I can’t think of a reason why other than the cost but surely it’s worth the potential to solve more crime
In: 67
I’m going to focus on “solve more crime”
*Actual prosecutor here*
At a certain point it doesn’t do much. 480p is fine, even 240 is good enough in most instances. It is more to ‘get a lead’ or to be part of the evidence unless there is something so iconic about the person caught on camera. Think “Mike Tyson face tattoo” level of iconic.
Often times it causes criminals to confess no matter how low the quality is. It could be grainy and only take a ‘picture’ every 3 or 4 seconds but you have to remember most people who rob a store aren’t the smartest. Combine the grainy video with being in the interrogation room and officers (Who are allowed to lie to you) telling you have ‘right there’ in that grainy picture where it KIND OF looks like the guy may have brushed a plastic display case is where they were able to lift fingerprints confirming the criminal was there is enough to make them confess (when in reality the only evidence may be that grainy footage and the clerk saying that you were the guy
But lastly, because it doesn’t matter. The deterrence is the primary purpose. A criminal who sees a camera is less likely to actually commit a crime. It isn’t as if they know what quality the footage is.
Latest Answers