The Impact of CCTV - Essay Example

?An Evaluation of the Impact of CCTV Introduction Security has been one of the biggest concerns for most American citizens recently, especially following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The events prompted the U.S. government to beef up security in the country through the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. At the same time, American citizens also became more vigilant in a bid to ensure that their security is not compromised in any way. This has seen the number of video surveillance cameras (CCTV) in many American towns and cities skyrocket. Armitage (2002, p.4) indicates that many American cities and towns installed CCTV cameras as a mean of beefing up security and preventing crime. Basically, a CCTV camera can be installed in a business premise, home compound, street, or office, where the cameras collects videos of all activities taking place within the vicinity, which is then directed to a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) for viewing, review and/or storage for future reference (Armitage 2002, p.6). In so doing, CCTV enables controlled areas to be put on surveillance remotely. The fact that the CCTV cameras are able to capture events in areas is of great importance to law enforcement and regulatory agencies since it makes it possible for them to respond quickly to an episode once alerted. In addition, the CCTV cameras are able to provide information about what happened once the officers arrive on site. Additionally, the images and videos stored in DVR are useful for law enforcement officers in conducting post-incident analysis that can be of value to an investigation (Welsh and Farrington 2004, p.491). Despite the benefits attached to the system, most American cities and towns have not closely examined the cost and benefits of CCTV and its impact on the society at large. The aim of this paper is to analyze the drawbacks associated with CCTV cameras in crime deterrence. In so doing, the paper will also explore the arguments in support of CCTV and counter arguments of such claims. Armitage (2002, p.1) notes that the world has experienced tremendous growth in CCTV cameras in the recent past. This follows the rising security concerned exacerbated by terrorist threats. The United Kingdom currently leads in the number of CCTV technology. According to Home Office (2004), the U.K. has an estimated 402 million CCTV cameras, which translates to one camera for every 14 people. In London, for example, one is likely to be caught on camera for at least 300 times a day. The United States is not left behind as most cities and towns have increased the number of CCTV cameras in the recent past to assist in deterring crime and beef up security. Despite the good intention, studies have shown that it is very expensive to install and operate a CCTV camera. The cost has been cited as one of the major impediments of CCTV cameras since, despite their high cost, the benefits are very little. Apart from the set up cost involved in CCTV installation, the system also incurs ongoing operating costs, which makes it expensive to install and operate. Furthermore, the operation of CCTV requires employment of human resource that actively monitors the cameras 24 hours (Armitage 2002, p.8). Such additional costs make the installation of CCTV cameras very expensive and unviable based on the fact that the benefits are very little. A study conducted in the U.K. in 1990s showed that the Home Office wasted millions of Euros in installing CCTV cameras in major towns and cities to assist in improving security (Home Office 2004). Precisely a whopping 78% of the Home Office crime prevention budget was directed towards CCTV installation, according to Home Office (2004). In Stockholm city alone, 55 million Euros were invested in CCTV installation to beef up the security of the city. Despite such huge investment in CCTV installation, findings showed that the crime rate in the city did not change much since some crimes were still being committed in the full view of cameras. This raised many questions as to why the government had to spend such huge amount of money on projects, which are not as effective as earlier thought. According to the Home Affairs Select Committee Report, CCTV cameras only helped solve 3% of crimes (Home Office 2004). Additionally, the report showed that where crimes are committed on rational choice such as alcoholism, the CCTV deterrent effects was relatively weak. Other evidence showed that in many cases, instead of being prevented, crime was simply being displaced to neighboring surroundings without CCTV cameras. The report only found CCTV cameras effective in preventing vehicle-related crimes. Australia is another country that has not benefited much from CCTV installation in cities and towns in the recent past despite investing millions of dollars on the system. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology (2004), the Australian government spent $900,000 on CCTV installation and operation in Sydney, $400,000 in Melbourne, Ipswich $444,000, Fairfield $340,000, Adelaide $310,000 and $85,000 in Toowoomba. Despite such huge investments, crime rates are still high in the towns some of which are committed in full view of cameras. Despite the high cost, there are those who belief that CCTV is useful and effective. Welsh and Farrington (2004, p.492) claim that areas with CCTV cameras experience low incidences of crime. Experts attribute the decline in crime in such areas to the fear of being caught by cameras. As a result, criminals trend only to target neighboring surrounding without cameras, as has been the case in the U.K. Those in support of CCTV cameras have widely cited the U.K. where a study have shown that CCTV cameras have proved useful in reducing vehicle-related crimes and other forms of acquisition crimes. In addition, evidence has shown that CCTV cameras are very effective in small-enclosed areas such as within business premises and offices. A report from the Scottish government has also shown that CCTV is an effective tool in elimination of crime in society. In the report, the Scottish government alleged that the number of crime in Dundee city centers have declined by about 33% following the installation of cameras (Welsh and Farrington 2004, p.496). This among other evidence supports the position held by those in support of CCTV that cameras help in solving the problem of crime in society. CCTV has also proved not to be effective as it should be due to poor clarity of pictures captured by the video. As a result, identifying the real person committing crime has always been a big problem to law enforcement officers even if the criminal is captured by the cameras while committing a crime. Welsh and Farrington (2004, p.497) showed that about 80% of the CCTV pictures are not useful due to lack of clarity. This implies that even if someone is captured by the cameras, it becomes very difficult for the law enforcement officers to use such pictures as evidence under the court of law. As a result, criminals of the modern times have taken advantage of poor picture clarity of CCTV cameras to commit crime without fear. Gill and Spriggs (2005, p.21) claimed that CCTV have not created any meaningful impact in deterring or capturing criminals in most urban centers. According to Gerard et al. (2007, p.18), CCTV cameras require a well-designed monitoring rooms in order to be effective. Despite the clarity problem, some people argue that CCTV cameras are effective in deterring crime since its presence alone instill fear to the criminals. Accordingly, this helps reduce the number of crimes that can be committed in the absence of cameras. The claim is based on the Cambridge University finding, which showed that CCTV is effective in tackling vehicle-related crimes. Another study conducted by Gill and Spriggs (2005, p.27) indicated that the installation of CCTV cameras in the Hawkeye System car parks help reduce crimes rates even though criminals visited them. Even though evidence has shown that CCTV is effective in tackling vehicle-related crime, this applies only to particular areas but not all. As a result, it is not proper to rely entirely on such finding since CCTV has failed to prevent motor vehicle theft and other forms of acquisitions in some areas. For example, the research by the Cambridge University was conducted only in 44 countries most of which were within Britain. As a result, the findings are not a true representation of the entire world. Gill and Spriggs (2005) finding are also not sufficient since the research concentrated only on urban centers while ignoring rural areas. Furthermore, the research conducted by Cambridge University on the impact of 30 cameras showed no effect on crime reduction and instead an increase in crimes such as robbery, assault and other forms of violence were reported. The constitution provides for the right for privacy. However, this right is violated by the installation of CCTV, according to Wilson, D & Sutton (2003, p.33). Many people have claimed that the installation of CCTV interferes with their private life. They argue that CCTV have failed to accomplish the role it is meant to play, which is crime prevention and instead only reveals people’s private life. According to a research conducted in the London, one is likely to be captured on camera 300 times a day. Despite the claim of interference with privacy, some people belief that CCTV cameras does not interferes with privacy (Welsh and Farrington 2004, p.497). Accordingly, they argue that since the installation of CCTV, crime rate in the city has declined. This is in reference to the findings of Cambridge University, which showed that CCTV is effective in tackling vehicle-related crimes. In addition, despite the fact that a Londoner is likely to be caught by CCTV cameras at least 300 times a day, there have been no real protest against the use of cameras in the city. Even though there is no real protest concerning the use of cameras, malicious people can use the pictures captured by the cameras to interfere with the privacy of an individual. Conclusion The analysis showed that even though CCTV is effective in crime prevention in some areas such as in vehicle-related crimes, it is not worth investing in. This is because it is expensive in terms of cost, has poor picture clarity, and interferes with the privacy of citizens. As a result, the government should consider investing the amount allocated for CCTV project for other more effective ways of reducing crime. References Armitage, R 2002, To CCTV or not to CCTV? A Review of current research into the effectiveness of CCTV systems in reducing crime, Nacro Community Safety Briefing May 2002. Australian Institute of Criminology 2004, “Closed-circuit television effectiveness and cost.” Crime Facts Info, No. 69. Canberra, AIC. Viewed 26 July 2013 http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi069.html. Gerrard, G., Parkins, G., Cunningham, I., Jones, W., Hill, S., & Douglas, S. 2007, “National CCTV strategy.” The Joint Home Office ACPO. Viewed 26 July 2013 . Gill, M & Spriggs, A 2005, Assessing the impact of CCTV. Home Office Research Study 292, Home Office, London, UK. Home Office 2004, Driving crime down: Denying criminals the use of the road. Home Office Police Standards Unit. Welsh, B.C., & Farrington, D.P 2004, Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy. Criminal Justice Periodicals. Pp.490-502. Jul 2004; Wilson, D & Sutton, A 2003, Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 271: Open-street CCTV in Australia, Australian Institute of Criminology 2004. Viewed 26 July 2013 http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi271.html. Read More