Column: Cameras aren't best crime fighter

To: "Breitkreuz, Garry - Assistant 1" <BreitG0@parl.gc.ca>
Subject: Column: Cameras aren't best crime fighter
Date: Oct 3, 2006 9:28 AM
PUBLICATION: Calgary Herald
DATE: 2006.10.03
EDITION: Final
SECTION: The Editorial Page
PAGE: A10
COLUMN: Danielle Smith
BYLINE: Danielle Smith
SOURCE: Calgary Herald
WORD COUNT: 709

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Cameras aren't best crime fighter

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

When police chiefs and politicians decide to install surveillance
cameras on city streets, they sure can move quickly. Toronto's annual
Caribana Carribean festival, which takes place in August, had been
marred by violent episodes in the past. So, this year, Toronto police
said they would monitor the festival in a bid to stop violence, by
"temporarily" using closed circuit surveillance cameras (known as CCTV)
for the first time.

Now, less than two months later, Toronto city police have announced they
intend to use cameras full time to monitor certain city streets in
crime-ridden neighbourhoods in Toronto.

They could also be coming to a city near you. Global Calgary reported on
Thursday that Calgary Police Chief Jack Beaton is enthused about the
idea of installing cameras here, too. Would that make you feel safer? It
shouldn't.

Public attitudes toward surveillance cameras mirror attitudes toward gun
registration. On a visceral level, it seems to make sense that if the
government makes guns more difficult to buy, fewer will fall into the
hands of criminals. But we've seen that's not true.

Similarly, if you have the watchful eye of the state monitoring the
street with cameras, you would think fewer people would engage in
criminal acts. Turns out that's not true, either.

The U.K. government released a report last year on whether its long-term
use of cameras has had an effect on crime rates. Guess what? It hasn't.
In 13 out of 14 settings, surveillance cameras did not reduce crime. The
report's author, Prof. Martin Gill of the University of Leicester, was
quoted at the time: "For supporters, these findings are disappointing.
For the most part, CCTV did not produce reductions in crime and did not
make people feel safer."

Part of the reason they don't work is they aren't used properly (in the
study, six out of 14 were left unstaffed for part of the day or night),
and the cameras often can't capture clear pictures. It should also be no
surprise that criminals simply shift their activities to areas that
don't have cameras.

So, after more than a decade of experiment, there is no clear benefit,
but there is a clear cost. By the late '90s, three-quarters of the
U.K.'s Home Office crime prevention budget was being spent on CCTV.

If Calgary decides to buy such cameras, it will divert money from hiring
front-line officers. The cameras will need to be staffed and maintained,
diverting more money from hiring front-line officers. As crime shifts to
other areas and more cameras need to be installed, even more money will
be diverted from hiring front-line officers.

The reason I harp on this is that of all the theories espoused by
experts about what factors reduce crime, few actually work. Economist
Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics, says the main reason crime
fell is because women were free to have abortions after Roe vs. Wade.
His observation is that those most likely to have abortions (young,
single, uneducated, low income women) are also the type of person most
likely to raise children in poor environments where they become
hoodlums. Since abortions among this group of women increased in the
'70s after Roe vs. Wade, by the time we hit the '90s, the number of
youths who would have been in the target 18-24 age group (the group most
likely to commit crimes) was greatly reduced. Therefore, there was less
crime.

Levitt found two other reasons to explain the drop. Was it the strong
economy? Nope. The threat of capital punishment? Nope. Tougher gun laws?
Nope. Innovative policing strategies? Nope.

There are only two things that are proven to reduce crime: hiring more
police officers and putting more people in jail. That hiring more police
officers also matters naturally follows: "All those criminals didn't
march into jail by themselves," writes Levitt. "Someone had to
investigate the crime, catch the bad guy and put together the case that
would get him convicted."

In this regard, CCTV may be of some small use.

U.K. police say that catching a crime on camera (presumably, provided
the picture is clear) speeds up investigations by helping identify
criminals and encourage them to plead guilty.

If money were no object, perhaps politicians could try to make the case
for both: More officers and jails to deter criminals, and more cameras
to aid in investigations after the fact.

But in the real world of limited resources, I know where I would choose
to put the money.

Danielle Smith can be reached at info@daniellesmith.ca