Cameras Do Not Prevent Crime in Every Situation : Empty threats give residents a false sense of security

Put a camera somewhere to crack down on crime and the discussion will soon turn to George Orwell and his book “1984,” a sinister vision of the future and its shadowy “Big Brother.” Cameras already watch us at the bank and in department stores and even on the freeways. Los Angeles officials are considering installing cameras at problem intersections to nab motorists running red lights. But the debate over crime-fighting cameras took a deliciously Orwellian turn earlier this month when it was revealed that the cameras in an “LAPD Video Zone” designed to slow illegal drug sales don’t even exist.

Banners along Parthenia Street in a particularly tough part of Northridge ominously warn: “Buy Drugs, Go to Jail.” But Times reporter Beth Shuster revealed that the “video zone” is a myth. Even if the cameras are ever installed--which is far from certain--the tapes of alleged crimes will be reviewed not by police, but by civilian volunteers. One City Hall employee called it the “David Copperfield era of law enforcement,” in which the cheap illusion of greater police presence counts more than the costly reality.

Some argue that revealing the ruse was irresponsible and that doing so allows thugs and drug dealers to run rampant. But the simple truth is that criminals would have been among the first to figure out that the big boasts of the red-and-white banners were little more than empty threats. So who would have been kept in the dark? Honest residents lulled into a false sense of security.

There is no question that cameras and other types of technological gizmos can help law enforcement do its job more efficiently. They can provide critical--and often indisputable--evidence in capturing horrendous crimes such as the televised beating of trucker Reginald Denny during the 1992 riots. Cameras are not magic that can make crime disappear, though. Their use must be focused on the situations and in the places they will do the most good. Only in limited circumstances do we believe cameras act as preventive devices.

For example, we support the City Council suggestion to install cameras at problem intersections to catch drivers who run red lights. The cameras would snap photos of any car entering the intersection after the lights change. Citations carrying a $103 fine would then be sent to the registered owner of the car. While far from perfect, the cameras could have immediate effects on the motorists’ behavior. Knowing there is an automated traffic cop on the corner--a cop who never takes a break--can go a long way toward making drivers behave. Such a system already works in New York and is under development in San Francisco. Similar photographic devices that can catch speeders have been in use for years around the country.

Yet there are significant differences between catching careless drivers on film and using a camera to deter more serious crimes. The first involves ordinary, law-abiding people for whom the threat of a fine can have real effects. The second involves criminals for whom consequences often are not thought through. Across the country, where such camera experiments have taken place, it’s tough for supporters to say decisively that the cameras had any effect at all. If they succeeded in reducing crime in a particular neighborhood, the cameras more often than not just dispersed criminals or moved them elsewhere. But the biggest difference between Northridge and those other places is that those other places actually had cameras installed.