Closed Circuit Television

Closed Circuit Television CCTV has been a common method of fighting crime, especially in public places such as supermarkets, restaurants, hotels, and the like. Although the prevalence of the technology indicates the faith of business owners that it will deter crime, there has been relatively little research to indicate its effects on those being surveyed (Fletcher, 2011, p. 5). Critics of the technology have also implicated CCTV as imposing upon the individual's right to privacy, especially when it comes to environments like hotels or other apparently private environments.

Despite the lack of quantifiable research results, one might safely assume that the presence of CCTV discourages criminal activity, at least to some extent, while also offering crime fighters a valuable tool for identifying and apprehending perpetrators. According to Fletcher (2011, p. 5), CCTV has both advantages and disadvantages. Clearly, as mentioned, one major advantage is the ease of deterring and apprehending criminals with the help of CCTV footage.

This ability, however, tends to be compromised by some of the less desirable effects of the technology, including the potential to impose upon the privacy rights of citizens in a society that prides itself on democracy and freedom. One element of this, as Fletcher (2011, p. 5) is the sexist and racist attitudes that are common in CCTV control rooms. Incident reports of ASB, for example, could be compromised by biased attitudes, where some operatives would be more likely to report incidents involving ethnic minority groups.

It is also possible that actions by minorities and women could be misinterpreted as a result of biased attitudes in those who work in CCTV observation rooms. In addition, Fletcher (2011, p. 6) also notes that there is no regulation governing the installation of CCTV in private residences. Hence, there is no need for those inhabiting these residences to register their CCTV devices. This can lead to very specific and severe privacy concerns for those being observed, possibly without their knowledge, in these locations. There are, however, also advantages.

In addition to deterrence, Armitage (2002) mentions that CCTV allows the efficient deployment of crime-fighting personnel. CCTV monitors, for example, can use their discretion to determine if police involvement is required. This eliminates the need to deploy police officers to CCTV monitored areas, saving the country's resources and increasing the effectiveness of crime fighting. Another advantage is self-discipline (Armitage, 2002) for both potential victims and potential perpetrators of crime.

Knowing that there are CCTV monitors in a certain location would influence the behavior of those within such a location to the effect that the risk of criminal activity would be reduced. Perpetrators, for example, would be aware of the risk of being identified and apprehended, while victims would be aware of potential criminal activity. Self-discipline is therefore encouraged by what Armitage refers to as the "threat of potential surveillance, whether the cameras are in fact being monitored or not.

As mentioned above, CCTV cameras also improve the likelihood of detection and punishment for offenders. Hence, offenders are removed from public life and the potential for further criminal activity. This creates a safer public environment for law-abiding citizens. This is reiterated by Saetnan, Lomell and Wiecek (2004, p. 409), whose study focused on CCTV in public spaces in various locations in Norway and Denmark. In malls, for example, CCTV is used to identify potential hazards in the form of undesirable social elements.

These "elements" are identified according to certain predetermined characteristics such as general attitude, cleanliness, and the like. While the argument is that these persons could pose a hazard to the safety and security of other mall patrons, it also creates the potential for prejudice, in which certain mall patrons are regarded in an unequal light without having committed any specific crime. In such cases, there exists the potential of human rights infringement in terms of prejudice and inequality.

For this reason, the authors hold that there could be both potential benefits and hazards associated with CCTV technology in public spaces. The outcome of the research conducted by Saetnan, Lomell, and Wiecek (2004) suggests that regulations should be imposed according to the purpose and nature of public spaces in which CCTV technology is installed. Such regulations could then mitigate potential hazards such as the above-mentioned prejudice issues and hence protect the rights of the public. Personally, I have never had difficulty with CCTV in public places.

Indeed, public locations such as malls and hotel lobbies are not by nature significantly private. It also helps me to feel more safe and secure knowing that security personnel are observing these spaces for the deterrence and detection of crime. Opponents, however, do make a good point regarding the potential prejudice involved in CCTV observations. If being observed, I would dislike the idea that I am being judged according to my gender or ethnicity, or that others are being judged according to these criteria.

Furthermore, I also do not think it is fair.