City of London security man Mike Alexander could not make the recent Professional Security lunch discussing CCTV, but that’s not because he isn’t interested – quite the opposite.
He writes that he has just completed his security and risk management MSc at Leicester, ‘and my dissertation was on the effectiveness of the ‘Ring of Steel’ on terrorism and crime’. briefly, the Ring of Steel was the security systems installed in the City to combat a repeat of IRA bomb attacks in the 1990s. Mike’s research drew on a confidential questionnaire to fellow managers last year. He writes:
Most evaluations of successful physical crime prevention initiatives, like the deployment of CCTV, now include a section on displacement. The chief criticism of situational crime/terrorism prevention is that whatever success it might have in protecting particular targets, its benefits to society as a whole will be minimal. It could be argued, but not substantiated, that the existence of the ‘Ring of Steel’ was to move the terrorist to softer targets like South Quay, Manchester and to other parts of the capital, like the BBC building at White City. It is pure conjecture that criminals and terrorist go elsewhere because of the ‘Ring of Steel’ as there is no anecdotal evidence to support the statement.
Cases
The most measurable effect of CCTV is not so much on crime prevention, but on detection and prosecution. Several notable murder cases have been solved with the use of CCTV evidence, notably the Jamie Bugler case and the apprehension of David Copeland, the Soho nail bomber. The use of CCTV to track missing children is now seen as routine. After the bombing of the London transport infrastructure on 7-7, and the failed attempt on 21-7, 2005, CCTV footage was used to identify the bombers.
Research
While there has been a vast amount of research into crime/terrorism and CCTV there is seemingly very little research into the actual effectiveness of CCTV in directly reducing crime; even in the retail industry where the deployment of CCTV cameras is evident in most major outlets, both large and small. CCTV in the public domain is popular and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the cameras’ ability to detect offenders and provide evidence to convict them, but its effectiveness in preventing acts of terrorism and crime has yet to be proven conclusively. The extent to which offenders really think cameras increase the risk to themselves is also not yet known.
Deployment
The deployment of CCTV has been applied in so many forms and in so many different types of settings that its evaluation as a crime and terrorism reduction method is extremely difficult. The use of CCTV however has been shown to reduce crime opportunities in the areas where it is implemented by increasing the risk associated with committing an offence (removes any motivated offender). Camera evidence can also help with the identification and arrest of offenders. CCTV in the public domain is popular and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the cameras’ ability to detect offenders and provide evidence to convict them, but it effectiveness has yet to be proven conclusively. Most evaluations of physical crime-terrorism prevention measures now include the displacement theory argument which is regularly used to denounce their effectiveness. However instead of denying displacement, situationalists have claimed, first, that displacement is unlikely to be total (impeding action by physical means is likely to discourage at least some individuals) and second, that in any event, not all displacement is bad. Businesses and individual retailers regard the displacement theory as irrelevant as their main concern is to protect themselves, their employees, and their business. The extent to which offenders really think cameras increase the risk to themselves is also not yet known. There is clearly a justification to firmly embrace the findings and concepts of the ‘rational choice and ‘routine activity’ theories as being the most appropriate when undertaking this research.
Effectiveness
Assessing the effectiveness of CCTV systems in general is highly problematic. The belief that more and better equipment means less crime and terrorism is measured against costs. Retailers who have for many years relied on CCTV technology have been unsure as to whether the benefits are substantial enough to warrant financial investment. CCTV has proved itself to be a flexible, efficient and effective means of deterring, detecting and monitoring criminal activity in a wide variety of applications. However, there are a number of problems with these claims. All too frequently the "success" of CCTV is proclaimed mostly in terms of a distinctly general nature, and frequently by persons who were party to the decision making process to install the system and therefore have self interest in CCTV being seen as successful.
Unique approaches
The perceived view to the world is that the City is protected and takes a dedicated proactive response to ensure that business continues without disruption and wards off further attack. It also demonstrates that the City, in line with government wishes, acknowledges itself as a key, major economic entity that requires unique approaches to retaining an option to increase/decrease its effective protection and response. However, there is growing realisation and the results of a questionnaire substantiate the public perception, that technology alone cannot safeguard property, businesses and people. Technology would appear not to have the same deterrent factor as a human being. An authoritive, uniformed presence is a far greater deterrent on criminals and terrorist than technology alone. Overall the common theme that has emerged from this research, and in particular the completed questionnaires, is that the effectiveness of the ‘Ring of Steel’ is in the publics and business community’s perception of the scheme. For as long as the City of London remains the financial hub of the UK economy, and thriving, the ‘Ring of Steel’ must be perceived as being an effective deterrent against crime and terrorism.
