A Council In Australia May Dump CCTV Because It Has Not Reduced Crime

In my home city of Melbourne, Australia, a local council installed an expensive CCTV system following a tragic murder that gained a lot of media attention. The council is now considering discontinuing the system as a review has reported no reduction in crime.

I think this is an interesting story as CCTV was used to solve the original murder case but subsequently has not been helpful in reducing crime. Councillor Samantha Ratnam "favoured the funding of crime-prevention programs rather than CCTV when the cameras were first proposed."

How does one determine if CCTV really will lead to a reduction in crime before installing it?

The full article can be viewed here.

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

*** **** *** ********* ** **** ****** **** **** ** a ********* ** ***** ****** ********** **?

** ** * ***** ********. **** *** ** ** ** but **'* **** **** ** ********* **** ****** ** ******* crime, ***** (*********) ** **** ******* **** ** ** **** (changes ** *******, ******* ** ******** *******, ***.) **** **** generally ******* ** ** ****** ** ****, **** *********** **** it ** ***** ******* *** ***** *******.

* **** **** **** *** (**** * *****) * *** a ****** ** **** ******* **:** ****** **** *********?

***** ****, ***** **** ********* **** **** ***** ******* *** I ** *** ****** **** **** **** ********** ****.

**** ** *** ** ** *** ****** ***** ********* ************... once **** *** *** *********, ********** *** ***** **** ********* to ********** * ***** **** ******** ** ******* *** *****. Even ** ** *** *** ***** **** *** ***** ****** **** ***** *** *****.

**********, ***** '*******' **** **** *** ****** ******* ** *** specific **** ***** *** ******* *** ********* *** ******* *** before *** ***** *******/*******.

**** ***** ** ** ******** ** ******* ** ***** *****, 'commissions' **** *** *** ** *** ** *** ****** ** 'fight *** *** ****** ** *** ********' ** **** **** the ***** ** **** ************ *** *** *********. ****** ******* else **** *************.

**** ***** ** * ******** ** ******* ** *** ***** where ******* *** *********, *** ****** **** ** ***** ** this *** ***** **** ************ ******* ****** *****. ****** ******* else **** *************.

***, ***** *** * ****** ** ***** ****** ******* **** will ******* ******* ** ****** ***** ** *** ********** ****. Surveillance ******* **** *** ****** *** ********* ****** ** ***** beyond *** ****** ** **** **** **** *****.

************ ******* *** **** *********.... **** *** *** ****** *** levels ** ****, *** **** *** - ********* - *** as *** ***** ** ********** **** ****/****** ***** *****.

*** * ** ***** **** *** **** *** ***** ** this ****.

* **** **** **** ***** ********* *** *** ******* ***** it ****. ********** *******, ** *** **** *** ****** ******** they ****** ** ** **** *****, *** *** ** **** your **** ** ******* ** *** **** ** **** *** documents **** ******** ** ***** ************* *** *** ******** *** more ***** ** *** *******. :(

**** **** ***** ** ** ** ******* *** ***** *****. :)

*******,

* ***** ***** *** *** ********** (*** ********) ** **** one ****** ** ************. *** ****** ***** ******* *** ******.

** *** ******* ****:

  • ** ***** * ****** ******* ** ***** *** *** ************* and ******* ** ********* ** *

** *** ********** ****:

  • ****/******** ******?