Question: ““CCTV is considered by some to be a cheaper and more effective way of reducing urban crime than paying for police officers to patrol the streets. However, the public feel safer if police officers are on the streets and do not like their daily lives being recorded by so many cameras.”
“I don't think there's much distinction between surveillance and media in general. Better media means better surveillance. Cams are everywhere”, once said Bruce Sterling, a very reputable American science fiction author(Sterling, 2017). In fact, the major purpose of CCTV or surveillance camera is proving conformity and security to the public. Just as Bruce Sterling has mentioned, the surveillance system functions as Mass media. CCTV, it is argued, assists in the reduction and deterrence of criminal behavior. Even Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States was overthrown in the Watergate Scandal with the assistance of “surveillance”. In this sens, it is very indisputable that CCTV could be one of the most effective way and perhaps the cheapest way to reinforce public security and reduce the crime rate as compared with paying for policemen to petrol on the street.
First, it is undeniable that CCTV has a potential advantage of cost-effectiveness as compared with other methods in reducing crime rates. Police officers would just have to sit in a control room and keep an eye on the regions covered by CCTV cameras. Very often, these cameras could keep operating for 24 hours. Literally speaking, there will also be no blind angles as the views of cameras are overlapping. As such, it is not very necessary to send a lot of policemen to patrol on the street. Instead, it would be much easier for the police station to allocate its manpower and resources more effectively on emergent situation. For instance, if a woman is being robbed in a downtown area, the police station could immediately send officers to catch the criminals. The facial features and characteristics could be also identified very promptly through the database of the police station. It would not only save cost but also be more effective in reducing and deterring the criminal events. According to the study of Phillips(1999), there were only 12 CCTV cameras installed in Airdrie, a small town of Scotland in 1996. All the cameras were monitored by the police officers in the surveillance control room. In two years time, the total criminal events were dropped by nearly 20%. Crimes of dishonesty such as home breaking or vandalism were reduced by 48%. As the aforementioned, the number of CCTV cameras deployed were only twelve but the effect was remarkably good. Very similarly, the CCTV cameras installed in the bus and other public transport system in Cleveland, England, had achieved very similar effect. In Cleveland, many public buses were suffering from vandalism, such as the damage to the seat cushions(Poyner, 1992). After installing three cameras on each bus, the culprits would be immediately captured through a caught-in-act mechanism. In other words, when the culprits were vandalizing the business facilities, they would be caught in camera at once. As a result, the rate of vandalism on buses dropped very significantly after installing the CCTV cameras. The local police and bus companies would not have to invest a lot of money to investigate and repair the bus facilities. Instead, they could monitor the criminal events through cameras and capture the culprits through the surveillance system. It is indisputable that it is rather cost effective for all stakeholders to install CCTV. Meanwhile, when the criminals are awareness of the fact that their illegal behaviors could be recorded by the CCTV cameras, they would be deterred from doing so. It is also expected that the crime rate would decrease accordingly.
Without any doubt, high crime rate would certainly adversely affect the social stability. Hence, from the social perspective, the overriding issue for urban operators or police is to foster social stability. Installing CCTV cameras would effectively eliminate the public fear of crimes. Numerous studies have shown that the presence of cameras in public places would make people feel safer as compared with areas without surveillance. According to the report of Ditton(2000), majority of the respondents believe that the installation of CCTV cameras would make them feel mentally safer and more comfortable when they are shopping. As such, the researchers manage to derive a conclusion that the installation of CCTV would not only make people feel safer but also promote the regional economic activities. Spriggs, Argomaniz, Gill and Bryan(2005) have conducted an exploratory study on eliciting respondents’ attitude toward the installation of CCTV camera. Nearly 95% of candidates claim that they are more than wiling to see more cameras to be installed in the downtown area. The major reason according to the qualitative study is that the cameras could make them much safer. As a matter of fact, many researches have derived very similar conclusions about CCTV installation. The surveillance system would create very positive social benefits and enhance the public’s feelings of safety. Mackay (2003) aims to further reveal the benefits of CCTV from social perspectives. He has managed to discover that the installation of CCTV cameras would create a “safe city” image among local residents. As such, more and more people are willing to go to the city center and fully utilize the facilities there. In other words, the feasibility for them to spend their money is also very high. On the other hand, when an area is reported to have high crime rate, it would be less likely for people to spend their money their. The regional economic activities would therefore be adversely affected. Moreover, the community safety issues could also be effectively addressed through the surveillance system. When the criminals are not caught in act, they could be easily recognized through the recorded videos from the CCTV cameras. People in community could also contribute their parts in identifying these culprits. In this way, the partnership among the police, councils, and local communities is thus effectively established and promoted. Mostly important, the public will feel that the police is actually “done something very useful”. in this sense, the installation of CCTV would promote the social stability very remarkably.
However, the major disadvantage of CCTV system is always associated with respective privacy concerns. People might not feel very comfortable if their daily activities are registered and being viewed by other persons. The constant CCTV surveillance of a public place might be an invasion of public privacy and a breach of human rights. Geoffrey R. Peck, was caught on CCTV in an attempt to commit suicide(Taylor, 2002). The photos captured from the surveillance soon exposed this incident to the major media agencies and spread across the UK communities. In fact, Mr Peck did not expect such a large scale of media exposure. As a result, the European court of Human rights demanded the U.K government to respond to the violation of human’s privacy in regards to the CCTV installation. Therefore, later on, the free-standing Privacy Law was enacted in 2003 to regulate the usage of CCTV. However, the British Model of the CCTV system is certainly much better than the U.S model. To a certainly extent, the privacy issue related to the Surveillance has been improved significantly right after the enactment of the privacy law. For instance, the citizens could visit the control room at their wills. Before the installation of CCTV cameras, the nearby communities would be carefully consulted. Moreover, the cameras are only controlled by the police, local authorities and private contractors. No unauthorized personnel are allowed to access to the information recorded by the CCTV. The installation procedures are fully governed by the Home office. Transparency and justice are fully respected in the process of CCTV installation. As such, the privacy issue would be addressed very tremendously.
But it is also necessary to point out that the regulation of CCTV cameras and surveillance is not very socially desirable. For instance, in the U.S, the public is not actively involved in this process. Very often, the public could only respond when the CCTV has already been installed. Besides, the policies with respect to the public access, digital image issues, access to the control room, etc, are not properly defined. As a result, there are many legal issues in regards to the potential misuses of the digital images, recordings and so on through the CCTV system. For example, in the Katz v. the United states, the supreme court believes that the use of electronic interception of a voice in the public phone booth violates the privacy law(Barnes, 2006). In other words, the local governments are not eligible to use the digital data from surveillance for their own purposes. By this token, it is more advisable to follow the British model of installing and regulating the CCTV cameras.
Conclusion
In conclusion, to a very large extent, the installation of CCTV cameras is both cheaper and effective in reducing the urban crimes from the cost and social perspectives. It is obvious that the installation of CCTV cameras would effectively reduce the number of policemen patrolling on the street. Instead, they would just need to stay in the control room and oversee the criminal events. On the other hand, the public would potentially feel safer when they are in an area under surveillance. The local economic activities would be promoted as well. However, the major problem is still the privacy concern. Many people are not feeling comfortable if their daily activities are recorded and accessed by unknown persons. In the Peck’s case, it is obvious that his personal issue was receiving excessive public exposure due to the CCTV. But it is also necessary to point out that these privacy issues could be effectively resolved through the British model. In other words, when the public is actively involved in the decision-making process of the surveillance system, the problem would be very much alleviated. For instance, the public or nearby communities could be consulted before any installation of cameras. The public could also access the digital information stored in the control room according to the respective rules and regulations. In my opinion, it is certainly very necessary to install the CCTV cameras around us. It would effectively deter criminals from conducting illegal activities. For instance, if the CCTV cameras are installed along the streets, the vandalism of the street lights would certainly drop very remarkably. If a person is breaking a street light or other public facility, he or she would be immediately recognized and caught by the police. Without cameras, the urban operators would spend a huge amount of tax-payer money on investigating this kind of criminal events. It is both costly and ineffective for them to do so.
Reference
Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9).
Ditton, J. (2000). Crime and the City. British journal of criminology, 40(4), 692-709.
Mackay, D. (2003). Multiple targets: the reasons to support town-centre CCTV systems. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 5(3), 39-48.
Phillips, C. (1999). A review of CCTV evaluations: Crime reduction effects and attitudes towards its use. Crime prevention studies, 10(1), 123-155.
Poyner, B. (1992). "Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism." In: R.V. Clarke(ed.), Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
Spriggs, A., Argomaniz, J., Gill, M., & Bryan, J. (2005). Public attitudes towards CCTV: results from the Pre-intervention Public Attitude Survey carried out in areas implementing CCTV. Home Office Online Report, 10(05).
Sterling, B.(2017). Bruce Sterling Quotes. BrainyQuote. Retrieved from: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bruce_sterling_265285
Taylor, N. (2002). State surveillance and the right to privacy.Surveillance & Society, 1(1), 66-85.