that seems highly unlikely to me, given the abundant history of covert violence. Obviously it's hard to assess for individual cases but across a distribution people seem to avoid notoriety.
Perhaps we can make inferences by parallel; trolls engage in obnoxious behavior when granted anonymity or insulation from direct consequences. Is it likely that absent an audience for their trolling, they would be nice all the time?
Seems unlikely, and the historical record suggests that cruelty, criminality, and impunity are a common combination.
I don't know, these types of crimes have happened for a long time sans audience. Perhaps some are motivated by the audience, but there are definitely some who would've committed the crime anyway, and their broadcast of their criminal activity only speeds up their arrest.
I can see that politicians and businesspeople would not like this development, because it makes a) their cities seem more violent, since we can actually see someone get killed in it; b) their businesses seem less positive and soft and fluffy, since we can actually see someone get killed on it.
However, I don't see why those concerns should override the public safety benefit of allowing criminals to broadcast their crimes to thousands of witnesses and simultaneously preserving an indisputable copy of the evidence for posterity.
Steve Stevens was caught only because the exposure from his broadcast allowed him to be recognized by a McDonald's clerk hundreds of miles away from the crime scene. Without his broadcast, assuming the execution would've occurred, it would've just been another routine story that wouldn't have made it past the local news.
There would probably have to be some real research conducted to find out if this is a net loss by spurring new crime or a net win by allowing us to easily capture the most oblivious criminals (who are not necessarily least dangerous).
