Don’t dictate method for better result

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 11:38 PM CDT

Given the recent approval by the Milwaukee Common Council, the police chief now has discretion to order the installation of security cameras in any bar to which officers are called for three or more crimes in a year. This would be done for serious crimes — violations of state criminal laws about murder and assault, for example, not violations of city ordinances about littering. Advocates of the idea point out that police already have this authority over other establishments, yet there is a distinct flaw here: specifying the method instead of the required result.

In Baltimore, where the city ordered large malls to install cameras after a murder in a parking garage, officials said requiring cameras is no different than requiring other public safety equipment such as fire sprinklers. But the camera proposal raises a basic question which no one has addressed: What are the cameras intended to accomplish? The answer is not as obvious as one may think.

Cameras will only help police capture wrong doers. If tavern owners are to be charged with preventing crime, why not let them decide how best to accomplish that? Some may decide cameras are the most cost-effective option. Others may choose to hire security guards who can stop problems before they start. One must then wonder if the cameras will be used for other purposes, too. Following a large bar brawl in Halifax, Nova Scotia, one official admitted that law enforcement could use required surveillance cameras to watch for underage drinking.

Business people will worry about the cost of cameras as they have in Chicago where Mayor Richard Daley in 2006 suggested having cameras in any bars open until 4 a.m. The Milwaukee ordinance would require a business to pay for cameras both inside and outside, to monitor parking lots. It thus also seems that the city will expand outdoor surveillance by pushing the cost of exterior cameras onto someone else.

There is also that niggline point about discretion. It seems that if one establishment must install cameras, then so should all if they meets the same criteria. Discretion creates the ability to target, for example, inner city bars while ignoring large venues such as Miller Park.

It would be much better if Milwaukee were to follow Racine’s example and just focus on the licensing of troubled establishments. It seems a more effective strategy. Tavern owners know that if their establishments attract frequent problems they may lose their licenses. They thus have great incentive to police their own establishments, but they also have the freedom to choose how they do so.

Special Offer: Get 5 Weeks of the Journal Times for $7!