Why has the United Kingdom adopted CCTV technology with such enthusiasm and how effective is it as a means of crime prevention?

by lmclellan1 (student)

SCS1007 120164752

There has been a dramatic rise in the use of closed circuit television in the most recent decades not only in the United Kingdom, but also globally and has been a significant aspect in many crime prevention programmes. This has mainly been due to increases in fear of general crime and growing demand for crime prevention. And so, CCTV was “sold to the public on the basis that it is a friendly eye in the sky” (Norris et al 1998 p. 15) helping to both reduce crime and the fear of it. In accordance with Weiss’s classifications (1987), CCTV is regarded as a primary crime prevention activity and is focused more so on the offence as opposed to the offender, concentrating on the immediate situation of the offence. Primary prevention strategies, like CCTV, aim to help reduce the opportunities and likelihood of crime being committed simply by increasing the risk to the offender. However, the effectiveness of CCTV technology can be placed under scrutiny and it is questionable how useful it is as a means of crime prevention.

Since the early 90s, the United Kingdom adopted the use of CCTV with great enthusiasm. Nowadays, according to Welsh and Farrington (2002 p.44) “in Britain, CCTV is the single most heavily funded non-criminal justice crime prevention measure.” The initial introduction of CCTV was not however based on any solid research which concluded that schemes could help to dramatically reduce crime. The only research which was conducted prior to its introduction was conducted on a much smaller scale. For example: Poyner’s independent studies of car parks and buses (1992) found that vandalism and other acts of crime were reduced after the implementation of CCTV. However, due to the small scale of studies and having been conducted on an independent basis such as Poyner’s, it does not make them a reliable source for deciding on whether or not to introduce more CCTV schemes, and evaluating their success and effectiveness.

There were a number of factors which caused the enthusiastic adoption of CCTV throughout the whole UK, none however were on the basis of solid research that CCTV reduced crime. Between 1988 and 1992, the Conservative government had witnessed an “almost unprecedented growth in crime from just under 4 million offences to just under 6 million” (Coleman and Norris 2000 p. 150.) Therefore, they were under increasing scrutiny and pressure to find effective methods of dramatically reducing crime in the UK. Further to this, in 1993, CCTV was “thrust into the limelight” (Coleman and Norris 2000 p. 150) by two major events: the kidnap and murder of toddler Jamie Bulger and the attempted bombing of Harrods when a bomb was placed in a bin outside (Coleman and Norris 2000 p. 150.) Both events were recorded by CCTV and subsequently assisted the police in their investigations, thus helping to identify the criminals. These both placed CCTV massively in the public eye and its benefits were unquestionable to many. Furthermore, the few schemes which did exist in towns and cities did “boast major benefits” from its introduction (Coleman and Norris 2000 p. 150.)

Therefore, it seemed obvious to the government to channel large sums of money into CCTV schemes due to its positive media portrayal at the time and benefits it had brought to the few areas that were already running CCTV schemes. Norris et al (1998) found that by 1996, all city centres with populations over 500,000 had city centre schemes. Additionally, Goodwin et al (1998) calculated that up to 78% of the Home Office crime prevention budget was contributing to CCTV schemes between 1994 and 1997. This equates to around £37 million. Further to this, in 1999, Painter and Tilley ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

CCTV was also deemed attractive to the government in other ways. As discussed by Norris and Armstrong (1999 p.36), there were further contributing factors to the introduction of more CCTV schemes which were unrelated to the need for greater crime prevention in the UK; “it (CCTV) dovetailed neatly with their ideological demands for privatisation of the public sector.” This is because the businesses within the private sector would be entirely responsible and involved in the creation, implementation and routine maintenance of the CCTV systems nationally. Additionally, according to Norris et al (1998 p. 22) the government needed to “revive the economic fortunes of the city centre” and it was believed that the introduction of CCTV would encourage businesses to locate in the city centres through minimising the risk and fear of crime. From this therefore, it can be inferred that perhaps the enthusiastic adoption of CCTV in the UK was not solely based on the need to reduce crime but also the fact that it tied neatly with Conservative policy and plans to revive the economy once more and therefore could also explain why the government channelled such large sums of money into new and existing schemes.

From the outset, the effectiveness of CCTV has been questioned by many and there are both arguments for and against the use of these schemes as a form of crime prevention. By 2000, 13 independently conducted studies had taken place (Coleman and Norris 2000 p.165.) Two examples which indicated that CCTV was particularly successful in reducing crime are Airdrie (1993) and Newcastle and Kings Lynn (1995.) In 1993, The Scottish Office commissioned research into the effectiveness of CCTV in helping to reduce crime and minimise the fear of crime amongst the population. 12 cameras were placed on open streets in Airdrie town centre. 2 years after the implementation of the cameras, 21% fewer crimes where recorded when compared to the two years prior to the CCTV installation, which clearly highlights a substantial reduction of almost a quarter. Further to this, crimes of dishonesty which include shoplifting and house robbery saw the most significant reduction of 48%. Altogether, since the CCTV scheme was introduced, the police were able to clear up 16% more crimes and offences. However, Coleman and Norris (2000) noted that despite the clear reductions in some areas, there were increases in crime levels for different offences such as drug dealing and minor traffic violations. Similarly, Brown (1995) reported similar findings to those witnessed in Airdrie in Newcastle and Kings Lynn. Burglary dropped by 57%, criminal damage 34% and motor vehicle theft was down 49%. The reductions of crime in the areas with CCTV were much greater than the control group.

On the other hand though, despite these positive results witnessed in some studies, much research into CCTV effectiveness has been inconclusive. Welsh and Farrington (2002) carried out 22 evaluations spread over 3 major settings and compared results of the experimental areas with control areas. They found that 11 of the CCTV schemes had a positive effect on crime whereas 5 witnessed a negative effect. Further to his, 5 schemes had a null effect on crime and no notable impact was made. Furthermore, the concluded that CCTV had the most positive impact on car parks, whereas it appeared that for public transportation and the city centre and public housing, there was little to no impact. This clearly highlights inconsistency and an inconclusive evaluation of CCTV as a mean of crime prevention. In addition to this, according to Neil Martin et al (2010 p. 231,) the enthusiastic adoption of CCTV in the UK has led to an increased reliance on CCTV evidence in prosecutions. This therefore, raises the issue of the quality of CCTV technology. The Home Office and police report of 2009 concluded that over 80% of CCTV images are of no practical use due to their poor quality image (Neil Martin et al p. 231). There is no doubt that CCTV may help to reduce some crime, but for the crimes that are committed, it is questionable how useful a tool it is in helping the police to find the offenders due to the varying quality. It also raises the question, how sure can we be that the offender is not wrongly charged with a crime if the CCTV footage is poor and unclear?

Furthermore there is a problem in assessing the effectiveness of CCTV purely based on crime rate and statistics. The issue of crime displacement involves the movement of crime to another area or committed at other times or in different ways and is believed to be one of the negative influences of CCTV as it may help to reduce crime in some areas, but it will simply be displaced elsewhere. According to Coleman and Norris (2000 p.157) the two types of displacement most likely to occur in the case of CCTV are functional (changing the nature of the crime) and geographical (committing a crime elsewhere.) Brown (1995) conducted research into potential crime displacement in Birmingham. He concluded that since the introduction of cameras, the incidence numbers of theft in surrounding areas increased and by the end of the study, the number of offences per month was three times as high as when CCTV was implemented. (Brown 1995 p.35) This clearly illustrates the negative impact which the introduction of cameras had on the study area in Birmingham and poses the question does CCTV create a greater negative impact than positive? However, it has to be noted that displacement is extremely difficult to measure as there are problems involved in distinguishing displacement areas from control areas. (Coleman and Norris, 2000, p. 158)

Coleman and Norris (2000) also debated further negative impacts and the possibility of schemes causing increases in crime. As discussed previously in relation to the increases of some crimes in Airdrie, CCTV technology is enabling the police to find evidence of crimes which prior to CCTV would have gone unreported, for example drug dealing and street fights. Therefore, rather than witnessing reductions in crime, the number of recorded crime may often increase. This makes it even more so difficult to evaluate CCTV’s effectiveness as a means of crime prevention as researchers need to be aware of changes in public reporting behaviour and police practises when conducting their research instead of focusing their conclusions solely on crime rate changes.

To conclude, the United Kingdom adopted CCTV technology with great enthusiasm from the 1990s onwards due to a number of independent studies which witnessed decreases in crime since implementation. Furthermore, a number of serious events caught on camera helped the police to catch the criminals. In my opinion, the main reason for the adoption of CCTV technology was the increasing crime rates which added large amounts of pressure on the Conservative government during the late 80s and early 90s to find an effective means of crime prevention. Therefore, the government were quick to commit large amounts of money to CCTV due to the small successes witnessed and positive media frenzy which surrounded it at the time. CCTV technology is fairly effective as a means of crime prevention but it is not entirely beneficial and there have been some negative impacts witnessed. CCTV can both reduce and increase the amount of crime recorded in areas which makes it extremely problematic to determine exactly how effective it is. CCTV has undoubtedly aided in reducing levels of crime and helping to catch criminals in the areas in which they are situated, however previously unreported crimes are now recorded due to more schemes being implemented, which therefore has an adverse impact on crime rates. The small scale studies which have investigated the effectiveness of CCTV as a method of crime prevention have often been inconclusive or contradictory as crime displacement occurs or the numbers of other crimes increase. However, most have shared the conclusion that CCTV has helped to reduce some crime. As Welsh and Farrington (2002 p.45) discussed, if the government were to introduce or improve any more CCTV schemes they should be “carefully implemented in different settings and should employ high quality evaluation designs with long follow-up periods.” Furthermore, the schemes should only be implemented if high quality, scientific evidence suggests that CCTV would be beneficial and effective.

Word count: 2,032

References/Bibliography

*Brown, B. (1995) Closed Circuit Television in Town Centres: Three Case Studies, Crime Prevention and Detection Series Paper 73, Home Office, London

*Coleman, C. and Armstrong, G. (1999) The Maximum Surveillance Society. The Rise of CCTV, Oxford New York, Oxford International Publishers

*Coleman, C. and Norris, C. (2000) Introducing Criminology, Cullompton, Willan Publishing

*Ditton, & Short, E.. (1998) Does Closed Circuit Television prevent crime? An evaluation of the use of CCTV surveillance cameras in Airdrie Town Centre. Scottish Office Central Research Unit. Review from the Scottish Office online download -

*Goodwin, M., Johnstone, C. and Williams, K. (1998) New Spaces of Law Enforcement: Closed Circuit Television, Public Behaviour and the Policing of Public Space, unpublished paper, Aberystwyth: Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of Wales. (Cited in Coleman and Norris (2000))

*Neil Martin, G., Carlson, N. and Buskist, W. (2010) Psychology 4th edition, Essex, Pearson

*Norris, C., Moran, J. and Armstrong, G. (1998) Closed Circuit Television and Social Control, Aldershot, Ashgate

*Painter, K. and Tilley, N. (1999) Crime Prevention Studies p.2. Vol. 10. Monsey, New York, Criminal Justice Press.

*Poyner, B. (1992) Situational Crime Prevention in Two Parking Facilities, In R. Clarke, (ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, New York, Harrow and Heston.

*Welsh, B. and Farrington, D. (2002) Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review, Home Office Research Development and Statistic Directorate. Online download -

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/1998/12/978abe73-d412-4ea3-86a7-e5acf24c8d7a