Here in the US, some major cities are toying with the idea of using cameras to help cut the crime rate. What follows is a portion of a story I ran across this morning on the Interweb
London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.
But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.
In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average.
The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.
Dee Doocey, the Lib-Dems' policing spokeswoman, said: "These figures suggest there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a better crime clear-up rate.
"We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear if some of that money would not have been better spent on police officers.
"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime.
Question is, should we follow what the English have done? Are the cameras more of a method for establishing a 'Big Brother' society that liberals have railed against for decades than for catching criminals? Living near Dallas, Texas I have heard city officials talk about implementing a camera system here.
Is it worth it?
Thoughts? Comments?
Originally posted by SMSBear716It's not worth it.
Here in the US, some major cities are toying with the idea of using cameras to help cut the crime rate. What follows is a portion of a story I ran across this morning on the Interweb
London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.
But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and contr ...[text shortened]... alk about implementing a camera system here.
Is it worth it?
Thoughts? Comments?
I suspect money spent on cameras means less money spent on police officers.
And while it might be satisfying to see someone sent down for violent robbery because they were identified using CCTV, it's no good for the victim while he is being beaten up or threatened at gun point.
Originally posted by knightwestActually they just hire minimum wage staff to watch the cameras and supposedly call dispatchers.
A heavy reliance on CCTV shifts the balance of police work away from active preventative policing to solving crime after it happened.
While the ROI (Return On Investment) in terms of crime prevention are less than impressive, the average voter in America seems unable to connect the dots between taxes and their W-2 withholdings. The politicians certainly aren't stupid enough to do so, taking the "don't you want to feel safer?" approach.
When this first started going on in England (over 10 years ago now), the Net was full of people baffled at the overwhelmingly positive response from the English citizens.
It's like no one read 1984 at all. Oh well. Not when there's football to watch!
I'm sure the voters here are no more sharp than the English and we'll happily forfeit our rights to a personal life. We already gave the NSA blanket rights to tap phones, and the politicians wisely used the tag, "Well, if you're not a terrorist you have nothing to worry about..." LOL
Let's see; I wonder how many wire tapings have been done on citizens today and what the ratio is in connection with capturing terrorists... Oh wait, they're not required to give that kind of information out.
On a side note: can you imagine a better ROI if this footage was scoured by programs to analyze marketing data and then sold to large companies?
I'm often surprised companies like PepsiCo haven't already worked out a system to receive footage from gas stations and grocery stores. Why pay Marketing surveyors to guess what the public wants when you can just have the hard data?
Originally posted by SMSBear716First..to avoid a pummeling - I DON'T LIKE SURVIELANCE CAMERAS.
[b]Here in the US, some major cities are toying with the idea of using cameras to help cut the crime rate.
doubt on its ability to help solve crime.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.
But - I think this represents a false premise. Of course cameras cannot prevent a crime and can only help solve a crime if someone who knows the perpetrator happens to see the image.
What the most logical impact of cameras is: The conviction rate in court with 'video' vs 'no video'. Are there any stats on that?
in my opinion cameras are useless. they will only catch the idiotic criminals that would get caught anyway. it is not as if the criminal would walk to one and hold a piece of paper with his address on it.
those that are intelligent enough will find a way around the cameras. more patrols is much more sensible to implement
The town I live in has CCTV cameras that are operated and funded by the local borough council, not the police. I have no idea if the crime rates have dropped since the installation.
Something that I have noticed is the concentration of these cameras in the pedestrianised areas of the town. The 'modernisation' of town centres has created areas where police cannot access at speed in an emergency situation. There are few police officers on foot patrol in these areas, which is leaving the job of dealing with any crime or problems to store security guards, shop owners and the general public. The police arrive up to 30 minutes later, depending on how serious the situation is.
I have wondered whether CCTV cameras are of any use in the prevention of crime, or are they just there in the hope they can capture a clear enough image to recognise an offender? This may enable the police to pick them up at a later date, and possibly have the evidence to prosecute.