Cameras aren’t the best crime-prevention strategy

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/11/2023 (684 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

On Nov. 17, Manitoba’s newly elected NDP government announced a partnership to “address crime” by installing closed circuit television cameras (CCTVs) in the city of Dauphin. A press release issued by the government indicates the cameras will “discourage” crimes like vandalism.

An opinion published in this paper on Nov. 20 suggested that “crime-stopping cameras are an idea worth considering” in the city of Brandon.

Let’s cut to the brass tacks: CCTVs do not stop crime, and if they did, there would be no crime in places like Winnipeg where cameras are installed.

Rather, CCTVs mostly provide after-the-fact documentation of crime. Harm from crime remains; victimization and trauma resulting from crime are often left unaddressed. The root causes of crime are unchanged.

The crime cycle continues: wash, rinse and repeat.

We must seriously ask ourselves: do we want to work toward addressing the systemic causes of crime, and in so doing, contributing to long-term sustainable crime prevention initiatives, or are we interested in merely documenting crime on CCTVs?

The effectiveness of CCTVs is ambiguous. While evidence indicates that CCTVs can have an impact on crime reduction, there are numerous factors involved.

A paper published in the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, for instance, noted that “effects vary across a range of contextual factors, including geographical setting (e.g., city and town centres, car parks), crime type, camera monitoring strategy, use of complementary interventions and country of origin.”

Similarly, in the U.K., among the most surveilled countries in the world, a study conducted on behalf of the government that assessed the impacts of CCTVs noted that the contexts in which the cameras operate are variable and ought to be recognized as such.

The Manitoba government press release lauding the installation of CCTVs in Dauphin provides almost no context concerning how the devices will operate.

The announcement it seems is just another government slapdash attempt at appeasing public concerns over crime.

There are better and more effective approaches to prevent crime from happening in the first place.

The research shows consistently that investments in social welfare programs, supports for at-risk youth, and investments in community resources are proven strategies, supported by evidence, that yield substantial reductions in crime. Increased spending on education and welfare lead to lower crime.

According to a poll published earlier this year commissioned by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, most Manitobans already support cancelling the education tax rebates, instead preferring the money to be spent on public services. Our elected representatives would be smart to listen to the will of their constituents in this case.

The current Manitoba government could also focus its efforts on addressing crime by reinstating devastating cuts made to our communities by the previous Stefanson government, including cuts to education and housing. Consider, for instance, that a recent University of Michigan study last year found that investing in public schools leads to reductions in adult crime. Another study out of the University of California, also from last year, found that not only does affordable housing lead to decreased crime, but it can also increase property values — a real win-win!

The installation of CCTVs in Dauphin will be funded by Manitoba’s Criminal Property Forfeiture (CPF) fund. The fund generates revenue from the forfeited proceeds of crime. According to Justice Minister Matt Wiebe, CPF funds “continues to make a difference in the lives of Manitobans who are victims of crime.”

However, the evidence reveals that the majority of seized funds are not provided to victims, but instead given to Manitoba’s law enforcement agencies.

Police frequently use these funds to acquire “high-profile purchases” including weaponry, surveillance equipment, and tactical gear. The $400,000 armoured vehicle acquired by Brandon Police Service (BPS) is one example. The cost to operate the BPS vehicle between December 2019 and June 10, 2020, alone, was more than $5,200.

Even more troubling than the costs is that almost all police operations using the armoured vehicle consisted of children’s birthday parades.

In the meantime, victims of crime are on the hook for the costs of mental health treatment due to trauma, medical costs, loss of income due to time in court or with law enforcement and lawyers, replacement of their damaged or stolen property, and a plethora of other hidden costs of crime.

These costs are borne almost entirely by victims.

Manitoba’s law enforcement agencies are the primary beneficiary of CPF funds. If we are serious about addressing harm to victims and communities, we should be diverting CPF money entirely to fund programs that assist victims of crime and to effective crime reduction initiatives.

CCTVs do not stop crime, but investing in our kids and communities is a proven crime-prevention strategy and a better use of our resources to address the systemic causes of crime.

» Christopher J. Schneider is a professor of Sociology at Brandon University and author of “Policing and Social Media: Social Control in an Era of New Media” (Lexington Books, 2016).