This paper will target several different audiences. To begin with, the assignment will provide important information about nature, working and possible privacy implications to the public. This will be important in dispelling fears of the known, and increasing understanding of the need and risks of increased deployment of cameras. In addition, the cameras will seek to serve the proportion of the population that come in conduct with surveillance cameras on a daily basis in the shopping malls, public parks and streets, and most crucially those that have, or are considering purchasing surveillance cameras for their own purposes.
Fourthly, the paper intends to shed more light to criminal justice system agents that are involved in the implementation of the surveillance cameras, in order to help increase the understanding of the benefit and the risks involved. Specifically, it targets policy makers both in the system as well as in the legislative capacity. It seeks to win over those that are as yet unconvinced by the merits of surveillance cameras, by providing arguments to dispel fears on privacy infringements, and urging for greater regulation as against rolling the cameras back.
Surveillance Cameras & Privacy
Policing has changed over years, in order to cope with the changing technologies, societal attitudes and crucially, the changes in crime. Law enforcement has mostly moved away from reactionary, to progressive techniques that have included community policing, increased surveillance and intelligence gathering, which have in turn sparked fears of improper government infringement of the citizen’s rights to privacy. Evidence of the CIA and even British media house, News of the World illegally used wire-tapping and other surveillance on private citizens has not helped the debate for increased installation of cameras (Bergman and Berman 27). The perceived intrusion into the privacy has existed long before the IT revolution. It has become considerably emphasized with the rise of more intrusive and subtle technologies, best personified by the increasing deployment of surveillance cameras that has moved from buildings to major streets and estates (Priks 8). This paper asserts that while there is possibility of abuse, the proper use of surveillance cameras has a major role in helping cut back the rising crime rates and ensuring efficiency in policing.
Security cameras have been adopted in the US, UK, Canada and the majority of the developed world, costing more than $10,000 apiece (Prenzler 163). The cameras feed images to surveillance video, which is continually recorded (often without human monitoring). However, the recording devices and TCP.IP networks can be accessed by the police, which makes it possible for officers that monitor that are under surveillance to possible deter crime commission and collect vital intelligence that is central to expediting conviction and punishment of criminals. Effectively, if the cameras are used appropriately, there is no risk of intrusion of people’s privacy, which calls for increased control as against opposition to the surveillance cameras. The fact that cameras are largely unmonitored and only used to retrieve possible evidence makes them both safe and useful in facilitating the criminal justice system combat crime. Further, people’s information and privacy is protected by multiple laws, which should ensure that law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about (Bergman and Berman 77). Access, recording or storage of confidential/private information is nothing new in the modern society, is hardly anything to be afraid of, provided the information is put to legitimate use.
Evidence shows that surveillance cameras reduce crime rates in the specific regions in which they are deployed. This is not only because they deter criminals, but crucially, because they provide important evidence to facilitate successful conviction of criminals. Priks (2010) showed that security and surveillance cameras cut back on crime by upwards of 20%, while at once reducing the long-term law enforcement resources. The potential of displacing crime to other areas that are unprotected exists, but can be eliminated by rolling out cameras to other regions (Prenzler 61). In addition, police officers are barred by laws in many countries to spy on private citizens without the express permission of a judge (which is no different from the traditional law enforcement), and evidence that is similarly gathered is only admissible under very strict conditions that limit abuse.
The major difficulty associated with the increased deployment of security cameras stems from the prospect of discriminatory use by the law enforcement agencies that target some population members. There is clear evidence of using criminal profiling by police departments across the world as a means to better use resources (Bergman and Berman 11). However, profiling expects that surveillance cameras unfairly target some population members, usually ethnic minorities. Such profiling is driven by police culture, social and political prejudices etc, which makes the use of cameras an extension of discriminatory practices. While it is still justifiable to use these cameras even if based on criminal profiling, the fact that in some countries, criminal suspicion is sufficient to stop individuals from travelling or owning guns, then increased surveillance is to the detriment of the individual freedoms and rights.
In addition, targeting suspected criminals also sees law-abiding citizens, including neighbors or pedestrians on a street equally included. The moral and legal implications of the collection of information about private citizens, makes them more vulnerable to law officers deliberately looking for trouble or ensnaring people (Prenzler 152). The possibility of gathering or discovering recorded evidence about crimes that are not under investigation, also expose the targeted people. This is worrying, especially given the evidence of harassment and brutality perpetrated by the police, the increased deployment of security cameras would only serve to offer more opportunities for the law enforcement agencies and governments to extend political and institutional harassment.
While it is arguable that laws prevent possible abuse of surveillance cameras and that private citizens retain the right to legal recourse, there is evidence of such abuses and prospects for more abuse (Bergman and Berman 7). The ethical arguments for constantly monitoring the lives of private citizens are dodgy, and the potential of such information being passed on to other people or manipulated to prejudice a person’s privacy is unprecedented. While the evidence that is gathered by the police in this manner may not be admissible in court, its influence on jurors is massive, which will also prejudice the chances to a person having a fair trial.
The rising fears of increasing infringement of the private space are legitimate, but more driven by the dread of the doomsday scenario as against the reality (Prenzler 41). The utility of surveillance cameras in law enforcement is not in doubt, nor are surveillance cameras new in the private or public lives of people. Public squares, streets, buildings and even private homes are under CCTV surveillance, most of which are installed by private citizens in order to ensure their security as well as the security of their clients, neighbors. Private citizens realize the importance of surveillance cameras, and have gone of their ways a huge expense to install the cameras (Davis, Lurigio and Herman 194). The public welcomes the existence of cameras in shopping malls, parking lots and streets, and if it is possible to install the cameras across cities and towns, the better. Just like in a supermarket, if you are not shoplifting, you have little to fear.
Policing needs to change with the needs of the new world, and utilize all possible technology to ensure both efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement efforts. Stern legislations and punishments have their place in the criminal justice systems, but the judiciary is heavily dependent on the capacity of police officers and district attorneys to gather evidence (Davis, Lurigio and Herman 29). Surveillance cameras help police officers/prosecutors to accomplish this task, and subsequently facilitate law enforcement. With proper legal and ethical protections against abuse, surveillance cameras have an important role to play in modern law enforcement.
Works Cited
Bergman, Paul and Sara Berman. The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. Boston: NOLO, 2011.
Davis, Robert, Arthur Lurigio and Susan Herman. Victims of Crime. New York: Sage Publications, 2007.
Prenzler, Tim. Police corruption: preventing misconduct and maintaining integrity. Los Angeles: CRS Press, 2009.
Priks, Mikael. "The Effect of Surveillance Cameras on Crime: Evidence from the Stockholm Subway." Stockhold University (2010).
