Cameras are the crime

Battleboro Reformer | January 26 2006

In a time when there is outrage over the federal government's domestic spying activities, one would be surprised if Bellows Falls didn't oppose the installation of 16 surveillance cameras around its village.

Tuesday's meeting before a packed house at the Rockingham Town Hall was a great example that this nation is not yet a police state. People calmly, patiently and eloquently expressed their reservations about the cameras and Police Chief Keith Clark and the village trustees were willing to listen.

But it is worth noting that the only reason this meeting took place was that Bellows Falls had become the national media's poster child for surveillance overkill.

A reporter from The Washington Post, who visited Bellows Falls a couple of weeks ago, pointed out that the "Mayberry-sized" village would have almost as many surveillance cameras as Washington, D.C., a city with 181 times the population.

Granted, we know Bellows Falls is not Andy Griffith's mythical hamlet. Crime is a real problem, but domestic violence and sexual assault -- of which there is an inordinate amount in the village -- won't be stopped by cameras.

Petty crime and vandalism is also a problem, but we think the cameras are like using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. We still believe that increased police patrols are a better option than a surveillance system that doesn't differentiate between the innocent and the guilty.

Clark still believes the $98,000 camera system is necessary and still believes there is significant support for it. But a petition circulating around the village, expressing opposition to the proposal, received more than 500 signatures in just three weeks. And the sentiments expressed by residents at Tuesday's meeting were overwhelmingly opposed to the cameras.

Clark has said that he doesn't want to force something on the village that its residents do not want. We think the only fair way to hold him to that sentiment would be to hold a binding referendum and allow the people of Bellows Falls to make the final decision. And that vote can't come soon enough to put an end to this nonsensical approach to law enforcement.

We firmly believe that one can never be too cautious when it comes to the defense of civil liberties. We also believe that trust is the foundation of all public interactions. Surveillance cameras undermine that trust and undermine civil liberties. For these reasons, we think that Bellows Falls should reconsider this proposal and focus its energies on a more proactive approach to fighting petty crime in the village.

Last modified January 26, 2006