added onto your $6,000 one time cost
would be the cost for maintenance of all those cameras and the miles of
cables required to link them to a rather massive complex housing the
thousands of video montitors and video-watchers along with repair crews.
Of course there's no reason it has to be a centralized system, but a non-
centralized system will probably add to over-head as well. Also it's
probably a little over-optimistic to believe you could effectively watch
a residential area of 50 homes with one camera. If I were guessing I'd
say probably half that might be closer to the mark. Futhermore a large
number of the cameras would be watching comercial areas or parks where
there are no households at all.
More importantly though is that although a system like this one might
actually work in your neighborhood, where I patrol (South Phoenix) these
cameras would immediately become the target of theft and/or vandalism.
One a.h. with a spray can could quickly and easily blind large areas of
your system. Now you'd have to pay someone to go out and clean up all
those cameras, provided of course that they're still there.
From: [same]
"...[Camera systems will provide] almost total protection against
any street crime."
No way. Banks have employed camera systems for years. Has this stopped
bank robberies? Of course not. Many criminals don't care if they're
seen, as long as they can get away by the time the cops show up.
Sometimes they don't even care if the cops do show up, anyone's fair
game when they get upset.
Although an amusing idea, from a pracitcal standpoint the
camera-on-a-corner is probably not a cost effective law enforcement tool.
From: [same]
"There have been no technological innovations in either patrol
of streets (with the exception of the walky-talky and patrol car)
nor in jails for centuries."
I must completely disagree. In Phoenix every patrol car has an MDT
(Mobile Digital Terminal) which allows them access to not only computers
in Arizona, but computers in every state in the nation. In seconds I can
get vehicle registration, wanted person or stolen item information from
anywhere in the U.S. (provided the particular computers I need to access
are up) as well as communicate with other units. Most major departments
have access to air, K-9, SWAT team and many other specialized units to
aid them. Your statement is at best uninformed.
As far as "electronic handcuffs" go, just remember the old saying...
build a better trap, breed a smarter mouse.
(Looking forward to your response. Go ahead, make my day...)
REW
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------