About . . . . Classes . . . . Books . . . . Vita . . . . Blog. . . . Podcast

by Peter Moskos

August 26, 2009

1,000 cameras 'solve one crime'

The BBC reports that one crime was solved for every 1,000 police cameras in London last year.

The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals.
David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent."

He added: "CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

"It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.
A spokesman for the Met said: "We estimate more than 70% of murder investigations have been solved with the help of CCTV retrievals and most serious crime investigations have a CCTV investigation strategy."
Read the story here.


Frequent Poster said...

What is much worse is the way they handle the CCTV footage they do have.

Case in point: the CCTV footage of Jean Charles DeMenezes was not used to "solve" the cold blooded murder of Jean Charles DeMenezes. (GOOGLE it).

Another case in point: they had a terrorist bomber on film, running loose around the main island, but did not use the images to catch the guy b4 he bombed again. They also refuse help from the bomber's family while he was on the loose. (GOOGLE: Kafeel).

You can't solve crimes with CCTV if you are not TRYING to use CCTV to solve crimes.

PCM said...

I know the de Menezes case well. The CCTV footage was essential for any attempt at justice in it. Without CCTV, all the initial lies they said about his dress and behavior would have been accepted as truth.

For better or worse, the case was "solved" quite thoroughly. You (and I) just might not be happy with that solution.

Frequent Poster said...

They claimed that there was NO CCTV footage and that lie remained through th one tenth assed "solution" they eventually decided upon. Great injustice remains there!!!

Foreshadowing of Mehserle case of course, where they also claim that BART has no footage (but, of course, it does).

I cannot believe yr lvl of credulity sometimes, PCM. I chalk it up 2 yr academy training. It does not seem like a failing of native intelligence on yr prt. I mean, you went to the same school Foster Wallace (God rest his soul) did, I think.

Frequent Poster said...

Oh yeah, and as far as the "solving" of the DeMenezes case, PCM, here is how they duped u and everybody else:


They have the footage from inside the Tube Car -- you know -- the part they DIDN'T release.

PCM said...

You confuse me.

As far as I know, police followed de Menezes, an innocent man, by mistake. They thought he, or the person they wanted to follow, could be a suicide bomber. They followed him into the London Underground and let him get on a tube. Then they shot him in the head, execution style.

There was a lot of initial description about de Menezes's dress and behavior, all of it was proven wrong by CCTV. He was just going about his day before being killed.

There is missing CCTV platform footage, but what happened on the platform and in tube was never really in doubt.

The investigation revealed layer upon layer of internal fuckups in the British law enforcement.

But ultimately, nobody took the fall.

What am I missing? Enlighten me. (Preferably with complete typed words)

Frequent Poster said...

They said that the way he acted in the Tube Car was what, ultimately, caused them to put many bullets in his hed, errr head. Popo witnesses confirmed that he resisted on the train. All the non-popo witnesses said that he did not resist in any way. Of course this makes a difference as between murder in the second degree (or whatever the United Kingdom equivalent is) or negligent homicide. Long story short, popo lie, people die.

The important, pertinent CCTV was supressed, and even lied about, which is why we saw the verdict we did, as opposed to the much more just verdict we should have seen.

Side note: what, exactly, is the fetish with me typing out full words? I mean, I can do it, but why?

PCM said...

Oh baby, spelled-out words turn me on. Fetish? It's a request. It keeps up appearances. Keeps the blog looking good. The whole Broken Windows thing. But mostly, typing while word is just a matter of being to considerate to your readers (like me). It's easier to read. Plus, IMHO, it makes u look smarter, K?

These facts aren't really in doubt. We know he didn't do anything on the Tube that led to his death (except maybe stand up, which last I checked was still not a crime).

He was killed and nobody was punished. It ain't right. I don't know anybody who doubts that. But I don't think there's anything in the missing CCTV that could have made things look worse for the police or changed anything in trial.

All that came out in the inquiry and trial. Nobody was convicted because it wasn't clear (or necessarily fair) that one person should take the blame for his murder. People are on trials. Not systems. That's why people who are fucked (or killed) by the system rarely get justice.

The investigation was certainly no whitewash.