Use of CCTV in Crime Prevention - Essay Example

The Use of CCTV in the Prevention of Crime Introduction: The trend of increasing crime across the globe, especially in terms of terrorist attacks, has forced law enforcement authorities in all nations, including UK, to resort to the deployment of modern technology to monitor the activities of suspects and to contain crimes. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) is a part of such technologies used for scrutinising the premises of vital installations such as airports, railway stations, street corners, parking lots, shops and other sensitive premises. The use of CCTV is “one of the most common forms of video surveillance” and the technology involves the deployment of cameras by public authorities for detecting and preventing criminal activities in designated areas (Carli, 2008). These cameras are connected to TV monitors where the people manning the surveillance can monitor the activities. Besides, the images can also be “recorded in a control room” for later viewing (Carli, 2008). Such recordings can also be admitted as evidence in a court of law for the purpose of prosecuting the offenders. The system is also being used by private parties such as organizational entities as well as individuals for monitoring their premises. The use of CCTV enables the authorities as well as private parties to monitor and exercise surveillance on the activities within and around their premises and other sensitive areas that are vulnerable to the threat of attack by criminals. The equipment is easy to operate and is comparatively cost effective. Thus, evidence suggests that the use of CCTV for the purpose of crime detection and prevention has “greatly increased over the last decade” and estimates show that “4.2 million” units are currently in use (Woodhouse, 2010). The installation of CCTVs in specific settings can dissuade prospective criminals from committing a crime for fear of detection and prosecution. Thus, it transpires that the use of CCTV not only prevents crime but also is a valuable tool in the prosecution of criminals. An Exploration of the Use of CCTV: The concept of video surveillance came into being with an intention to detect and prevent criminal activities such as “burglary, assault and car theft” and subsequently its use was extended to monitor antisocial behaviour like “littering, urinating in public, traffic violations” etc (Isnard, 2001). This system, unlike human resources, has the ability to facilitate break free surveillance at all times and the recordings of such surveillance can become irrefutable evidence in the court of law. Therefore, law enforcement authorities have been deploying CCTV for monitoring activities of criminals and other anti social elements over a period of time. In the modern day, where the rate of crimes is on the increase and the perpetrators are using innovative methods of operation, the law enforcement agencies also are forced to deploy different technologies to counter the menace. Similarly, various organizations in the public sector as well as individuals often become the targets of burglars and other antisocial elements. Therefore, they also use technology like alarm systems and video surveillance to deter prospective criminals from attacking their premises. Research evidence suggests that the deployment of a “32 camera system” in Glasgow has helped in yielding “209 arrests” within the first 12 months (Isnard, 2001). Thus, in the modern day, the use of video surveillance through installing CCTV has become a common practice both in the public as well as private sectors. When seeking to understand whether the use of CCTV cameras is effective in combating crimes, one has to have a clear understanding of how the system functions and whether it can be a cost effective proposition. Generally, the purpose of installing a system of video surveillance is to monitor the activities in a designated area. Thus, the basic equipment in such an endeavour comprises a “network of cameras and components for monitoring, recording and transmitting video images” (La Vigne et al, 2011). The cameras, which are remote-controlled, possess the ability to scan an area based on a pre-programmed routine and come with facilities to “pan, tilt and zoom” (La Vigne et al, 2011). Most of them can operate on predetermined schedules, through computer software and, therefore, can function even in the absence of security personnel and some have sophisticated features such as “motion sensors” and can detect “gunshots” as well as recognize “license plates” (La Vigne et al, 2011). Thus, it becomes evident that these cameras incorporate the advantage of functionality even in the absence of security personnel and, hence, can provide break free monitory of the designated area. By installing such systems, the authorities will be able to properly monitor the activities in a specific area round the clock and thereby detect any suspicious activities in the premises. Such facilities can provide better and cost effective surveillance capabilities as they rule out the possibility of human error and the investment on human resources becomes minimal. Discussion on the Use of CCTV: In the United Kingdom, the video surveillance system with CCTV is “jointly operated and managed” by law enforcement agencies and the stakeholders in private sector (Nieto, 1997, p.8). The British Telecom service installs the system and the law enforcement agencies have “quick and easy access” to the images being recorded (p.9). This will enable them to respond to any occurrence of crime to intervene at appropriate times. However, on the flipside, surveillance of public spaces such as malls, parking areas etc poses many inherent challenges of the cameras inadvertently capturing scenes of “couples entwined in office stockrooms,” or women removing dresses in changing rooms or “husbands and wives engaging in domestic squabbles” (9). Thus, such probabilities have entailed public outcry about the intrusion of privacy of individuals. On the other hand, evidence suggests that countries like Canada have been using CCTV right from the beginning of the 1990s and by 1995 they have been able to record “70 percent” of the cases of bank robberies and prosecute them (10). Australia also reports a “proliferation” in the use of CCTV “over the past two decades” (Wells et al. 2006). Similarly, despite the protests from civil liberty advocates, the UK government has spent “three quarters of the crime prevention budget” for the CCTV surveillance of public places (Ogunleye et al, 2011). Other European countries also have employed this system for the purpose of crime control and prosecution. Therefore, it becomes evident that the use of CCTV surveillance is not a phenomenon that is unique to the UK but nations across the world are also deploying this facility in crime detection and prevention. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) use cameras that are prominently displayed in parking areas to “deter offenders” and also alert the public that their “license plates and exit times” are being monitored (La Vigne & Lowry, 2011, p.1-2). There is a high probability that such measures will instil fear in the potential miscreants and they will desist from committing any criminal activity in the vicinity. Besides, even in case where perpetrators decide to take the risk, any violation of the law will immediately come to the notice of the security personnel monitoring the activity so that they can either intervene or seek police assistance or backup to prevent the crime or apprehend the miscreants. The recordings can “aid in investigations” as evidence during criminal trials in a court of law to ensure conviction of the culprits (La Vigne & Lowry, 2011, p.2). Similarly, Australia also uses CCTV surveillance for combating crime both in public sector as well as in “commercial premises” shopping malls, ATM centres and airports (CCTV As a Crime Prevention Measure: What is CCTV? n.d, p.3). Sweden deploys CCTV cameras for surveillance in subways and statistics reveal that between “2006-2008” they have installed this system in “84 subway stations in Stockholm” (Priks, 2010, p.2). Moreover, the European Crime Prevention Network affirms that recently there has been an increase in the usage of CCTVs, which has “triggered a debate” that concerns the concept of “security versus privacy” (Welsh & Farrington, 2008, p.1). Thus, overall, it transpires that nations across the world rely on video surveillance using CCTVs as a means of detecting and preventing crimes in designated areas. The extensive use of video surveillance with CCTV by law enforcement agencies as well as private parties in nations across the globe tends to suggest that the system has several advantages. These countries also rely on video recordings for investigations and as evidence to prosecute the criminals during trials. However, an inherent disadvantage of the system seems to stem from the fact that appropriate legislations or policies do not exist to prevent either the law enforcement agencies or private parties from “archiving, selling or freely transmitting images captured” during the surveillance (Siegel et al. 2006). Thus, considerable harm can entail for the citizens if the footages of such video systems fall in the hand of unscrupulous individuals. Another significant concern derives from the cost that governments have to incur for installing the system, because the 1998 “CCTV initiative for England and Wales” alone has cost the UK exchequer a whopping “£170 million” (Post note CCTV, 2002). When one considers this expenditure independently, it may seem inconsequential but the fact remains that this cost is over and above the huge expenditure already being spent on crime control. Thus, the efficacy of the system also needs to consider the aspects of costs as well as civil rights, when installing the equipment for surveillance. While prevention of crimes and containing terrorist activities are primary concerns for the safety of the citizens, when the surveillance “infringe upon one’s privacy” it becomes a social concern and, hence, governments must “offer accountability both in terms of cost efficiency and civil rights” (Wells et al. 2006). Therefore, the governments need to evolve a system of apprising citizens of the “information” so collected and “how it is being used” (Policy Department C: Citizen’s Rights and Constitutional Affairs, 2009, p.18). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of CCTV: In order to evaluate the benefits and effectiveness of the use of CCTV in crime detection and prevention, one needs to understand how the technology assists in the process of surveillance and what limitations exist in the system. Technology has evolved a lot in the recent years and it has helped CCTV systems also to attain a high level of sophistication. Thus, the low resolution cameras of yester years have now transformed through high resolution technology and they can now “pan, tilt and zoom” on the commands of operators from remote locations (Ratcliffe et al, 2009 p.747). Such traits enable the equipment to be more “place-specific” and thus facilitate “problem-oriented” and “intelligence-oriented policing” (p.747). The most significant advantage of CCTV monitoring system is that it facilitates “close coordination with police in observing and/or responding to incidents” (Use of CCTV Equipment and Information, 2011). Thus, people manning the control room can send police officers to the vicinity when they notice any problem there. Studies find that the “presence of cameras” will dissuade offenders from indulging in a crime by “increasing the perceived risk” (Brown, 1995, p.4). Any person with a criminal intent works with a rationale and when he or she realizes that a monitoring system is available to record the activities in the target area, the offender will have a perception of the “risk associated with offending” and will be dissuaded from committing the crime (p.5). Though the “ubiquitous” presence of the monitoring system in public places poses the risk of compromising the privacy of individuals, it appears that people are willingly “acquiescing as surveillance objects” due to the benefits it fetches in terms of “greater levels of personal safety and security” (Webster, 2009, p.11-12). Evidence also points to the “unequivocal support” that the strategy of video surveillance has garnered during “public satisfaction surveys,” which tend to suggest that the general public is happy to sacrifice a certain level of their privacy in return for their safety and protection from antisocial elements (p.12). People who argue against CCTV also contend about the cost involved, which claims “78% of the Home Office’s crime prevention funding” besides the local authority’s spending of “over 500M ($990M) in taxpayer money” (Lepon & Popkin, 2007, p.2). However, there is no denial of the fact that the security and safety of citizens is the first priority of any nation and any developmental activity undertaken without first ensuring the protection of innocent people may not benefit anyone in the long run. Therefore, it appears to be a feeble excuse to discount the effectiveness of CCTV systems by arguing that it involves heavy costs. Many of the evidences in the context of the effectiveness of CCTV suggest that such surveillance can be justified by their “potential effect” in the prevention of crimes (Schwabe et al, 2001, p.14). Surveillance has a deterring effect on criminals because it reminds them of “police presence and observation” (p.14). Therefore, it will instil the fear of detection and prosecution in the potential offenders and they will desist from committing crimes. Opponents of surveillance, however, claim rather than preventing crimes, such measures can only “displace crimes” to locations where surveillance is not done (p.14). However, this claim does in no way nullify the effectiveness of surveillance in crime prevention and prosecution as the argument of displacement of crimes itself prove that it has a strong impact on criminals. The proponents of citizens’ rights further view privacy as a “protector of dignity” and a “means of implementing freedom” and argue against its intrusion through surveillance (Slobogin, 2002, p.272). However, one needs to appreciate that an innocent citizen may not be of any “interest to camera operators” and law enforcement agents normally conduct further investigation of a captured image only there is ground for reasonable suspicion (297). Besides, the main focus of the maintenance of law and order is not to intrude upon citizens but to protect from the threat of criminals. Findings on the Effectiveness of CCTV in Preventing Crimes: Various evidences examined during the course of this study support the contention that CCTV surveillance has been effective in the prevention and investigation of crimes. Primarily, it can coordinate “swift responses,” which can reduce the “severity of personal assaults” apart from stopping criminals from escaping the scene (CCTV Guidelines, n.d., p.3). Research studies have further suggested that CCTV surveillance has the potential to reduce “property crimes” (Phillips, n.d., p.129). A specific study, conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of surveillance in parking lots, claims that installation of cameras increases the “perceptions of potential offenders” about a “greater risk of apprehension” and, thus, it will dissuade them from committing a crime (La Vigne & Lawry, 2011, p.53). However, it further finds that the system can have effect on high crime areas only when it is “highly concentrated” and “actively monitored” (p.54). Therefore, the law enforcement agencies need to acknowledge the fact that it is not technology itself but how wisely it is deployed that makes the difference in its effectiveness or otherwise. The studies relating to the effectiveness of CCTV cameras on crime prevention and detection, conducted in other countries, also validate the contention that the system has positive impact on reducing crimes. The Australian Government Initiative on National Community Crime Prevention Programme, based on 22 evaluations, finds that 11 of them confirm a “positive effect” in terms of decreased crimes and also refers to a reduction in UK motor vehicles and other types of “acquisitive crimes” (CCTV as a Crime Prevention Measure: What is CCTV? n.d., p.2). Another study conducted by Mikael Priks, after CCTV cameras were installed in 84 Stockholm subways between 2006 and 2008, suggests that this has entailed in a reduction in crime rates by “approximately 20 percent” (Priks, 2010, p.2). However, the study points to a limitation that while the system is highly effective in cities, outside of them it is not so productive due to the fact that police officers responding to a call can reach in the station in the city “faster compared to the stations outside the city” (p.2). The study also places the cost of preventing a crime at approximately “2000 euro,” which is a calculation based on crimes that actually occurred (p.15). However, when one considers the crimes that may have been avoided by the prospective criminals due to fear of detection by the CCTV cameras, the expenditure will considerably be reduced. Besides, it is also necessary to recognize the extent of damage that sinister crimes such as terrorism can inflict on the community to really appreciate the relevance of such investments. Similarly, the study conducted by Wells et al (2006) about the effect of CCTV in Australia also confirms that the system is most effective in detecting “highly visible behavioural incidents such as assaults” whereas it is less productive in capturing the details of occurrences like “drug deals” (p.95). The study further attributes “14% of all arrests” during the period of observation to the deployment of CCTV and underlines the belief that this kind of monitoring system is instrumental in preventing “crime and terrorism” (p.96). The summary of a report on behalf of The European Crime Prevention Network, prepared by Welsh and Farrington (2008), finds that video surveillance using CCTVs has “modest but significant effect” on reducing crimes and further argues that the system is “more effective... in the UK than in other countries” (p.2). It further suggests that future surveillance systems of this sort must use “high quality evaluation designs” coupled with “long follow up periods” for it to be more effective (p.2). Though overall the CCTV surveillance system has been found to be effective in the prevention and investigation of crimes, the technology has some limitations such as being prone to weather conditions etc. Besides, some of the surveillance systems have technical limitations, improvements in technology can circumvent these shortcomings and evidence confirms that the “images they retrieve are powerful and reliable” (La Vigne, et al, 2011, p.85). Thus, the majority of the evidence validates the hypothesis that video surveillance using CCTV can be effective in preventing and investigating crimes. Conclusion: In the present day, with increasing incidents of crimes, especially highly destructive terrorist strikes, nations across the world are resorting to the deployment of technology to combat the menace. One cannot ignore the fact that to be functional in the most effective manner, the human resources deployed in law enforcement and security duties needs technological support. CCTV system is such a technology that can aid security personnel to monitor the activities in a designated area, with the help of live cameras that have the capability to record and transmit the images taken from the location to a central control room. The operators manning the position in there can thus send policemen to the location for intervention and thus prevent crime or arrest the perpetrators. The evidence examined during the course of this study has conclusively confirmed that the use of video surveillance using CCTV has positive outcomes both in terms of preventing crimes and investigating them as the recording of the images can be used as evidence in a court of law. Though some argue that the cost involved is detrimental in resorting to this system of crime preventing strategy, when one compares the positive results it can fetch, it transpires that the benefits outweigh the cost factor. Another concern for people who oppose such monitoring is the compromise of the right of privacy as innocent citizens remain exposed to the operators who watch the recordings at every part of the city. This, definitely, needs consideration as the right of citizens is a priority for the government of a democratic nation. However, one also needs to take in to consideration that the security and safety of the citizens are the primary concern, without which other considerations become irrelevant. Therefore, there does not seem any justification in protecting privacy at the cost of personal safety of citizens. The government of UK, therefore, needs to find a balance between these concepts and try to protect the safety of its citizens without compromising their privacy. The ideal measure is to have proper regulations in monitoring the people and making the system more transparent so that the system does not compromise privacy of the citizens in the name of security. Reference List Angela Sasse, M. 2010. Privacy & Security Not Seeing the Crime for the Cameras? Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Brown, B. 1995. CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies. Police Research Group. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. CCTV as a Crime Prevention Measure: What is CCTV? n.d. National Community Crime Prevention Programme. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Carli, V. 2008. Assessing CCTV as an Effective Safety and Management Tool for Crime-Solving, Prevention and Reduction. International Center for the Prevention of Crime. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. CCTV in Schools. n.d. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Isnard, A. 2001. Can Surveillance Cameras be Successful in Preventing Crime and Controlling Anti-Social Behaviours? Australian Institute of Criminology. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Lepon, J. & Popkin, R. 2007. A Study of CCTV at Harvard. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. La Vigne, N. G. et al. 2011. Evaluating the Use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. La Vigne, N. G. & Lowry, S. S. 2011. Evaluation of camera Use to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Urban Institute. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Nieto, M. 1997. Public Video Surveillance: Is it an Effective Crime Prevention Tool? California Research Bureau, California State Library. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Ogunleye, G. O. et al, 2011. A Computer-Based Security Framework for Crime Prevention in Nigeria. Nigeria Computer Society. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Priks, M. 2010. The Effect of Surveillance Cameras on Crime: Evidence from the Stockholm Subway. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Post Note: CCTV. 2002. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Phillips, C. n.d. The Review of CCTV Evaluations: Crime Reductions Effects and Attitudes Towards its Use. Crime Prevention Studies. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Ratcliffe, J. H. et al. 2009. The Crime Reduction Effects of Public CCTV Cameras: A Multi-Method Spatial Approach. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Schwabe, W., David, L. M. & Jackson, B. A. 2001. Challenges and Choices for Crime-Fighting Technology: Federal Support of State and Local Law Enforcement. Rand Science and Technology Policy Institute. Print. Siegel, L. et al. 2006. Who’s Watching? New York Civil Liberties Union. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Slobogin, C. 2002. Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places and the Right to Anonymity. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Use of CCTV Equipment and Information. 2011. Western Australian Auditor General’s Report. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Woodhouse, J. 2010. CCTV and its Effectiveness in Tackling Crime. Library House of Commons. Available at [Accessed on 28January 2013]. Webster, W. 2009. CCTV Policy in the UK: Reconsidering the Evidence Base. University of Stirling UK. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Welsh, B. C. & Farrington, D. P. 2009. Making Public Places Safar Surveillance and Crime Prevention. Oxford University Press. Print. Welsh, B. C. & Farrington, D. P. 2008. Summery of the Systematic Review: Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance (CCTV) in Reducing Crime. European Crime Prevention Network. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Wells, H. et al. 2006. Crime and CCTV in Australia: Understanding the Relationship. Bond University. Available at [Accessed on 28 January 2013]. Read More