Closed Circuit Television Cameras
Introduction
In recent years, the Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV) has emerged as one of the main tools for fighting crime in today’s modern world. Consequently, this technology is no longer restricted to just monitoring of activities in retail stores and office buildings but is now used in the surveillance of the society at large. Painter and Tilley (1999) noted that the strategy of installing CCTV in public places was first started by Britain between 1994 and 1997. The positive effects of CCTV in fighting crimes, as well as the widespread support for its use, prompted many countries all over the world to follow the British example (La Vigne et al., 2011).
Most proponents of surveillance cameras argue that in terms of preventing crimes, CCTV is cheaper and more effective than paying police officers to patrol the street. Thus, the primary aim of this assignment is to determine if CCTV is genuinely effective in the prevention of crime. The task will specifically assess the exact impact of CCTV on criminal psychology, rate of crime being committed in the society, and cost of deploying and maintain the surveillance cameras in the community. The results of the evaluation will help us to determine if surveillance cameras are more reliable than police patrol in the quest to maintain adequate security in society.
Claim one: CCTV helps to minimize the rate of crime in society
The findings of some academic research have indicated that CCTV is quite helpful in reducing the rate of crimes committed in society. In one of such studies, Ashby (2017) conducted a systematic review of several academic publications on the exact impact of CCTV on the rate of crimes in the society. The results show that CCTV is quite useful in reducing the frequency of specific types of crimes. For instance, the authors observed that the installation of surveillance cameras is quite effective in minimizing robberies in places like car parks and underground stations. This result implies that it is quite preferable to use surveillance cameras in place of police patrol in fighting crimes in those two localities since both methods have similar effects in reducing the number of crimes in the area.
However, the findings of other scholars indicated that surveillance cameras are more reliable in specific situations and less reliable in others. Most of these authors pointed out that CCTVs are useful in dealing with property crimes, especially theft of vehicles. One good example was the review carried out by Welsh and Farrington (2008), which revealed that even though the installation of surveillance cameras is quite useful in the prevention of car theft from parks, they still appear to be unreliable in fighting theft in the residential areas. Similar findings were also recorded by Deismann (2003), who noted that CCTV could help in the quest to
property crimes, but ineffective in dealing with personal crimes like assaults, etc. Gill and Spriggs (2005) also pointed out that CCTV tends to be more useful under certain conditions and circumstances. The authors argue that those conditions and circumstances are the major factors that determine how to make the best and profitable use of CCTV in crime prevention. Gill and Spriggs (2005) listed those conditions as follows area of CCTV coverage, the density of camera coverage of an area, types of crimes, level of lighting, and activity. For example, Gill and Spriggs (2005) pointed out that CCTV tends to be more effective when the area of coverage is relatively small, and the density of camera coverage of an area is huge. Regarding types of crime, Gill and Spriggs (2005) observed that surveillance cameras are more reliable for dealing with acquisitive crimes.
The above discussions clearly showed that CCTVs are quite helpful in the quest to minimize the rate of crime in the society, but their effectiveness depends largely on types of crimes, area of CCTV coverage, level of lighting, activities, etc. What this implies is that the efficacy of CCTV as a tool for crime prevention is being affected by several factors. Therefore, CCTV may not be deemed as effective as police patrol under specific condition.
Claim two: CCTV helps to improve policing activities
Some authors are of the opinion that the use of CCTV can trigger an increase in the number of crimes being reported to members of the police force. In one of such studies, Ashby (2017) discovered that surveillance cameras allow members of the police force to obtain more useful information regarding criminals that have just committed a crime. According to Wells et al. (2006), CCTV enables security agents to identify criminals quickly, and then arrest and prosecute them. Such an increased ability allows law enforcement agencies to resolve more crimes.
But some studies have revealed that the ability of CCTV to improve policing activities depends on several factors. For example, Pain (2012) in his research showed that CCTVs are quite useful in detecting certain types of crimes and ineffective in detecting other types. The author specifically pointed out that CCTVs are not valuable for detecting crime in residential areas. However, this finding is absolutely in contradiction with that of Coupe and Kaur (2005), who argue that the availability of surveillance cameras in residential areas enables security agents to retrieve the description of the criminals.
Claim three: CCTV tends to discourage people from committing crimes
Proponents of CCTV as a crime-fighting tool also argue that this security tool has the potential to discourage potential criminals from executing an operation. This is because, once the criminal become aware of the existence of CCTV within the vicinity, he will definitely assess the risks of proceeding with the crime and then determine whether the benefits outweigh the risks (Ratcliffe, 2006). In other words, criminals are less likely to commit a crime when there are surveillance cameras as that simply means they are likely to get caught if they ever proceed with that.
However, some scholars have expressed doubts about the effectiveness of CCTV as a tool of deterrence. One of such author is Piza (2016), who noted that even though CCTV is quite effective in discouraging burglary, the best result can only be obtained when the tool is used in combination with other evidence-based strategies. This postulation is also supported by Groombridge (2007), who argue that CCTV alone is not enough to eliminate complex social problems. These findings revealed the need to compliment CCTV with policing activities.
Conclusion and Recommendations
This academic paper identifies CCTV as an effective crime-fighting tool. However, the extent of its effectiveness depends largely on the exact type of crimes being prevented. In other words, surveillance cameras are only effective in the prevention of certain types of crimes but ineffective in others. To obtain the best possible result, it is recommendable to use this digital tool alongside the normal policing activities as well as evidence-based strategies. Such a combination will enable the security agents to make the best possible use of this digital tool and also boost the police’s ability to fight crime effectively.
References
Ashby, P.J.M. (2017). The Value of CCTV Surveillance Cameras as an Investigative Tool: An Empirical Analysis, Eur J Crim Policy Res, 23:441–459
Coupe, T., & Kaur, S. (2005). The Role of Alarms and CCTV in Detecting Non-residential Burglary. Security Journal, 18(2), 53–72. doi:10.1057/palgrave.sj.8340198
Deismann, W. (2003): CCTV: Literature Review and Bibliography, Research and Evaluation Branch, Ottawa: Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Gill, M., and A. Spriggs. (2005). Assessing the Impact of CCTV. London: Home Office Research Study No. 29
Groombridge, N. (2007) Taken in by CCTV Technology, Criminal Justice Matters, 69(1), 28-29, DOI:10.1080/09627250708553262
La Vigne, N., Lowry, S., Markman, J. and Dwyer, Al. (2011) Evaluating the use of Public Surveillance Cameras for Crime Control and Prevention. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center.
Paine, C. (2012). Solvability Factors in Dwelling Burglaries in Thames Valley. Cambridge: Master’s thesis, University of Cambridge.
Painter, K. and Tilley, N. (1999) Seeing and being seen to prevent crime. In: Surveillance of Public Space: CCTV, Street Lighting and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 10. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp. 1–14.
Piza, E.L. (2016): The crime prevention effect of CCTV in public places: a propensity score analysis, Journal of Crime and Justice, DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2016.1226931
Ratcliffe, J. (2006) Video Surveillance of Public Places. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police. Response Guide Series. Guide No. 4, US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Wells, H.A., Allard, T., & Wilson, P. (2006). Crime and CCTV in Australia: understanding the relationship. Humanities and Social Sciences Papers series. Gold Goast: Bond University. Retrieved from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hsspubs/70/.
Welsh, B.C., & Farrington, D.P. (2008). Effects of closed circuit television surveillance on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4 (17). doi:10.4073/csr.2008.17