Video Surveillance Cameras: Greater Value

Video Surveillance

Surveillance Cameras: Greater Value as Investigative Tool than as Crime Deterrent"

The use of surveillance cameras is becoming one of the most popular ways of using technology to fight crime. The installation of surveillance camera systems in the public sphere is now growing at a significant rate, often spurned on by technological improvement, funding opportunities and their perceived relative cost effectiveness as well as the theory of their use as effective crime deterrents. (Armitage, May 2002, NP) Cameras seem to be becoming a standard aspect of the public sphere, as they begin to appear in subways, at bus stops, traffic intersections, bridges, government offices, and public parks. Some camera systems are being installed by the enforcement agencies themselves and those that fund them while others are being installed utilizing grant funding. ("Keeping an Eye on Crime..." Spring 1999, pp.1-2)

The majority of video surveillance systems are currently installed in private sector businesses as this has been the historical precedence of use, with banks beginning their use in the 1960s in response to federal regulations and other businesses installing them as need was perceived, as the years went on, and as technology improved. Early video surveillance systems challenged law enforcement as the images were often unclear and systems ranged in capabilities and appropriate use, often leaving law enforcement with nothing or only blurry images to go on in cases of criminal acts. (Nieto, 1997, p. 10) What is concerning is the level of assumption that is driving this trend as many agencies rely on theory of crime deterrence effects of cameras rather than significant statistical proof that such deterrence is evident. ("Keeping an Eye on Crime..." Spring 1999, pp.1-2) This work will briefly review current literature regarding the utilization of video surveillance as a tool for fighting crime. It will discuss the use of video surveillance as a crime deterrent, as well as an investigation tool. (Coles, 2005, p. 10) the literature on the subject is split but concludes that as technology and use improves and as people become more accustomed to video surveillance, as a part of the landscape of public spaces it has become a more effective tool for investigation, rather than as it has been seen in the past as a crime deterrent. This work will then propose independent research that will test the hypothesis of video surveillance effectiveness as an investigative tool.

When discussing video surveillance as an investigative tool, there is a clear sense that this does not mean simply using materials from the surveillance system to identify, apprehend and charge criminals with offences. The use of surveillance as an investigative tool includes the above as well as several other factors, including the ability of enforcement officers to identify problem areas and offer increased alternative security, the ability of enforcement officers to identify the types of crimes that are likely to occur in a given area, the ability of law enforcement to more rapidly respond to incidents of crime and of course to do so with more information, ultimately eliciting greater results in combating crime after its occurrence. (Brown, 1995, pp. 5-9) Within each of these areas of interest there are also short- and long-term deterrence effects but in general, as you will see the presence of cameras and recordings are more effective for investigation than deterrence and are essentially one of many tools and techniques that can be utilized to fight crime. (Moffatt, 1983, p. 22-23) (Katyal, 2003, p. 2261) (Brennan-Galvin, 2002, p. 123) (Lupton, 1999, p. 297)

Review of Literature:

The literature on the subject of surveillance demonstrates that observation should alter behavior. Due to the heavy emphasis for prevention in the impetus for installing video surveillance (especially regarding funding) the literature is strongly slanted toward seeking to prove the prevention nature of installation. Much less is known regarding the utilization of the equipment as an investigative tool.

Criminologists also have emphasized the importance of true social interaction in reducing crime. (131) This observation suggests that artificial methods, such as closed-circuit television cameras, will not fully capture the benefits of surveillance, because they do not have the same mutuality of interaction. (132) the observation also suggests that when the two architectural goals of territoriality and natural surveillance come into conflict, the former goal will generally yield greater crime prevention benefits than the latter. In particular, bystanders are more likely to intervene to prevent crimes when strong social interactions in a community exist.

(Katyal, 2002, p. 123)

Katyal, then emphasizes that the foundations of technology, such as closed circuit television observation may only have minimal effects on prevention as the most useful form of prevention comes from close community interaction, and it can be assumed that this does not only mean community members but also the visible and interactive presence of enforcement officers.

Schwabe, Davis and Jackson point out yet another utilization of video surveillance, in a sense regarding it as a useful tool for investigative work and for the demonstrated need of policing the police.

To promote police accountability and to provide more objective evidence of lawbreaking, we recommend that all or most patrol cars be equipped with video cameras and wireless networked computers. Videotaping provides objective evidence useful for suspect identification and prosecution, as well as for resolving complaints of police misconduct. Rapid access to current data on stolen vehicles, outstanding warrants, etc., can reduce officer uncertainty in confrontational situations.

Schwabe, Davis & Jackson, 2001, p. xxxv)

The authors stress that the importance of utilizing technology for the purpose of awareness on the part of the officer is essential to the whole of the system, and also stresses that the rapid availability of information for investigation is also warranted by video surveillance and improved conviction rates, not in prevention but in investigation. Schwabe, Davis and Jackson also stress that this type of technology has been only slowly introduced in the U.S. And has been more aggressive in the UK. Only limited video surveillance systems are in place in some larger U.S. cities, in limited locations.

In contrast to these data on the United States, police in the United Kingdom make much greater use of fixed-site closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance. Throughout the United Kingdom there are more than 250,000 cameras transmitting images to police. A few U.S. cities have relatively comprehensive fixed-site surveillance coverage of selected areas. For example, Baltimore uses fixed video cameras to scan all 106 downtown intersections, while New York City has a program for 24-hour remote surveillance in Central Park, subway stations, and other public places (Brin, 1998). (Schwabe, Davis & Jackson, 2001, p. 15)

Even critics of video surveillance cite valid reasons why the trend for such action will likely continue and accelerate in the future and several of the most significant reasons have nothing to do with crime prevention, but instead emphasize the fact that video footage is a very useful and practical investigative tool.

Some critics of police use of video surveillance (CCTV) nevertheless suggest reasons for expecting the trend toward increased video surveillance to continue that are also interesting from the perspective of technology adoption by law enforcement:... negative findings are crowded out by the industry and practitioner-led claims of "success" which dominate the newspapers and trade magazines... As the evidence of displacement firms up, areas without CCTV will fall under increasing pressure to introduce systems as well.... regardless of its effects on the overall crime rate, CCTV can be a very useful tool in investigating statistically rare but serious criminal offences such as acts of terrorism, murder and rape.

Finally, even when CCTV is shown to have a limited impact on crime, it provides a very useful tool for the police to manage the problem of informational uncertainty and for allocating resources to incidents (Norris and Armstrong, 1999, pp. 205-206). (Schwabe, Davis & Jackson, 2001, p. 17)

Much of the research surrounding video surveillance surrounds not public but private usage of video surveillance. The studies surround common crime centers such as convenience stores, which have been traditionally exposed to many crimes of property and often injuries and/or loss of life. Convenience stores have taken many steps to reduce the incidence of robberies and one of them is implementing video surveillance, which often gets used by police to solve crime and at the very least create a set of information that time stamps occurrences and potentially offers identifying information of the suspects of the crime. The accepted existence of the cameras in such locations has not led to a decrease in robberies in most studies but is, when used correctly a substantial source of information for police when they are trying to apprehend criminals and explain forensic results.

In a later convenience store study, cameras and silent alarms did not appear to prevent robberies when 55 convenience stores in Columbus, Ohio, and New Orleans, Louisiana, receiving these devices were compared to 53 stores in Dayton, Ohio, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, not receiving them (Crow and Erickson, 1984). In the treated stores signs announcing the equipment were posted. These changes were accompanied by publicity in the treatment areas. No significant changes in robberies were found. The National Association of Convenience Stores (1991) reported on two other interventions evaluated by Robert Figlio. The use of interactive CCTV (allowing communication between the clerk and the personnel in a remote location) reduced robberies in 189 stores by a statistically significant 31% in the first year following the installations. By the second year, the reduction had shrunk to 15%, which was not statistically significant. No control stores were used in the analysis. One chain of 81 stores installed color video monitors that were visible to patrons and staff. Robbery rates were reported to have declined by 53% a year after installation. Again, no control stores were used. (Eck, 2002, p. 256)

The statistics of this review show clearly that robbery reduction only occurred in certain conditions and that the reduction of such events did not always last, after the cameras became a fixed aspect of the known security measures in place. The following study, regarding a different type of business also shows the same trend of reduction of crime only for a short period after installation and more importantly shows that the more intensive the system and the more personal interaction that was seen between staff and technology and staff and patrons the more effective the equipment was.

British fashion retail chain studied three levels of CCTV to curb shoplifting (Beck and Willis, 1999). In three stores, high-level CCTV was used - multiple cameras, full-time watching by staff, monitors at all public entrances and recording capability. Six stores received a medium-level system - similar number of cameras watched by the store manager as time permitted, monitors at public entrances and recording capability. Six other stores received a low-level system - up to twelve of the cameras were dummies, monitors at all public entrances, but no capability to record. We can treat the low-level stores as controls and the other two types of stores as forms of treatment. Theft reduction was measured by inventory counts before installation and at 3- and 6-month intervals following installation. After 3 months, the number of items lost per week had declined by 40%, 17%, and 20% for the high-, medium- and low-level stores, respectively. After 6 months, the number of items lost per week had declined by 26% for the high-level store, but increased by 32% and 9% for the medium- and low-level stores, respectively (Beck and Willis, 1999). These results suggest that CCTV may curb retail theft, but staff monitoring may be critical to its success. (Eck, 2002, p. 259)

The results of these surveys indicate that the highest level systems are the most effective, but again do not discuss the role of such equipment in investigation. The following opening to an article associated with the effectiveness of surveillance, does not separate the prevention information from the utilization of video evidence as an investigative tool. The example is in fact resolute on the fact that though this individual crime did occur, the video was used not to stop it but as an alarm of its occurrence and as an investigative tool that ensured conviction of the perpetrator.

Malcolm Smith and David Lee, strangers until earlier that afternoon, descended into an underground walkway one evening in May 1993, shortly after leaving an English pub. Once out of public view, Lee grabbed Smith and threw him to the ground. Raining blows with his fists and feet, Lee knocked Smith unconscious, then began frantically searching for his wallet. Unbeknownst to Lee, the scene was being recorded by the powerful eye of a surveillance camera. Police responded quickly, racing to the scene and tackling Lee before he could escape with Smith's money. It took just two-and-a-half minutes from the start of the offense to the time of the arrest. Lee was convicted of assault and sent to prison for three months. (Poole & Williams, 1996, p. 28)

The point of this one anecdotal piece is that through such example sin police records a researcher should be able to demonstrate the effective use of video surveillance as an investigative tool. The prevention aspect of this scene is associated with the ability of the early response, which did not eliminate the risk to the victim but did eliminate the risk of escalation to a more serious crime and for at least three months prevented the perpetrator from victimizing anyone else in this or another manner. In fact in many cases the development of surveillance systems includes a level of secrecy, in that the idea of surveillance is eliminated from the mind of the criminal, as the surveillance is hidden from him or her, therefore eliminating the possibility that the criminal might not offend, at least in this location, because they are aware of the camera, watching them. It would seem difficult for those who put such cameras in place to claim that the surveillance was developed to deter crime but rather was designed to catch it happening and offer enforcement officers a greater chance of stopping it while it is happening and if not a better chance at obtaining the information needed for apprehension and conviction of the criminals involved. "There has been a surge in the number of surveillance cameras in Washington D.C. In the last year. In most cases, cameras are hidden from view or disguised so as to be undetected by those passing by the camera's gaze. (EPIC, Sept, 5 2007, p.1) Nieto demonstrates in his research that there is a certain amount of deterrence of crime, in some areas and types, premeditated crimes are reduced, while heated crimes such as assault, battery and murder are less likely to be deterred by cameras. He states that the greatest effects of camera usage are in offering enforcement the opportunity of information that allows apprehension and conviction of criminals. CCTV, he states; "is helpful in prosecuting individuals caught in the act of committing a crime." (Nieto, June 1997, pp. 2-3) Armitage clearly describes the evaluation of CCTV as largely unscientific but also states that earlyu regional research has determined that the use of CCTV has mixed results as a crime reducing tool and at best may involve a 3-5% reduction in crime, effecting premeditated, property crimes (like car theft) more frequently than personal assault crimes or burglaries.

Hypothesis:

The current state of camera surveillance systems indicates that surveillance cameras are more effective as an investigation tool than as deterrence to crime. Alternative hypotheses: That camera surveillance systems are equally effective for both deterrence and investigation, or that camera surveillance systems are more effective as deterrence tools than for investigative purposes.

Research Design

Setting

The research associated with this work will take place in a review of police records, over time. New York City central park and subway video recording systems will be reviewed, through flagging all police records that are associated with these areas. Crimes discussed will be crimes against both property and person. All police records for the recognized region (covered by video surveillance) that include the crimes of vandalism, car theft, car burglary,(where cars are present) robbery, battery, assault, rape and murder will be reviewed. Those where video surveillance played a role in resolution will be separated from those that were reported and investigated without the utilization of video evidence, such as in cases where video evidence did not prove useful, was not recorded, or when the crime occurred in an area not under surveillance. Conviction rates will be utilized as the determining factor between the two subsets of records and apprehension rates will be looked at secondarily as will crime facts statistics. Crime facts statistics includes known information about the crime, if the victim believes he or she can identify the perpetrator, if the perpetrator is known or not known to the victim, what crime(s) occurred, what time crime occurred, where crime occurred, when assistance was called for (if it was) and how long the response time was. All results that indicate the perpetrator is known to the victim will be considered only if the victim cannot provide an adequate description including name and adequate physical description. In those cases where the perpetrator is known to the victim and the individual can provide identifying details the crime will be removed from the data set. The control group will then be all crimes that occur and are investigated without known video evidence while the test group will be those crimes (likely a smaller subset) where investigation is benefited by video evidence