billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
AndyMan 7
I was amazed. Just yesterday, Chicago had it's first arrest for drug dealing because of a CCTV camera.
They've been in place for over a year in "high crime" and "drug marketplace" type neighbourhoods... And they just arrested their very first dealer.
Amazing. The city thinks this is a great success, and is flogging the example to news organizations.
Myself, I think one arrest in over a year is pretty lame.
On the other hand, you'd have to be pretty dumb to get caught by one of these. The city mounts them prominently, even putting a strobe light on top. It's painfully obvious where they're mounted. The cameras are mounted behind bullet proof glass and are mounted on a gimbal, so it can be tough to tell where exactly the camera is pointing.
The city claims their intended goal is to reduce crime, not "catch them in the act".
Chicago has seen a reduction in crime lately. Whether it's directly attributable to the cameras, is just a blip in the numbers remains to be seen. I suspect the reduction in violent crime is more likely attributed to police focusing on certain neighborhoods, plus the creation of "rapid reaction" forces.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0502250216feb25,1,6054534.story
They've been in place for over a year in "high crime" and "drug marketplace" type neighbourhoods... And they just arrested their very first dealer.
Amazing. The city thinks this is a great success, and is flogging the example to news organizations.
Myself, I think one arrest in over a year is pretty lame.
On the other hand, you'd have to be pretty dumb to get caught by one of these. The city mounts them prominently, even putting a strobe light on top. It's painfully obvious where they're mounted. The cameras are mounted behind bullet proof glass and are mounted on a gimbal, so it can be tough to tell where exactly the camera is pointing.
The city claims their intended goal is to reduce crime, not "catch them in the act".
Chicago has seen a reduction in crime lately. Whether it's directly attributable to the cameras, is just a blip in the numbers remains to be seen. I suspect the reduction in violent crime is more likely attributed to police focusing on certain neighborhoods, plus the creation of "rapid reaction" forces.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0502250216feb25,1,6054534.story
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
Tell me John, what would YOU recommend we do to stem this intolerable rising tide of lawlessness?
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
AndyMan 7
QuoteTell me John, what would YOU recommend we do to stem this intolerable rising tide of lawlessness?
Oh god. Now it's a gun thread...
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
skydyvr 0
Quote"Closed circuit TV systems are of little use in the fight against crime, a surprise government report claims today.
But look at the bright side -- at least all of those high cost CCTV staffers get to have an occasional laugh watching people pick their noses and butts as they scurry down the street. That alone seems worth the cost.
. . =(_8^(1)
In Florida, tapes of bank robberies and convenience store robberies are broadcast on network news. They have contributed to the apprehension of many criminals here.
QuoteQuoteTell me John, what would YOU recommend we do to stem this intolerable rising tide of lawlessness?
Oh god. Now it's a gun thread...
_Am
May I guess? It was since 1st post...
dudeist skydiver # 3105
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteOh god. Now it's a gun thread...
May I guess? It was since 1st post...
The only people talking about guns here are you and Andyman.
And yet you guys think that I am the one obsessed with guns... How ironic!
JohnRich 4
QuoteAnd this is JohnRich spending a life time for tracking around the world searching evil everywhere, in substance: It's outside of the US. I thought, UK and US are deepest friends? Why are you doing that?
I wasn't about bashing England. It was about the effectiveness of CCTV for preventing crime.
And this is an ironic message, coming from someone who routinely bashes President Bush, whilst being a citizen of, and living in, Germany.
JohnRich 4
QuoteDid it result in an increase in arrests for those crimes? That would seem to be the primary benefit of CCTV.
Finally, someone with a rational observation!
They indicated that crime had not been reduced. So even if a lot of arrests are being made, it means that those criminals are quickly being replaced with new criminals. Or that the arrested criminals are quickly being let back out onto the street to continue their crimes.
And your question suggests that if the CCTV cameras have increased arrests, then without them the crime rate would have gone up. So that while it may not have gone down, it kept it from getting worse.
Whether that is the case or not, I don't know. But it's a good question.
My feeling is that is just pushes the criminals to areas not covered by CCTV, or drives them to use disguises to avoid recognition, and therefore has no effect. It makes for great viewing on "Real TV", but doesn't actually result in arrests that often.
I found this with more details: Home Office Research Study (750k pdf file)
Does CCTV deter crime?
...the need to demonstrate the deterrent effect of CCTV by publicising the risk it poses to offenders. But what do offenders think? ...some offenders said they were deterred and others resorted to less serious offences... offenders take a blasé attitude to appearing in court and do not perceive CCTV to be a serious problem... Understanding whether this will stop them offending or influence their behaviour in some other way must await further research.
Does CCTV help in catching and prosecuting offenders?
Early concerns that CCTV might become a substitute for police officers do not appear to have been realised; indeed the public appear to favour more police on the beat rather than CCTV when given a choice. Also, when police officers are asked about their views of CCTV they are very positive. Yet there is some evidence that this enthusiasm is not always matched by the officers’ actions. And there have been practical difficulties in using images in court: both police and the parties involved in the prosecution of offenders are suffering from information overload. With over four million cameras processing information, this represents a real challenge for the future.
(They never really answered their own question!)
Conclusion
Research on the effectiveness of CCTV has painted a somewhat confusing picture. There are plenty of studies showing successes, but plenty highlighting failures too. The most robust studies, according to the criteria deemed acceptable, compound the confusion. While CCTV in some locations, and car parks are the best example, show some success, it is typically introduced alongside other measures. No single study appears to have included a process and impact evaluation taking account of the various objectives and seeking to develop transferable lessons for good practice. Moreover, residential areas have received scant coverage and there is little knowledge about whether CCTV works there.
With all the millions they spend on these systems, they still have no proof that it helps. I think the money should just be spent hiring more cops to walk beats on the street.
crozby 0
QuoteWith all the millions they spend on these systems, they still have no proof that it helps. I think the money should just be spent hiring more cops to walk beats on the street.
I agree. One other interesting thing from the article you linked to was:
QuoteOn the plus side, only one in six people objected to CCTV on civil liberties grounds.
It seems the vast majority of Brits find comfort in being surrounded by CCTV, regardless of how (in)effective it actually is.
FallRate 0
I wonder if the Brits are more rational when it comes to failed experiments than we Yanks. CCTV could be proved absolutely useless in the US, but so long as it makes people feel better, we'll continue to fund it. The D.A.R.E. program is a perfect example. It does not work. This has been known through research for at least ten years, yet we continue to flush money down this drain. Though equally worthless, at least the "Just Say No" program was cheap.
FallRate
FallRate
JohnRich 4
Quoteso long as it makes people feel better, we'll continue to fund it.
I have no doubt that this is a huge factor in politics of things. It can be the most important factor, even when the proposal has been proven to be ineffective.
It's the whole philosophy behind gun-control laws. They've never been proven effective, but they just make some people feel good to implement them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites