Reply #29: Unlike other countries, the US conveniently doesn't keep records

[chill_wind]

to support (or more accurately, belie) the "evidence" of deterrance.


"It is only in American cities, where accurate and complete records of the number of CCTV-derived arrests and convictions are not kept, that there is "evidence" that surveillance cameras are effective crime-fighting tools. (This putative evidence almost always consists of a handful of spectacular anecdotes in which surveillance cameras led to the capture of the criminal.) In the words of the principal of an elementary school at which CCTV systems were installed in the wake of the Columbine shootings, the value of such systems is merely "cosmetic," something to reassure insurance companies and prospective clients that "everything" has been done to prevent a reoccurrence."

http://www.notbored.org/change.html

CCTV's are most largely tools$$$ succesfully foisted on businesses and cities by insurance companies.

(and of course der "Homeland Security")


See what the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police)has said:

In March 2001, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) published the results of its survey into the use of surveillance cameras by 700 different law enforcement authorities in America. Entitled The Use of CCTV/Video Cameras in Law Enforcement, this report contains some very interesting information.

1. Eighty percent of the respondents said they were already using surveillance cameras, and half of the remaining 20 percent said that they would start using cameras soon.

2. Only 20 percent agree with the claim (often assumed to be true) that surveillance cameras are useful for "reducing crime." As a result, comparatively few respondents used cameras in public places such as subways, parks and public housing developments. (Note well that these are precisely the places in which the NYPD has installed cameras since 1997.)

3. Most respondents (over 60 percent) said that surveillance cameras were useful for "investigative assistance." As a result, the vast majority of cameras were used in police cars or interrogation rooms in police stations.

4. Slightly more than half (54 percent) said that cameras were helpful in "gathering evidence." But what kind of evidence? Significantly, the evidence most often gathered wasn't "positive" or "offensive" (proof that someone under arrest did in fact commit the crime he or she is accused of committing), but "negative" or "defensive" (proof that a police officer did not coerce, abuse or kill someone under arrest, despite claims to the contrary).

more: http://www.notbored.org/iacp.html
http://www.notbored.org/police-cameras.html