GLOBE EDITORIAL
Protection in the parksVOLUNTEERS AND city officials offer life-affirming activities each summer in Boston's public parks. But families in high-crime neighborhoods must now be wondering whether the opportunities for children to play sports under the tutelage of a father figure, see a play, or hear live music are worth the physical risk.
On Sunday an 11-year-old boy was shot in the chest while practicing with a youth football team in Roxbury's Carter playground. The youngster, an unintended victim of what police believe was a confrontation on a nearby basketball court, is hospitalized in serious condition. Last month more than a dozen youngsters saw their volunteer basketball coach shot and killed by an assassin on a bicycle in another Roxbury park. Police, parks, and other public officials met yesterday in lower Roxbury, the scene of much violence of late, to expand the reach of street workers and increase job opportunities for young people. City officials might also focus more urgently on the advantages of technology -- especially continuous video surveillance -- in the fight against crime. Several of the large subsidized housing developments near the shooting scenes make wide and effective use of camera surveillance. It is possible that criminal elements in the area now believe they are less likely to be observed in a park in broad daylight than in the hallways and courtyards of nearby housing developments. That could explain some of the recent brazen acts. State-of-the-art surveillance cameras were used to good effect to protect delegates during the recent Democratic National Convention. Some of these are now available to the city. Parents who send their children out to play in the parks of the South End and Roxbury have just as much right as the Democratic delegates to expect the best in modern security technology. Courts have considered such camera use, when judicious, as analogous to an automated cop on the beat and as such a valid exercise of the state's power to protect its citizens. And unlike human witnesses, cameras are not subject to intimidation.
Parks Commissioner Antonia Pollak said yesterday that camera use is being discussed. Police officials wisely want to consult with neighborhood groups about such equipment before making any decision. In poor areas where people live in small apartments, the neighborhood park can seem like an extension of the home. Camera use, therefore, might be perceived as invasive. The wisdom of camera surveillance in public parks must be considered within the wider challenge of finding the right balance between preserving civil liberties and protecting the public. It is hard to see such surveillance as physically intrusive compared with gunfire directed at children or at people working with them. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
