When considering the growing prevalence of surveillance cameras in society, it’s almost tempting to think of the classic novels 1984 and Brave New World.
I say “almost” because surveillance cameras have been with us for so many years now that they can hardly be considered novel.
From convenience stores and auto repair shops to outdoor parks and private driveways, someone is watching us throughout much of our daily activities, even here in Flin Flon.
The Big Brotherish fears that once surrounded cameras have pretty much evaporated with time. Being watched is just another part of our lives to which we give little thought.
So it’s no surprise that anti-crime advocates in Flin Flon feel liberated enough to push for cameras as a means of cracking down on illicit behaviour.
The Flin Flon Neighbourhood Revitalization Corp. has been holding public meetings to discuss the well-researched concept of crime prevention through environmental design, or CPTED.
Some of the feedback suggests cameras could curtail nefarious conduct among youth and transients in locations such as the Duck Pond, the 100 Stairs and Main Street.
What’s happening in those areas?
At the Duck Pond, we have reports of drunk people and mischievous youth harassing the ducks, conducting vandalism and bothering neighbourhood residents.
Nearby at the 100 Stairs, there have been accounts of individuals drinking, and possibly using drugs, and hanging around while under the influence.
Concerns on Main St. have been better documented, from panhandling and public intoxication to intimidating behaviour.
Some of these issues are no doubt overblown and based more on perception than reality.
Investment
Nonetheless, there are enough people voicing concerns over those three areas that a more generous investment of resources is warranted. Enter the suggestion of video surveillance.
The jury is out on whether surveillance cameras deter crime.
An American Civil Liberties Union study on surveillance in the U.S. and U.K. indicated “strongly that video surveillance has little to no positive impact on crime.”
Another report, released in 2011 by the Urban Institute in the U.S., indicated that cameras do reduce crime, but not in all locations or contexts.
Would the Duck Pond, 100 Stairs and Main St. be effective locations for cameras?
For some of the concerns being reported, cameras may have limited usefulness.
Take drunkenness. If a group of three or four people are believed to be drunk, and they decide to gather at the 100 Stairs, a video may not prove their intoxication.
If it did prove their intoxication, then what? Public drunkenness is a minor offense with many repeat offenders. A lack of evidence is not really the issue.
Where cameras could be useful is in recording evidence of – and hopefully deterring – crimes of a more clear-cut and serious nature.
If the Flin Flon Neighbourhood Revitalization Corp. and its partners can obtain funding for surveillance cameras, there is little reason to oppose them.
Cameras would probably not rid us of annoyances like public drunkenness, but they could still serve a valuable public safety role.
Local Angle runs Fridays.
