Opinion

Blogs

Criminal cameras

Criminal libertarians used to be outraged by even the suggestion of CCTV cameras on the street. They'd plead for our right to privacy, they'd weep for the criminals caught on film, they'd be sick with worry that a married man might be filmed with his mistress. Then they'd assure us that street surveillance cameras didn't deter crime or criminals anyway.

And so the crime-riddled streets of inner Newcastle are devoid of a powerful evidence-gathering tool and crime deterrent in use throughout Australia. That may change tomorrow night when Newcastle City Council considers installing in the Civic area three CCTV cameras and perhaps in the Hunter St Mall another six paid for by business people, for a 12-month trial. The cameras would not be monitored but the digital tapes would be made available to police investigating crime, which seems to be a sensible thing to do.

That might set off the Green on Newcastle council, because it is likely he and his party will see CCTV footage being used as evidence against criminals as a breach of the criminals' privacy. Yes, incredible as it seems, that has been one of the desperate arguments against street surveillance cameras.

If there ever was a valid argument against street surveillance cameras, there could not be now. CCTV cameras are everywhere - in taxis, buses, banks, businesses, shopping centres, railway stations, looking out from ATMs ... . Everywhere. When a crime is serious enough to warrant the effort, police can track a criminal through a city and even from city to city. Hopefully, the presence of CCTV cameras in the streets of inner Newcastle will make it easy enough to track and charge people who commit less serious crimes.

I don't care when or where a CCTV camera records my actions, at least not beyond my home. Do you? And do you see a single argument against the use of surveillance cameras in our public streets?

Posted By: By Jeff Corbett on 12/12/2008 4:25:39 PM | Comments (15)

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

There is no valid argument against the installation of CCTV in appropriate locations. It has been well researched over the years by the Criminology Research Council, and demonstrably helped reduce crime (particularly property crime and assault) in many areas, including places like Ipswich Mall in QLD. The civil libertarians do have a point, but it is nowhere near strong enough to stop the installation of CCTV in Newcastle. Proceed. NEXT!

Posted by StopPayingTheBludgers, 15/12/2008 9:15:27 AM

if they had researched it well, they would see that other than some anecdotal evidence the almost universal findings are that as crime prevention/deterrent it's efficacy is dubious (various studies average about a 3% reduction in crime), except as you say for property crime particularly in carparks (reduction of up to 40%, which basically pays for itself). As a crime detection tool it's efficacy is improving as the technology improves. This motion should be approved because 1) it's relatively inexpensive, compared to the proposal before council earlier in the year, primarily because it will not be monitired "live", & 2) the research is a bit dated and technology has improved. Once footage showing crime is captured it should be turned over to the police to do their job, which is crime detection. The State govt and police have gone missing on the issue of graffiti in the inner city. Earth to max mitchell. Are you out there???

Posted by fista, 15/12/2008 10:33:16 AM

Google Street View has softened us up as well. Predictably.

Posted by Kate, 15/12/2008 10:56:20 AM

a good article on the efficacy of surveillance technology can be found at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/new s/article-23412867-details/ Tens+of+thousands+of+CCTV+cameras ,+yet+80%25+of+crime+unsolv ed/article.do what about more police on the beat?

Posted by still shovelin', 15/12/2008 11:33:25 AM

I don't have a problem with cameras in public places - if I'm not doing anything wrong (illegal) then I have nothing to worry about... One comment though from my experience overseas. I wolked in a London Borough that had around 100 CCTV's throughout the town centre. They were monitored from the Council building with 3-4 staff on duty 24 hours in a roster system. They had around 50-60 monitors and hundreds of thousands of pounds in annual costs (maintenance, staff, rent etc). I always wondered whether it would have been more worthwhile getting rid of the expensive cameras, control room, monitors, maintenance crews and other paraphanalia and simply putting the money into having more police actually on the street! I was never convinced that if I was asaulted and it was observed on the camera that anyone would actually be avaiable to come to my aid!

Posted by King Idiot, 15/12/2008 12:12:36 PM

Why do we need cameras to detect criminals? All we need to do is get Agner and a couple of "unseen intelligence" compatriots to identify them.

Posted by moron, 15/12/2008 1:10:58 PM

research consistently shows that good lighting is infinitely more effective than CCTV. A combination of the two may be a good experiment, and at $15k i think it'd be money well spent

Posted by fista, 15/12/2008 1:17:13 PM

A mate of mine was recently assaulted in a public place and it was caught on CCTV. Only problem is the police can't identify who the perpetrator is - its not like these people go around wearing name tags or flashing their ID at the camera before they commit a crime. More police on the streets is the answer.

Posted by Reg, 15/12/2008 1:20:03 PM

Fista.... Your universal findings on CCTV are based on London in 2003. Put up your link on the universal research up for all to read !! Here is the costs of CCTV in most major cities in Australia Location Annual Cost Ipswich $444 000 Sydney $900 000 Fairfield $340 000 Melbourne $400 000 Adelaide $310 000 Toowoomba $ 85 000 Brisbane $270 000 to me these costs are much more minimal to the $2.7 million that we know of, that is being spent in the City on graffiti alone. Only MUGS & THUGS wouldn't want it !! I say it is time for it, but don't tell them where they are being put, let the fools get caught first !

Posted by Richard Walters, 15/12/2008 1:47:10 PM

While I've no real problem with CCTV, I think the emphasis should be on deterrence and crime prevention, which is best adressed by greater police presence. If CCTV helps with clear up rates that is great, but I'd rather a cop on the beat preventing me being robbed and assaulted rather than a camera to record it happening, even if it does assist in convicting the perpetrator.

Posted by Directeur Sportif, 15/12/2008 2:40:00 PM

1 | 2 | next >