Application of Surveillance for Crime Prevention and Investigation - Coursework Example

Application of Surveillance for Crime Prevention and Investigation Application of Surveillance for Crime Prevention and Investigation Introduction Jacques Ellul is a French philosopher, theologian, and sociologist professor of law. His main area of concern was about technological tyranny. In one of his books, he argued that to be sure of apprehending criminals, it is necessary that everyone be supervised. Supervision or surveillance involves the monitoring of individuals’ activities, behaviours or changing information with the aim of protecting, managing influencing or directing them according to Lyon (2007). Supervision can be positively applied as much as it can be negatively instituted. It can also be done surreptitiously. In many cases, institutions conduct supervision to achieve specific goals, although individuals can also be engaged in supervising others. In Jacques Ellul’s context, supervision or surveillance is applied with the aim of preventing crime and in law enforcement (ThirdWay , 2003). Ellul’s suggestion that people should be supervised so as to prevent crime is subject to a lot of debate. While the activity has been applied in several situations to maintain social control, its impacts on people’s lives can be quite negative in so far as their privacy is concerned. The paper will discuss the issue of surveillance in light of various theories and social issues. Supervision and Surveillance to Apprehend Criminals Beyond an iota of doubt, the crime rate across the world has continued to grow. The situation is so grave that many governments are worried beyond measure of the security of their people (Arnold, 2008). Similarly, organization and individuals are constantly aware of the threat that is lurking around the corner. Even so, terrorism has become a real threat in international circles especially ever since the 9/11 attacks got in the path of success. With almost every single entity seeking to assure its security, many have preferred to monitor the activities of others. Surveillance for the purpose of enhancing security, preventing crime and providing evidence for prosecutorial purposes today is commonplace. In banks, supermarkets, shopping malls, streets, production areas and sports grounds, just to mention a few, surveillance cameras are strategically positioned, just in case a suspect seeks to engage in illegal activities. Facial recognition is another means of keeping close surveillance of criminals. This has been evident in Florida, Tampa in which there is a facial recognition photographic database containing a list of people whom the state perceives to be of special interest in regard to the commission of past crimes. This has helped in apprehending criminals in the United States as they can easily be monitored by the state (Colman and Mccahill 2011 p. 106). Not only does supervision involve the use of cameras and surveillance equipment, individuals also form part of the surveillance machinery as in the case where police officers are strategically stationed to keep watch of the public. Some countries have devised a program of using mobile tracking technology to monitor criminal’s activities. In this case, all the mobile subscribers are required to register all their mobile numbers with their respective mobile companies. In case a crime is committed or any information is passed that can lead to criminal activities, the police and intelligence service will then be able to track the source of information from the mobile company. The mobile company would retrieve the information and establish the source and the mobile subscriber whose information was registered with the device. Since all the details of the subscriber are available in the database, the criminal will easily be tracked and apprehended. The method has however raised several questions as to its validity. Many people have argued that those who use the mobile phones to pass such information usually abduct others and use their mobile phones to commit the crime (Hierand Greenberg 2007). Arnold (2008 p. 145) notes that supervision has seen the apprehension of many hardcore criminals in the world. For example, it is through surveillance that Osama Bin Laden, the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, was smoked off his hiding place. With public supervision, the arrest of arrest of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic became a possibility. In both cases, the public was expected to keep watch and report to authorities whenever they cited the wanted criminals. Supervision and Surveillance to Prevent Crime Supervision has been very instrumental in the fight against terror and other crimes in the world (Coleman and McCahill, 2011). It has been effective considering that when people are aware that they are being watched by others, they tend to fear committing crimes or doing the wrong things (Arnold, 2008). Colman and Mccahill (2011) notes that the European Union has adopted surveillance as a means of detecting those people who have suspicious characters and may have link to terrorist activities. After September 2011, an extension scheme called the Schengen Information System (SIS) was established for the purposes of surveillance. In application, the system has a database in which people are grouped with respect to characters. The categories include hooligans, violent troublemakers, terrorist suspects, persons whose passport visas have expired, those not required to live in EU countries and those who are supposed to be arrested. Their names are entered on the discrete surveillance system for close supervision (Colman and Mccahill (2011 p. 106). This has helped in tracking down criminals as their identities can easily be accessed through the database system. This strategy has also been employed by Canada in tracking terrorist activities and tax evaders. The application of supervision in various jurisdictions has seen a significant reduction in crime rates. Leps (1992 p.67) notes that close supervision is the best way of dealing with criminals in support of the Criminal Act of 1908. In this case, the criminal Act of 1908 had a clause that required close supervision of habitual criminals in which a close monitoring was to be administered on them for a period of five years. During the supervision period, the Act required that those who are convicted in at least three criminal offences would have their sentences increased to the penal servitude terms for the actual offense committed. This was a way of discouraging people from engaging in criminal acts in the country. This is because anyone who commits a crime is aware that his or her movements are being monitored and in case they are convicted of another offence, they would have their sentences more severe. Ellul and proponents of supervision of all claim that the prevention of crime, apprehension of criminals and enhancement of security are more important than the enjoyment of personal privacy. Better stated, they claim that surveillance helps in the protection of society from criminals and terrorists. In any case, surveillance as applied in the prevention of crime will not be to such an extent as to be unpleasantly intrusive on the average citizen. Supervision was also witnessed as a way apprehending crime in which released prisoner was being supervised to ensure that they lived a quite life without disturbances according to the Probation of offenders Act of 1907 (Leps 1992 p.68). In this case, the released prisoners were not required to mix with those with unacceptable characters. This was a way of ensuring that those whose characters are questionable in the society do not influence those released from prison negatively. Leps also notes that the Probation Act was latter amended to ensure that those released from prison do not engage in drinking of alcohol (1992 p.68). This act helped reduce criminal act as the state had close supervision of everyone in the country. Arguments against Supervision The right to privacy is a fundamental human right. Lack of privacy where it is needed creates an undesirable atmosphere and loss of freedom. Indeed, people cherish to have the freedom to go about their activities without worrying about the third, intrusive, eye. Ellul himself appreciates that supervision of the public will be as good as transforming the country into a massive concentration camp. Skeptics of the supervision agenda also claim that it may be used by authorities to suppress opponents of government or those against status quo as noted by Leps (1992). Yet again, the wholesome application of supervision erodes people’s trust in others, institutions and the government. Essentially, the application of supervision reduces every one to suspects. Some quarters have argued that supervision as applied in the modern sense where equipment, chips and persons perform the task lead to the defragmentation of data relating to individuals. What this means is that the supervising machinery ends up with data that is greatly fragmented and that in whole might misrepresent the individual. Furthermore, with the categorization based on various qualities, there are high chances of discriminatory practices taking root in a society that claims to uphold democracy and values diversity ((ThirdWay , 2003; Leps, 1992). Yet again, a culture of defiance may be cultivated by the application of nationwide supervision according to Leps (1992). Conclusion Supervision of everyone is a practice that has practically been achieved today with governments across the world employing various technologies and methods in respect of the same. The use of ID cards, surveillance cameras, pin numbers, humans and other methods to keep track of people’s activities all amount to surveillance. In many jurisdictions, crime prevention has been greatly achieved with the application of supervision. However, the method a lone has not been able to ensure the total eradication of crime or the apprehension of all criminals. In spite of the positive effects of supervision, it is greatly associated with negative effects such as loss of privacy, loss of trust and possibility of mistreatment of persons opposed to the authorities. Yet again, supervision has been associated with possible discrimination of persons based on the profiles that have been created of them especially considering that these profiles may be inaccurate. The inaccuracies may come to be given that data used in profiling is normally fragmented. References Arnold, R (2008). Law enforcement within the framework of peace support operations. Leiden, Ntherlands: BRILL. Coleman, R. and McCahill, M. (2011) Surveillance and crime. London: SAGE Publications. Hier, S. and Greenberg, J. (eds) (2007) The Surveillance Studies Reader. Berkshire: OUP Lyon, D. (2007) Surveillance studies: an overview. Cambridge: Polity Press Leps, M. (1992). Apprehending the criminal: the production of deviance in nineteenth-century discourse. New York: Duke University press. P 67-70. ThirdWay (Nov, 2003) “Sorting for Suspects”, ThirdWay Vol. 26, No. 9, Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd. Read More