CCTV systems can be a valuable weapon in tackling crime in certain situations; but we need clearer controls in law so that the data they gather isn't misused to intrude on people's privacy or infringe their rights
Introduction
The general purpose of the CCTV is to prevent and reduce crime. In theory, this happens because of one or more of these reasons:
. Deterrence: potential burglars and thieves may see the camera and decide that a store in question is too much of a risk and therefore not a good target.
2. Prosecution: thieves and shoplifters may be caught on camera and this can help catch and prosecute them.
3. Fear reduction: if everyone knows that there is a camera, they may feel safer in or around your business, thus preventing potential criminals from attacking.
4. Monitoring and intervention: if there is a security guard monitoring the area through CCTV system, he or she may act on any suspicious behavior and thus prevent a crime from occurring. Security guards may also deploy employees to a suspicious spot or near a person detected on the monitors.
Is CCTV effective in tackling crime?
A Home Office review of research found that CCTV was effective in tackling vehicle crime in car parks but had limited effect on other crimes and in other locations. Improved street lighting recorded better results in a parallel study.
CCTV systems can be a valuable weapon in tackling crime in certain situations; but we need clearer controls in law so that the data they gather isn't misused to intrude on people's privacy or infringe their rights. Despite its vast financial commitments to CCTV, this Government has consistently failed to address this issue. There remains no remotely adequate regulation of CCTV systems in law. The danger of misuse of cameras and the pictures they take has been illustrated already both by research and by court cases. By all means use CCTV cameras where there is a real crime problem that CCTV will help tackle; but we must have powerful, enforceable law to ensure they are only used for the right purposes.
We have to get the balance right on the use of CCTV and other surveillance equipment in public places - between protecting people's safety and protecting their privacy. The law should require clear impact assessments, so that CCTV is only used where it will work and will justify the intrusion.
If CCTV is less effective than people have been led to believe, perhaps we should actually be spending more of this money on fewer cameras and more on street lighting or police officers on the street.
From the government's perspective, CCTV has been long since seen as a useful crime prevention tool with wide ranging uses (Home Office, 1994). Amongst the many uses attributed to CCTV, public order issues are significant. For example, one particular government study highlights how a CCTV scheme in Birmingham incorporates the specific aims of 'deterrence of public disorder, anti-social behaviour and crime' and the 'reduction of general levels of fear of crime within the town (sic) centre' (Brown, 1995: 31). CCTV is therefore considered as an important tool in tackling disorder, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, all ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
From the government's perspective, CCTV has been long since seen as a useful crime prevention tool with wide ranging uses (Home Office, 1994). Amongst the many uses attributed to CCTV, public order issues are significant. For example, one particular government study highlights how a CCTV scheme in Birmingham incorporates the specific aims of 'deterrence of public disorder, anti-social behaviour and crime' and the 'reduction of general levels of fear of crime within the town (sic) centre' (Brown, 1995: 31). CCTV is therefore considered as an important tool in tackling disorder, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, all elements which form a major part of the government's Crime Reduction Programme.
Also in keeping with the main aims of the Crime Reduction Programme, CCTV is seen as important in combating high volume crime, in particular car crime and, to an extent, burglary. Further uses for CCTV include using cameras in order to gather information, such as the police using the cameras to target resources and response, use as a 'capable guardian' and for the identification of suspects (Brown, 1995). Such uses also locate CCTV within situational and traditional administrative approaches to crime prevention. In general, therefore, CCTV is perhaps a unique crime prevention strategy which manages to fulfil the diverse aims set out in the government's Crime Reduction Programme.
Due to these perceived uses, CCTV has become the most important feature of crime reduction strategies, illustrated by the Home Office allocation of 75% of its crime prevention budget towards CCTV between 1996 and 1998 (NACRO, 2002) and by its domination of local lists of practices (Gilling, 1999). Such is the appeal of CCTV that the Home Office made £153 million available between 1999 and March 2002 for allocation towards the funding of CCTV schemes (Home Office, 2000).
What types of crime?
Evaluation indicates surveillance cameras can limit certain types of crime, in particular locations. For example, CCTV cameras work more for property crime than for personal crime. They have been most effective in the following circumstances:
. Dealing with crimes of dishonesty (theft, burglary/break and enter);
2. Reducing motor vehicle crime;
3. Increasing feelings of safety and security; and
4. In city/town centres where the geographical layout of the town centre is simple and where the extent of camera coverage is high; and when the cameras are linked to a rapid police response.
This is obtained by ensuring that information can pass swiftly from CCTV operators to officers on the ground and vice versa. Most arrests are made when the system is used to coordinate timely responses to incidents as they occur. Effectiveness peaks when there is a high level of local publicity about video-assisted arrests. Attempting to use recorded information to identify suspects retrospectively is more time consuming and less effective. Research shows that CCTV does little to limit spontaneous crimes involving drug and alcohol-affected people. Consequently video surveillance systems have been found to be less effective in the following areas:
. Robbery and theft from the person;
2. Wounding and assault of the person;
3. Crimes involving drugs; and
4. Isolated incidents of vandalism
Although ineffective in preventing these crimes, monitored CCTV has successfully coordinated swift responses, which, at times, has reduced the severity of personal assaults.
Why?
CCTV has a very mark effect on the levels of crime and stands at the forefront of crime prevention in the UK. The fear of been observed committing a crime is usually enough. The potential offenders will avoid the gaze of the camera and seek their quarry elsewhere. This technology is considered to be in the front line of the security war and has saved many organisations from the perils of petty and serious criminals. CCTV is at the hart of government and police authority's strategy and the image from these cameras often are used as evidence with great success.
The promise of CCTV lies in the expectation of deterrence. Deterrence approaches, and of crime prevention strategies in particular, aim to put into place practices or conditions that 'convince criminals to desist from criminal activities, delay their actions, or avoid a particular target' (Siegel 1992:133). These approaches are premised on a number of behavioral expectations, and some submerged assumptions about the cognitive processes, motivational impulses, and empirical experiences of potential offenders. To the extent that efficacy of CCTV as a deterrence tactic depends, at least in part, on the degree to which these expectations and assumptions hold true, a reconstructive explication of the chain of expectations and assumptions is necessary.
Hence, the deterrent effect of CCTV will obtain if:
) A potential perpetrator enters a space monitored by CCTV and is either already aware of the fact of monitoring or somehow become aware of the fact.
2) The potential perpetrators either: a) already holds the belief that a crime committed in a space monitored by CCTV is more likely to be detected or b) the potential perpetrator somehow comes to that conclusion once they observe the cameras in operation. The submerged assumption here is that potential perpetrators are motivated to avoid detection.
3) The potential perpetrator either: a) already holds the belief that they are more likely to be identified if they commit a crime in a space monitored by CCTV or b) the potential perpetrator comes to that conclusion once they observe the cameras in operation. The submerged assumption here is that the potential perpetrators are motivated to avoid identification.
4) The potential perpetrators either: a) already hold the belief that they are more likely to be apprehended if they commit a crime in a space monitored by CCTV or b) to come to that conclusion once they observe the cameras in operation. The submerged assumption here is that the potential perpetrator is motivated to avoid apprehension.
5) The potential perpetrator engages in a calculation, in which s/he weighs the potential gains and against the following motivations: a) not to have their crime detected b) not to be identified c) not to be apprehended.
6) The potential perpetrator concludes, as a result of this recalculation, that not having their crime detected, not being identified, not being apprehended or any combination outweighs the potential gains associated with going ahead and committing the crime anyway.
7) The potential perpetrator, in the face of this conclusion, makes the decision not to commit a crime.
8) The potential perpetrator abides by this decision. The submerged assumption is that the potential perpetrator is actually in control or him or herself to the degree that s/he is capable of obeying reason rather than impulse.
To the extent that the assumptions or expectations do not obtain with respect to particular potential perpetrator, we can expect the probabilities to decline proportionally.
Conclusion
In the UK, the extent of CCTV coverage increased dramatically over the last decade and this despite the lack of substantive research evidence to suggest that CCTV works. What accounts for such an expansion? Critics of CCTV declaim the proliferation as the consequence of a combination of political expediency and the 'apparent' (as opposed to actual) efficacy of CCTV systems as crime prevention tools.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, B. (1995) 'CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies', Police Research Group Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper No.68. London: HMSO.
Gilling, D. (1999) 'Community Safety: a critique', from the British Criminology Conferences: Selected Proceedings, Volume 2.
Home Office (2000) CCTV initiative Application Prospectus, guidance and form for the application of Home Office funding for CCTV schemes, http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctvpros.htm
NACRO (2002) To CCTV or not to CCTV: a review of current research into the effectiveness of CCTV
systems in reducing crime , Community Safety Practice Briefing, May.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_mobility/documents/pdf/dft_mobility_pdf_032765.pdf
Developing Criminological Skills_Module Code: CR1100 _January 16th, 2006
Evaluate whether CCTV surveillance is effective in tackling crime. For which types of crime might it be most suitable? Why?
- 1 -