Difference between revisions of "Measure type: Screening"
m (Text replace - "<websiteFrame>(.*)" to "") |
m (Text replace - "website=(.*)" to "") |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| − | + | http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?concept=<replace with pagename> |
|
width=100% |
width=100% |
||
border=0 |
border=0 |
||
Revision as of 21:19, 30 January 2013
Contents
Description
Instead of seeking to exclude potential perpetrators (as in access control), this set of tactics seeks to increase the likelihood of detecting persons who are not in conformity with entry requirements (entry screening) or detecting the attempted removal of objects that should not be removed from protected areas (exit screening):
- Closed-circuit TV
- Metal detectors
- Vibration detectors
- Motion detectors
- Perimeter alarm system
- Library book tags
Essential conditions
Requirements to the urban environment
Effectiveness
Economic effectiveness
Screening does not only reduce the risk of security threats, but also generates economic impact as a security measure that mitigates the impact of crime but also alters the behaviour of the offender(s). Primarily, the economic impact of security measures is the costs of the security measures. Besides that, there are also costs and benefits regarding the secondary impact of security measures, such as displacement effects.
The current debate about CCTV (camera surveillance) with regards to its cost-effectiveness is pointing out the following topics:
- Empirical research finds that the overall crime rates drop in the areas with CCTV, but not in all cases and situations[1]. Furthermore, crimes committed in the heat of the moment, such as assaults are in general not affected by the presence of cameras.
- Total costs of CCTV far exceed that of the camera hardware alone[2].
- To be effective, surveillance systems should be fully integrated into law enforcement practices.
Side effects
Footnotes and references
- ↑ See, e.g.:Priks, M. (2010).The Effect of Surveillance Cameras on Crime: Evidence from the Stockholm Subway. Cameron, A., E. Kolodinski, H. May, N. Williams (2008). Measuring the Effects of Video Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles. CRB-8-007. USC School of Policy, Planning and Development.
- ↑ See e.g.:http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-007.pdf and http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost
http://securipedia.eu/cool/index.php?concept=<replace with pagename>
width=100%
border=0
scroll=auto
align=middle
</websiteFrame>
<headertabs/>
