Dear Brits,
British police occasionally release CCTV images with the hopes of finding eg. rapists and other violent criminals, but I haven't been able to find much info on how useful such images have been. Do any of you know?
Printable View
Dear Brits,
British police occasionally release CCTV images with the hopes of finding eg. rapists and other violent criminals, but I haven't been able to find much info on how useful such images have been. Do any of you know?
Absolutely there is yes. Loads of stupid criminals get caught due to CCTV, there is no denying that. There were plenty of articles following the riots that thousands were caught due to CCTV.
On a personal note: When I was assaulted, my attacker was successfully convicted of GBH with the nightclubs CCTV as the main piece of evidence.
Arguments against CCTV are more philosophical in nature, not disputing the fact that they work.
Do you have any officials who would have tallied some figures of this? I'm not doubting you, it'd just be interesting.
Not a clue.
That was a polite way of asking you to do the research for us :p Because of your intimate knowledge with the UK legal system, you understand.
According to wiki only about 3% of crimes are solved with the help of CCTV but I can't access the source so I have no idea how true that might be or what portion of those crimes are particularly egregious.
Link?
That figure needs context.
I'm also curious about the success rate of CCTV compared to more traditional systems. Especially for violent crimes, over something like the recent riots.
I'm also assuming for the CCTV images to be released into the public, that case has reached the point of police cluelessness that mimics the ever-present but always ignored wall of missing children inside the door of every walmart. IE, success at that point is already expected to be incredibly low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-...ime_prevention
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...me-822079.htmlQuote:
There is little evidence that CCTV deters crime; in fact, there is considerable evidence that it does not.[22] According to a Liberal Democrat analysis, in London "Police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any."[23] A 2008 Report by UK. Police Chiefs concluded that only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV.[24] In London, a Metropolitan Police report showed that in 2008 only one crime was solved per 1000 cameras.[25] There are valid reasons for including CCTV as a component of a physical security program, but deterrence is not one of them.
I'm not ideologically invested in this, just curious as to how they're performing.
The riots were a remarkable success for cameras actually. The issue there was the sheer number of people commiting the crimes, the Police used tactics such as mobile electronic rotating displays of pictures. When these were launched in Manchester before the Chief Constable even got up to speak 2 offenders had already been identified by people in the crowd and reported. Publishing the CCTV allowed the limited resources of the Police to be expanded by public participation. I believe the numbers caught and prosecuted in the riots numbered the thousands and credit for most went to the CCTV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I'm not either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
The links not working. I have a few concerns about the 3% number:
Is that 3% of solved or total crimes? A large proportion of crime goes unsolved, so if its 3% of unsolved, it is a much higher proportion of solved crimes.
What proportion of crime takes place where there is CCTV? A lot of crimes (eg domestic disturbances) take place outside the purview of CCTV.
Would those 3% have been solved were it not for the CCTV?
What types of crimes were they? How serious.
How many crimes is that? I imagine 3% is still a serious number.
A lot more context needed.
and large groups can be, and have been, IDed via crowdsourcing without the need for government run CCTVs; (Porter College's 420 fest is a good example). Hence my curiosity if they provide a higher success rate than systems that don't have CCTVs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The crowdsourcing is what I was referring to with violent crimes, you can't use it everytime, mainly because the population becomes dull to it, not to mention how the practice alerts the suspect.
Oh indeed, that kind of crowdsourcing is unusual, but then again there aren't normally that many criminals to wade through.
Without CCTV do you think the same number of people would have been convicted?
British conservatives are totally different animals from US conservatives, huh. You're like the poster child for Freeee market capitalism, with Big Brother watching, or something like that. You also defend British Universal Healthcare via taxation schemes, but jump right in against taxes when telling Americans what to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Whatever Brits do is smart and ethical? Using CCTV is justified because it leads to convictions? How convenient for you. :rolleyes:
Moar CCTV in Amurka, plz.
You totally don't understand my opinions it seems.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Since you keep bringing it up: I never said I support "British Universal Healthcare", I think the NHS as it is definitely isn't the system I'd design, but nor would I totally abolish it either.
On topic, I didn't say "CCTV is justified because it leads to convictions" - I said "CCTV works and leads to convictions" - because that was the question. That doesn't answer the ethics of it though. As I said above: "Arguments against CCTV are more philosophical in nature, not disputing the fact that they work." The main philosophical objections to CCTV and Big Brother etc are that it works too well and can be abused, so saying that it works (in court as intended) doesn't contradict that.
You don't have a right to privacy in a public place... I'd have issues with the government putting cameras in my home or in my car because I own those. I don't own the street. People can see me. Hell people can use their cell phone to video tape me. What's the problem if the government does what anyone else with a pair of eyeballs can do?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Scale.
Instead of asking why can't the government do it, could you instead answer why it should?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
That's not what the government's doing, unless the "someone" has 15,000 eyeballs and a photographic memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Wrong. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain public places, like restrooms. aka privies, toilets. Doesn't matter if it's Walmart or Dulles airport, no one has the right to put a camera in closed-door stalls, and watch/film what I'm forced to do outside of the privacy of my home, simply by default of being away from the "privacy" of my home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Don't know about the US, but in the UK it's illegal to put CCTV in toilets, changing rooms etc
In a previous place I once worked the manager confided in me that he was frustrated because he was sure someone was stealing from the stock room - but because that was also used as a place people sometimes got changed he couldn't install any CCTV of course.
Great example of why even seemingly unobjectionable laws aren't a good idea.
Would it have been impossible to not let people change there? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Temporarily: Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The business had increased so much in size, that the old facilities were no longer sufficient. It had become the busiest of its kind in Great Britain and the fourth busiest in the world. A new location down the road was being built so that it could be split in two but for the time they had to cope.