democracy - v- democracy

I am aware that England is the country with the greatest amount of CCTV town coverage in the world?

But now in a town called Nowra in NSW OZ the use of them has been challenged and taken to a tribunal claiming that there is no evidence that they have reduced crimes. At present by order of Administrative Decisions Tribunal they have been turned off by the council with a review in order.

has there ever been any conclusive evidence in UK that they are actually effective or just make people feel better?

Re: democracy - v- democracy

I think there is no doubt that CCTV has been much more effective in providing evidence of criminal activity than in preventing it.
Large numbers of young people charged after the UK's 2011 summer riots were identified through CCTV footage. CCTV coverage around the recent Boston Marathon bombing also provided a huge amount of evidence which led to the apprehension of the culprits. Whether it is useful in preventing crime is a more doubtful proposition although crime-prevention is usually the big selling point of CCTV schemes. It does seem that they address the fear of crime, rather than the prevention of crime.
I did find one interesting study on CCTV in Colchester which amongst its other conclusions underlined this, "some of its aims are not always fulfilled such as crime prevention"

http://www.colchester.gov.uk/CHttpHa...hx?id=7364&p=0

Re: democracy - v- democracy

I actually forgot to mention that in this scenario the residents complained of an infringement of privacy and that was also a deciding point. However it is being considered in parliament and the decision may be reversed. It would seem that false claims are made in the clamor for crime detection/prevention and lets merge them all into one?

Re: democracy - v- democracy

I think the infringement of privacy argument is an increasingly valid one, no matter what the benefits of CCTV may be.
In the UK, for example, local authorities are increasingly using both fixed and mobile CCTV to target a variety of behaviours - co-habitation, residence, recycling etc etc - all carried out under the RIPA legislation (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) which was never intended for such surveillance at all, but was clearly enacted as a counter-terrorism tool.

Re: democracy - v- democracy

CCTV was also crucial in finding a man who raped and killed a young girl - the CCTV operators guided the police to where the man had taken the girl; sadly, the police didn't arrive in time but at least the man was arrested and sentenced. They've also been instrumental with gang violence in city centres where cameras have tracked the offenders. I don't mind the cameras as long as their function isn't abused by officials.

Re: democracy - v- democracy

It is the general public who are demanding, we have CCTV to protect them.
But when they get caught, speeding or on a motoring offence. they really don't like them.
They definitely do lower the crime rate, and they certainly catch those that break the law.

Re: democracy - v- democracy

I'm not sure they have any effect on lowering the "crime rate" or deterring crime - except maybe in the specific case of speed cameras - where even then, people only tend to slow down for them and then speed up again immediately afterwards. They certainly seem to "up" the detection rate however, which I guess might eventually have a trickle-down effect on deterrence.

Re: democracy - v- democracy

They are a 'must' in todays society. I have seen countless 'serious' crimes 'detected' by the cameras..

Re: democracy - v- democracy

So have I but at a much less serious level, crimes against Fashion, crimes against the self (obesity), Baldness, Ugliness, all down on tape for posterity.

Re: democracy - v- democracy

same goes for shopkeepers who are told by insurance companies - leave your lights blaring all night it will deter thieves