Through CCTV, cameras and facial recognition those persons who cause disruptions and physically threaten others can be banned from the places they disrupt and the people they threaten.
Persons who consistently cause disruptions, threats and thefts can be banned from sites where they act out. In bygone years, such persons would be banished from the village and sent off to the woods where they would have to fend for themselves. In todays society, the banishment could be site specific. The duration of the banishment could be determined by the severity of the threat and extent of damage or theft that occurred.
The technology exists to enforce banishment. Capabilities include the following: access control measures, CCTV, camera surveillance, and facial recognition. Members only participation following the format of gyms, clubs and bulk retailers (i.e., Costco and BJ’s for example) would quantify who was within each premises and facilitate removal of persons whose behavior necessitates their removal. For years, gated communities and secured entrances have been symbolic of the rich upper classes. Why can’t middle income and lower income be able to secure their perimeters and ban those who demonstrate an inability to live in harmony?
The confluence of the following factors necessitate this emphasis on access control and banning capabilities:
Pandemic:
We need to allow entrance to only those persons who are not infected.
In the event that an infected person has traversed the site, the documentation of who was on site and when they were on site becomes critical for the tracking, tracing and quarantining required to effectively combat the pandemic while still maintaining economic viability.
Crime, Disorder, Safety and Economic Viability
Sites that are more tightly controlled through access restrictions with banishment consequences for those who disrupt the order of the site will enhance safety and economic viability of the site. It’s just good business. Furthermore, restrictions and adaptations can be adjusted to meet changing circumstances. Examples include: restricted access and banishment of persons for whom restraining orders are in place, repeat offender shoplifters and fighters will no longer be repeaters. Anonymity is the protective foil for persons with bad intentions. They shun the bright light of identification. We’re already tracking buying patterns and personal movements via I-phones, so why can’t we track and ban those persons who present a threat to persons, property and economic viability of our businesses, our schools, institutions, houses of worship. Some might say this is “Big Brother Overreach” but it’s already happening as soon a you tap your I-phone or computer. Ask the family and friends of persons gunned down in mass shootings (and any sorts of shootings) if they think some heightened access control, tracking of participants and restricting of malcontents documented to be credible threats might have averted or lessened the level of tragedies. I’m not implying that this strategy will solve all problems, but it might mitigate some problems.
Enhancement of Personal Responsibility:
If a person who repeatedly steals, fights, threatens or causes mayhem finds themselves becoming increasingly restricted from places where they can carry on their bad habits, maybe over time they will realize that they are the source of their problems and maybe they will exercise more self-control. This is certainly more cost effective than the current cycle of repeat offenses and catching/releasing syndrome.
How did I come to suggest this strategy/proposal:
Over 15 years as a part-time mall cop, I have see far too many “catch and release” situations. Far too many incidents where actions bring no consequences. Stealing, arguing and fighting persists, often among the same players. And it’s these players who never realize that they are the source of their own anxieties. They live in a viscous cycle which only will be broken if they come to terms with themselves or they encounter a shrinking world where they can carry on stealing, fighting or both. As a community organizer, community revitalizer and property manager, I have likewise experienced chronic bad neighbors and bad tenants who either need to change from within (that’s up to them) or changed from outside (thus the tracking & banning).
Dunn Writes Well 