Jump to: site navigation, content.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Dallas police surveillance cameras may not reduce crime

By Scott Henson of Grits For Breakfast

Email Print Tell us your story Comments (9)

So which is it: Is Dallas one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country with robberies of businesses on the rise, as the Dallas Morning News tells us ("Banks continue to cope with spate of robberies: 2007 total falls just below record, business breakins rise 10%," Jan. 9), or have surveillance cameras miraculously reduced crime in Dallas' business district by 28% in their first year, as the Downtown Dallas Association told the Austin Statesman this week ("Acevedo wants to put police cameras in key areas," Jan. 24)?

I'm betting the Dallas News' sources are a better reflection of the real overall crime rate. Whaddya think? (There's a vigorous debate on the subject of surveillance cameras already occurring, btw, on the Statesman's blog.)

Even if crime has decreased that much, I personally doubt surveillance cameras had much to do with it. The best longitudinal camera studies say they do little or nothing to reduce crime when used for general public surveillance, as Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo proposes, and are more frequently used for leering at attractive women on the street than preventing crime. (When used on specific, high-value assets like car parks, and when they're monitored, they're more useful, but not just out in the street. See prior Grits coverage of a landmark study by the British Home Office finding little crime reduction from camera surveillance.)

I've argued previously that instead of "multiplying" officers' ability to monitor crime, even when they "work," surveillance cameras usurp police management decisions by over-allocating scarce resources to monitored areas.

While cameras in public spaces do little to reduce crime, they open up easy avenues for abuse. As I've written previously:

Great Britain has become the most surveilled country in the world, largely in response to IRA terrorism. Dr Clive Norris and Gary Armstrong of the Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice at Hull University, UK, authored a study of the British experience called The Unforgiving Eye: CCTV Surveillance in Public Spaces, in which they found:



* 40% of people were targeted for "no obvious reason", mainly "on the basis of belonging to a particular or subcultural group."



* "Black people were between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half times more likely to be surveilled than one would expect from their presence in the population." Thirty percent of targeted surveillances on black people were protracted, lasting 9 minutes or more, compared with just 10% on white people.



* Those deemed to be "out of time and out of place" with the commercial image of city centre streets were subjected to prolonged surveillance. "Thus drunks, beggars, the homeless, street traders were all subject to intense surveillance".



* One out of ten women were targeted for “voyeuristic” reasons by the male camera operators.



* "Finally, anyone who directly challenged, by gesture or deed, the right of the cameras to monitor them was especially subject to targeting.

There's another problem with camera surveillance for crime fighting purposes that's seldom discussed. Cameras can be defeated with inexpensive, low-tech means, like sunglasses, hats, hoods, minimal disguises, or a six cent paintball pellet. So it's very easy to thwart the cameras, but whenever a crime occurs, officers have to watch hours and hours of video, usually with little benefit to the case. And while they are doing that, they are not investigating crimes.

That last bit about cops wasting time watching video isn't just me talking. I borrowed the notion from a "world-weary" London cop/blogger who wrote in 2006 that "CCTV viewing occupies a disproportionate amount of police time with very little tangible result. This fact is well known to street criminals."

When both cops and the street criminals know cameras don't actually combat crime, the only reason left to favor cameras is to fool the public into thinking you're doing something as a PR stunt.

RELATED: Pink Dome has some questions for the Chief that can't be answered with more government camera surveillance.


Pegasus News content partner - Grits For Breakfast

Related stories

See more stories in:

Comments

Peter Stawicki Verified

As someone who sold 7 figures worth of CCTV technology last year - CCTV Cameras are not supposed to reduce crime.

While seeing CCTV cameras outside of a business should give the crooks second thoughts, the purpose of those cameras are to provide a digital record of the crimes in progress to better assist in identification and prosecution of criminals & their crimes.

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

EdWeirdness Anonymous

Camera's are only "after the fact" effective, and depending on light conditions, and whether or not the offender was smart enough to dress appropriately, not even then. If anything, these cameras identify victims and bystanders more than actual criminals, resulting in bystanders being hailed in as witnesses whether they want to be or not. Arguably, these camera's provide the necessary identification so that witnesses can be effectively retaliated against. I certainly hope that we're not paying these monitor monkeys any more than mall security guards who essentially do the same work. It would be senseless to have trained law enforcement officers sitting on their ass eating donuts and receiving pension credit for watching these monitors. If there were only some way for police to catch bad guys without actually doing any work at all????

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

EdWeirdness Anonymous

Has anyone considered the fact that many types of crimes have declined every year since Texas approved the CHL? Now that we've implemented the castle doctrine, crime, particularly burglary and home invasion may be on the decline as well. Perhaps if we could get video surveillance of home owners defending themselves against home invasion, law enforcement might be able to "crack" the case using surveillance, and thereby justify this intrusive waste of manpower and tax dollars.

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Michael McCullough Verified

If we're serious about reducing crime in Dallas, we need to do what Giulani did in New York City. Yeah, the DMN and Pegasus will whine, but it will save lives and get the criminals off the street.

-Mike

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle

Scott Doyle Verified

Didn't read anything simply based on the headline - I'm with Peter, seems like common sense that cameras aren't intended to reduce crime.

Kinda like Lojack: purpose isn't to be a deterrent. It's just a fringe benefit if someone thinks twice b/c of it.

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Michael McCullough Verified

Ed Wierdness:

Has anyone considered the fact that many types of crimes have declined every year since Texas approved the CHL?

I'm not aware of that statistic but I'll take you at your word.

Crime also dropped after the conceal and carry laws were passed while crime rose in Britain, Canada, and Australia after most guns were banned (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764... , for example).

We need to drop the provisions of the conceal and carry law that allow business and other organizations to ban guns on their premises. Does anybody really think that criminals aren't going to take weapons to places where guns are banned.

Oh, yeah -- I forgot. A lot of people really do think that.

-Mike

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

derDunkelRover Anonymous

"Car parks" in Dallas. Coh, blimey, guv!

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

OpusthePoet

OpusthePoet Anonymous

The phrase "car park" is replacing the clunkier "parking lot" in most of the Anglophone world and is much easier to say than "ground wasted storing unused automobiles". And CCTV might act as a deterrent if the perp is worried about getting caught, but with so many crimes going unprosecuted these days most people will just do what they can to disguise their appearance and take their chances. However like one commenter pointed out witnesses are easier to identify and more likely to be harrassed by either the cops or the perp if (s)he already knows who they are and can watch to see if they contact or are contacted by police. And it is still a violation of the 4th Ammendment which specifically states the right to walk the streets secure in our persons and papers unless there is a warrant specific in whom and what and sworn by an officer of the law... yada, yada...

Opus

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

derDunkelRover Anonymous

The phrase "car park" is replacing the clunkier "parking lot" in most of the Anglophone world

Aye? Ach, laddy/lassie/lasso, I must have missed the memo. Can ye be showing me where that may be found? Aye, that's a good un.

1 year, 5 months ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Post a comment

(Requires free PegasusNews.com account.)


(Forgotten your password?)

:

:

Find...

an event a Pegasus Pick
a restaurant a garage sale
a drink special a movie showtime
local music an organization
a job a political contribution
a house a deal
a pet photos

Add...

an event a garage sale
a lost pet a band
a story a photo

Today

1st Ever Libertine Brass Knuckle Corndog Beatdown Happy birthday, 'Merica. Before you watch the rockets' red glare tonight, stop in for beer and a kid-friendly corn dog contest. What could be more patriotic than that? More info

Blogs

See more

Latest comments

See more recent comments

Latest reviews

See more recent reviews


Quantcast