Surveillance Camera Effect on Crime Debated
Current Trends of Increasing Video Surveillance May Prove Futile
Aug 20, 2008
Since the United States entered the world of global terrorism, surveillance has become a critical issue in the debate as to how the nation can provide for its own security. However, according to a recent report by MSNBC, video surveillance, easily the most popular form of community policing, may not have the desired effect on crime rates.
The Questions Raised by Surveillance
The report states that the head of London’s surveillance network released a statement that surveillance cameras do little to deter crime. In fact, this issue has been hotly debated in many communities. The issue boils down to several key questions: first, does a camera actually deter crime or simply move it to a place where there is no surveillance? Second, is video surveillance an effective law enforcement tool? Third, are video systems worth the cost when J.P. Freeman, a security market analyst company, projects that 21 billion dollars would constitute the domestic market for these systems by 2010?
Does Video Surveillance Affect Crime?
In the seven years since September 11th there have been no national research to track video surveillance’s effectiveness, leaving the questions as to its ability to deter open for interpretation. However, many criminals are bypassing the systems’ ability to act as a form of identification by simply wearing masks or keeping their backs to a camera. On the rare occasion new agencies can provide a full picture of a criminals face, it is often marred by lighting or simply the limitations of a camera posted at an odd angle.
Conflicting Interests on the Costs of Surveillance
In the wake of many cities having to lay off police officers due to decreasing budgets, the reliance on video cameras as a law enforcement tool seems a moot point when there’s no police to respond to the crimes in progress. Manpower was a key issue raised by the Florida Retail Commission to legislation requiring certain businesses to instal security cameras and proper lighting. The Commission’s argument being that surveillance only works when there is a person watching what the cameras see and this takes an officer from the streets responding to crime.
Video surveillance introduces the privacy debate into communities, but many often ignore the questions of effectiveness and cost during this argument. The simple fact being that cameras may work to record a crime, but do little to stop that crime from happening. The question then becomes whether video surveillance serves as just a visible symbol of security or as a functioning part of law enforcement.
