Use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for Crime - Research Paper Example

Use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) for Crime Introduction Closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) serve the purpose of monitoring and recording images of what takes place in certain locations in real time (National Community Crime Prevention Program-NCCPP 1). As a crime prevention tool, CCTV is useful in the provision of surveillance functions that may serve in deterring people from engaging in prohibited conduct, in areas where it has been installed (NCCPP 1). CCTV is also believed to deter criminal conduct in an area under surveillance by mobilizing a particular form of response or collecting evidence (college of policing-U.K, 2). Commentators have also argued that the presence of CCTV sends a message to the public that they are in a safe place. As the use of the space increases, less crime is likely to occur in such a place since there are more prospective witnesses (NCCPP 2). Zurawski (51) argues that to the contrary the presence of cameras may serve to make a location, to some people, less friendly. CCTV may send the message that such a place is dangerous and hostile. When this happens, then cameras become an obstacle to the development of such a place. Research conducted by Gill & Spriggs (10) showed that respondents with the knowledge of presence of cameras in a place worried more about falling victim to crime than those who were unaware of the camera presence. Further, the awareness of CCTV in an area did not necessarily generate a sense of security among those interviewed (Gill & Spriggs, 10). According to the U.K College of Policing (1), though camera surveillance has been shown to lead to a drop in some crimes such as theft of and from cars, it has little impact on levels of violent crime. It also shows insignificant effect on “emotional spontaneous crimes” such as assaults (Surette, 171). This article seeks to analyze the use of CCTV for purposes of security. It will examine the benefits and concerns of increased CCTV use. Further, it will also highlight the rising tide of opposition to camera surveillance because of its perceived role in the erosion of civil liberties. Literature review on the use of CCTV for crime More and more studies on crime are underlining the fact that, on its own, CCTV surveillance does little to prevent crime (Zurawski 51, college of policing 1). Rather than using increased camera surveillance to reduce the number of police on patrol, CCTV ought to serve in complimenting the work already being done by the police. The maintenance of law and order and the system of criminal justice remain a police realm (Zurawski, 51). Therefore, CCTV ought to be a mere enhancement of the reach of the police service and its punitive powers (Zurawski, 51). The government should not attempt, for budgetary reasons, to substitute actual police patrols with CCTV installation. Some commentators have argued that, on its own, CCTV has no effect on crime levels (Fay, 321). Though the presence of CCTV may act as a deterrent to potential offenders, it only serves to displace crime to areas lacking CCTV (Fay 321). Government fixation with camera surveillance in Britain has led to installation of CCTV surveillance systems even in small towns, some of which fit the description of villages, with remarkably low crime rates (Fay 316). This suggests that the adoption of this method of surveillance is not always driven by the need to respond to challenges posed by an increase in crime (Fay 316). Fay (316) points a finger at the security industry, the greatest beneficiary of CCTV spread in the U.K, for bombarding the public with the notion that CCTV is the ultimate fix to problems of anti-social behavior. Consequently, local authorities, even small ones in rural areas appear to be in a mad rush to outdo each other in the race towards intensive surveillance. In the process, there has been near total neglect as to the cost and effectiveness of the system (Fay 322). Overall, growth in CCTV surveillance has come at a massive financial cost to the U.K administration. In reference to a 2007 report by Reuters, Walsh & Farrington (19) state that CCTV accounted for more than three quarters of the total amount spent by the British Home Office for the purposes of crime prevention. Without disregarding the crucial role played by CCTV in collecting evidence at scenes of crime, it is crucial for governments to spearhead a shift from the current mentality that more and more surveillance cameras is the panacea to insecurity. Focus should be on how to solve social problems that lead to crime and to strengthen the police force so that it can properly complement CCTV. Findings and Analysis on Use of CCTV for crime Surveillance cameras assist the police in observing and reacting to acts that previously went unnoticed (Surette, 171). This aspect is of crucial importance to security strategists since it is instrumental in the development of preventative measures against crime. However, this benefit also raises concern that as the police widen their net thus arresting more people, particularly juveniles with minor offences, the result will be a higher percentage of people with formal arrest records (Surette, 171). Further, though CCTV may reduce crime, the same effect may also be achieved or even exceeded through the employment of other low- cost, crime prevention strategies. Fay (322) notes that in London’s Sutton borough, the use of simple and inexpensive measures such locking of car parks and providing security staff with pagers, has been found to be more productive in efforts to reduce crime than CCTV. Camera surveillance systems provide evidence against those breaking the law. However, there is concern that as law enforcement officials develop criminal databases, there may emerge a trend to monitor and identify particular members of the population based on their prior identification as persons that “need to be watched” rather than monitoring such people because of their current behavior (Surette 171). This concern thereby raises the issue of civil liberties and racial profiling concerning CCTV surveillance. Research published in 1997 by Norris & Armstrong showed that operators in CCTV control rooms showed bias in targeting those groups that they perceived as having a high likelihood of being deviant. Norris & Armstrong noted that black people, specifically young black males, were likely to receive an attention frequency in the range of one-and-a half times to two and a half times more than one would expect from their population presence in terms of demographics (Fay 325). The result of such targeting is that people- especially those that are economically marginalized- already pre-defined as potentially deviant on the basis of stereotypes, may be subjected to even higher levels of authoritative intervention and stigmatization from the administration. In such a scenario, CCTV ceases to be a contributor in efforts towards social justice. It ends up assuming the form of a tool of injustice by amplifying ‘differential and discriminatory policing’ (Fay 325). In Britain, the perception among some commentators is that the government, the police service and commercial organizations have colluded to promote CCTV as the ultimate solution to a range of social and economic problems (Fay, 316). In their quest for increased surveillance, they have shown little or no concern to the citizen’s civil liberties (Fay, 316). Protestors have argued that increase in CCTV surveillance especially in public housing estates amounts to invasion of privacy. In Spain, numerous cases of camera vandalism have been reported. A movement known as Un Barrio Feliz (a happy neighborhood) has been launched. The initiative seeks to mobilize neighborhoods in an attempt at resisting attempts by local governments to increase CCTV surveillance especially in residential neighborhoods. The movement portrays camera surveillance as part of a plan by the authorities to turn the city of Madrid into ‘a shop window’- a tightly regulated public space where control through fear turns into the guiding limits of the inhabitants’ existence (Webster et al, 142). Crime prevention, especially in public places, remains the main reason behind the installation of CCTV systems (Welsh & Farrington, 19). The last few decades have witnessed a rapid growth in the use of CCTV. However, this growth has come with a massive price tag. In the United Kingdom, CCTV retains its position as the single most heavily funded measure of crime prevention working independently of the criminal justice system (Welsh & Farrington, 19). National evaluation reports of CCTV released in 2005 and 2007 in the United Kingdom cast doubts on the efficacy of CCTV in crime prevention. The results showed that installation of cameras had in summary a small effect on crime, showed slightly high level of efficiency in car parks only and had a slight effect on crime in urban areas (Welsh & Farrington, 20). Further, even in car parks where the decrease in crime was noted, the presence of CCTV was in the company of other improvements such as proper lighting and a higher number of security staff (College of Policing, 3). Surprisingly, in apparent disregard of these research results, the installation of public CCTV schemes in the U.K has continued unabated (Welsh & Farrington, 21). As noted earlier, the presence of CCTV in an area has proved to be helpful in increasing the chances of identification of potential and actual offenders. Further, it assists in the mobilization of some form of response from the CCTV operators (College of Policing 2). However, Kitchen & Schneider (96) argue that the presence of cameras is no guarantee that the operators will be watching in time hence be able to stop a criminal event or intercede while it is in the process. It is vital to stress once more that there is evidence of crime reduction in public places because of camera surveillance. However, if the threat of police intervention is not present, then eventually, any deterrent effect generated by the presence of CCTV will wane (Surette 171). This shows that attempts by some administrators to treat the introduction of CCTV as an opportunity to cut costs by reducing the number of police personnel, will not yield desirable results. Camera surveillance cannot reduce crime on its own; surveillance ought to be followed by someone showing up to address the problem observed from the control room (Surette, 171). Zurawski (51), states that police unions in Hamburg, Germany have resisted efforts to reduce the number of police officers arguing that the professional pride and experience of the service cannot be overtaken by camera surveillance. Conclusion Overall, though there exists evidence of variable reduction in crime, in public places with the installation of CCTV, evaluations point to the fact that camera surveillance is only effective when operating in combination with other interventions. For example, the presence of CCTV in a location with an inefficient police service or inept criminal justice system is unlikely to deter a potential offender from proceeding to break the law. In some parts of the world, there is increasing public support for CCTV surveillance. In such places, it may be argued that concern for a rise in crime far outweighs that of civil liberties. It is necessary to note that, in cases where untrained members of the public are involved in CCTV surveillance; potential risks to public order, public safety and individual privacy exist. These potential risks ought to be identified and taken into consideration for the purposes of ensuring the effectiveness of the system. Works cited College of Policing. “The Effects of CCTV on Crime”. Police.uk. Web. 16 April 2014. < http://library.college.police.uk/docs/what-works/What-works-briefing-effects-of-CCTV-2013.pdf>. Fay, Stephen. “Tough on Crime, Tough on Civil Liberties: Some Negative Aspects of Britain’s Wholesale Adoption of CCTV During the 1990s”. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 12 (1998): 315-347. Print. . Gill, martin & Spriggs, Angela. “Assessing the impact of CCTV”. Cctvusergroup.com. Web 17 April 2014. . Kitchen, Ted & Schneider, H. Richard. Planning for Crime Prevention: A Transatlantic Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print. National Community Crime Prevention Programme. “CCTV as a Crime Prevention Measure”. Gov.au. Web 17 April 2014. < http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/NationalCommunityCrimePreventionProgramme/Documents/Tip_Sheet_5.pdf>. Surrette, Ray. Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Webster, R. Wiliam, Toepfer. E, Klauser, Francisco, Raab, D. Charles. “Politics of Surveillance for Crime Prevention”. Video Surveillance: Practices and Policies in Europe. Amsterdam: IOS press, 2012. Print. Welsh, C. Brown, Farrington, P. David. Making Public Places Safer: Surveillance and Crime Prevention. London: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. Zurawski, Nils. “From Crime Prevention to Urban Development: Politics and Resistance Concerning CCTV Cameras in Central Hamburg”. The International Journal of Government and Democracy in the Information Age 17(2012): 45-55. Print. . Read More