Tuesday, December 1, 2009

The fallacy of "crime prevention" cameras

In the last few years there has been a lot of reporting about cities and even countries (England) putting a great deal of trust in the idea that cameras in public areas will deter crime. I don't believe the evidence supports that idea. Here in Lubbock data indicated that on intersections with red light cameras, accidents increased, which was the opposite of the desired effect.

In Dallas they have had cameras for a while. It's interesting to take a look at 3 snapshots in time:

March 21, 2008 - Dallas News reports that cameras placed around the Dallas area have reduced crime. Among items reported as also having an effect in some areas are increased police presence and active neighborhood watch. For some reason their effect on crime is barely acknowledged.


April 27, 2009 - the Grit for Breakfast blog looks at the reported improvement in crime statistics and reveals that while crime was down 11% in camera monitored areas, it was down 18.7% in the rest of Dallas. The author wonders whether a decrease in one areas crime is really a decrease if the rest of the city decreases more. He also points out that Dallas recently changed it's crime reporting policy, and the effect of that has not been factored in.

December 1, 2009 - cbs11tv reports that the cameras have been ineffective deterring crime. In one area the cameras were placed in crime actually increased - and none of the crime was caught on camera.

Crime cameras are not tools of a legitimate republic. They are the tools of totalitarian regimes and serve best as a means to monitor law abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals will figure out where the cameras are and make sure not to expose themselves. Law abiding citizens will become the monitored while criminals go around the not-so-deterrent.

8 comments:

  1. what about all the news reports(almost weekly occurances)of criminals and injustices "caught on camera" at malls, city streets, airports, etc. I agree we don't need "crime prevention" cameras but we certainly needed "those" cameras to catch the perps. Call 'em what you want but they do pay off, eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Crime cameras are not tools of a legitimate republic. They are the tools of totalitarian regimes and serve best as a means to monitor law abiding citizens, not criminals.

    (Huh? "Totalitarian regime"? Did I stumble into Don "Dr. Doom" May's blog by mistake?)

    If law-abiding citizens were actually being monitored, you might have a case. But as things stand now, cameras are (99% of the time) used only for after-the-fact monitoring, which is helpful to law enforcement.

    You do want to help our cops catch the bad guys, do you not?

    ReplyDelete
  3. As preventative measures, which is what they are being touted as, they don't pay off. As a tool to solve crimes they are invaluable, if used properly. Evidence from the UK and Dallas indicate that placing dozens, hundreds, or thousands (in Britain) of cameras monitoring the streets isn't even that effective as a crime solving tool. When used for specific purposes like monitoring banks and high risk areas/items they can be very effective in solving crime - provided the criminal isn't wearing anything that can effectively hide his features from the camera.

    I am for helping the cops catch the bad guys. But I don't agree that the cameras are the answer to all of our enforcement woes - and that is how they are often sold. The best answer is more officers on the street. Not riding in a patrol car, but walking a beat and getting to know the neighborhood and the people.

    If you want a deterrent, take the expense of setting up a "deterrent" camera system, and put more cops on the street.

    ReplyDelete
  4. digby - I am not Don May, although we have some similarities in our thinking. But I hope you'll continue to read despite that. :)

    Here is a little of my thoughts on privacy and government:

    1. Liberty = security = privacy. That is an oversimplification, but if you surrender any one of those you automatically lose the other two in the same measure.

    2. The more privacy the government has, the less security the citizens have. The reverse is also true.

    3. The tendency of government is to increase it's control over the citizenry. People often grant governments more control to gain a sense of security.

    As Ben Franklin said: The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

    Something the founding fathers are very clear about in their writings is that to remain free we must remain vigilant, and be ready to fight.

    Please understand that I am not anti-government. Until we live in a world where there is no need for police or armies there will be a need for government. As long as there is a need for government, there will be a need for men to stand up and say "No!" when the government goes too far.

    ReplyDelete
  5. so you do agree that a deterrent camera system located in a high risk area would be justified. Like banks and jewelry stores. But not at intersections where there are a high numbers of accidents...or at known street corners where drug deals are being reported.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No, I do not agree even that a deterrent camera system would be justified. Banks and jewelry stores don't use them as a deterrent, but as a means of identifying the crooks. And if the experience in Lubbock was typical camera's probably wouldn't reduce accidents. In the case of deterring drug deals, cameras would be better for evidence after the fact.

    In general, cameras don't seem to be a very good deterrent. A study in the UK by Home Office Research (study HORS292) examined the deterrent effect of cameras in a variety of settings. The most telling part of the study was the number of times the phrase "not statistically significant" appeared. The study is a pdf at http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. ""If you want a deterrent, take the expense of setting up a “deterrent” camera system, and put more cops on the street.""
    It must exist, otherwise you wouldn't recommend it. As for more cops. Ain't gonna happen here cause apparently not too many young folk want to be a cop in Lubbock. Yes, the street cameras for the most part do not deter, but they do serve a purpose. If someone told you they are there only to deter, they lied.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Poor phrasing on my part. A more correct statement: If you want a deterrent, instead of spending money on cameras, use the money you would spend setting up a camera system to hire more officers.

    Lubbock can't hire enough officers as it is because they won't pay what other municipalities do.

    The cameras I've been talking about in Dallas and the UK were promoted as being deterrents to crime. Although steps are being taken to improve the situation, in the UK cameras are instrumental in less than 3% of convictions, so you can't say they are being used for evidence. The sad thing is that Britain is the most crime camera laden country in Europe, possibly the world, and the cameras have had very little impact on crime.

    If you are talking about the alley cameras the City of Lubbock uses to catch burglars, their primary purpose isn't deterrent, although they may have some slight deterrent effect. They are there to catch criminals. The problem I have with those cameras involves the way they are set up.If they are setup to show only the alleyway, fine. If they can see into a single backyard without the residents written permission, they are invading that persons privacy.

    ReplyDelete