Not too long ago, Massachusetts activated the Amber Alert system. As most of you know, the system consists of both highway electronic sign boards and announcements via the emergency alert system over the radio and TV. The purpose of the system is laudable. If a child is kidnapped, any information known about the kidnapper, such as that individual’s build or car type, is shared with the public so that it may aid in the apprehension of the suspect.

The day the Amber Alert system was activated, I happened to be doing a good deal of highway driving, so of course I saw the signs, and heard those scary beeps followed by a message from someone at the state police. Later that day, the kidnapper’s car was spotted by a civilian, and the child was rescued. It was a perfect example of the system working.

I’ve been thinking about this for a little while now. Someone who kidnaps a child should be pursued and sent to jail; the act is reprehensible. For most crimes, though, policing is done by the police. The Amber Alert system justifies utilizing ordinary citizens as extra eyes and ears for law enforcement because the cause is one few would disagree with. The principle behind this is that if the crime is so vile and can be stopped by the aid of non-law enforcement personnel, then calling upon such individuals is justified.

Okay. But what about other crimes that are equally nasty? There are rapists, murderers, robbers and plenty of other thugs out there. Let’s say someone is raped, or is the victim of an attempted rape. If that individual is able to escape and note details of her attacker – such as his build or the car he was driving, she would surely report it to the police. The police would then be charged with finding this person and bringing them to trial. Why, in such an instance, where time may be crucial to finding the perp, isn’t an Amber Alert like system activated?

One could argue that many states do publish information on sex offenders. In fact, Massachusetts has this information online, complete with photos for level 3 offenders. But this is an after the fact prevention matter. It is akin to a wanted list in the local post office. The difference between the wanted list format, be it in print or online, and an Amber Alert system is quite large. The message of the former is, “watch out for these dangerous people” whereas that of the latter is, “help us catch this criminal.”

I’m all for kidnappers, rapists and all other criminals being captured and brought to justice. Even the most vile fiend is considered innocent until proven guilty – that’s a hallmark of the American system.

My concern is that the idea behind the Amber Alert – wide and intrusively broadcast messages about criminals on the run – will be expanded beyond the realm of kidnappers. Let’s say that a liquor store is held up a gunpoint by three masked white men (for the sake of political correctness…) driving a black Honda civic. As soon as the cops get the call, they can know where the event occurred, a rough idea of who committed the crime, and what the perps vehicle is. This message goes out to local and state law enforcement agencies, and hopefully the suspects are spotted by an officer, and arrested.

Isn’t is possible that the information that law enforcement receives in this case be broadcast over electronic billboards and the emergency alert system? Surely that would increase the likelihood of the perps being spotted and arrested… leading to the larger goal of discouraging crime in the first place. Although the kidnapping of children perhaps makes us go “ick” more than the holdup of a liquor store, both are indeed criminal.

Now that the Amber Alert precedent has been set, how soon until the system is used for other types of criminal activity? And, is this something we would want? Surely as things stand now, an occasional Amber Alert is tolerable – we feel at once nervous but at the other time like we might actually help make a real difference in a child’s life. But if our airwaves become saturated with broadcasts by law enforcement seeking our assistance, will we stop listening?

The larger concern in such a scenario, though, is fear. Crime occurs every day – it’s a sad fact that we have to live with. Nonetheless, most of us go about our lives. We are aware that crime occurs, but we are not paralyzed by it (unless we watch the local nightly newscasts.) All over the country, since 9/11, we have seen public safety programs launched which urge us to be on the alert for suspicious behavior. The Amber Alert for terrorism is pretty much a constant, and we hear plenty about it. If an Amber Alert system for crimes other than terrorism and kidnapping is put into place, we will have yet another reason to suspect each other.

I certainly don’t want to live in a society where the key thing that brings us together is our fear of terrorists and criminals. When that’s the case, we become paranoid, distrusting our friends, neighbors and townspeople. Although being vigilant is a common sense measure, being scared, and feeling like one’s primary duty is to act as a sheriff is another.

The counter argument is pretty simple; more efficient and effective enforcement does deter crime. And we all want less crime. But I’m worried that as systems such as Amber Alert expand, attempting to meet specific threats with generally aired pronouncements, the requisite focus we will be asked to give to the actions of a few bad apples will lead us further astray from the facts that most people are good, and that positive change comes from community building via individual empowerment, not fear of our fellow man.

Let’s open this one up for discussion!