Video evidence seems all the rage, particularly in Europe, but the video evidence rarely solves crimes. In fact, the million cameras in London mostly solve crimes like setting trashcans out on the wrong day or neglecting to pick up dog scat when walking the dog. Less than 3% of crimes are solved by CCTV videos, and it's been reported that there are so many police cameras in England (more than 5 million by some estimates) that CCTV no longer provides any kind of deterrent, as thieves consider them to not be working. Based on the 3% conviction rate, they could be considered right, even if technically the video is being captured. (Johnston, 2011)
Studies of the effect of CCTV use in the UK are inconclusive. While some show a marked decline in burglary (down 50%) and car crime (down 87%) in the 5 years after CCTV was installed, they could not attribute it to CCTV use, and violent crime was up 300% in the same period. Other studies have shown that CCTV use has had no demonstrable effect on crime, save a single camera in a parking garage. (Ibid)
Even when captured on film, conviction is rare. In one month 269 robbers were suspected, yet only 8 were captured. How many of those could actually be convicted will naturally be a smaller number. Nationwide, the UK has spent more than $776Million on cameras, and are now captured 300 times a day, but some estimates, with an enormous invasion of privacy. When police are challenged on the efficacy of CCTV as a crime-solving measure, they seem quick to close ranks and ask for more investment to make it all work. (BBC, 2009). Yet, 80% of boroughs with police cameras in the London area show a below-average rate in solving crime, with no provable benefit to the cameras in either the overall solving of crimes nor reduction in criminality. (Davenport, 2007).
Consider that, by one estimate, the amount invested in just 11 communities in the UK responding to a corollary to the US Freedom of Information Act request showed over $500MM invested, which could have paid the salaries of 13,436 police instead. New Orleans defunded their CCTV program after 7 years of operations and $10Million invested resulted in only 6 prosecutions -- 3 for crimes committed on camera, and 3 from bribes and kickbacks from camera vendors to City Hall (!!!) (Hamilton, 2010)
Researchers in San Francisco tested the impact from SFPD cameras, detailing 59,706 crimes committed within 1000 feet of a camera from 1-Jan-2005 to 28-Jan-2008, studying those crimes that had a police report, not the total number of crimes caught on camera or actually committed. The researchers studied 7 crimes: murder, larceny, vehicle theft, burglary, assault, robbery and forcible sex offenses. The only positive deterrent they were able to associate with the cameras was a reduction in larceny committed within 100 feet of the cameras, with no other crime rates having any discernible effect, except that murder was effected in an unforeseen way. While murders went down within 250 feet of the camera, those murder rates were completely offset by murders occurring within 250-500 feet of the camera, indicating that the murderers knew of the camera and decided to just move down the block a ways before committing murder. (Schneier, 2008)
__
