The late 20th century has been characterized by unprecedented changes which have been made possible by novel technological advancements witnessed in this period. As a result of the ability of the new technology to handle and process unprecedented amounts of information, there has been a rise in surveillance by governments all over the world. Surveillance is defined as collecting and processing personal data by the authorities (Lyon & Zureik, 1996). Surveillance is based on the maxim “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” which alludes that only wrongdoers have to fear the increased surveillance.
However, this is not a sentiment that is shared by all people, and proponents of increased surveillance exclaim that abuses of power may result in even the innocent having cause for alarm over surveillance. As such, there are opposing views as to the presence of public surveillance. This paper shall argue that public surveillance is hugely beneficial to society and does not pose a major threat to personal freedoms but rather leads to a harmonious society. To reinforce these claims, this paper shall showcase the positive impact that surveillance has on crime deterrence, prison management, and empowering the government to protect its citizens and deliver justice when required.
Arguably the most pervasive of public surveillance means is the Closed Circuit Television, (CCTV). These systems when set at strategic positions can capture people’s movement theref, therefore,ing in security work through crime detection and prevention. The effectiveness of CCTV in stopping crimes or assisting in solving crimes is overwhelming and high-profile cases such as the London subway bomber case were solved through the help of CCTVs. However, the effectiveness of this surveillance is called into question owing to the lack of a relationship between the pervasion of surveillance and the crime level in a country.
The United Kingdom is once a case study which is used to negate the effectiveness of CCTV. The UK has the highest level of electronic surveillance and Lord Norton when speaking of his country proclaims that “we are a world leader in Surveillance” (BBC, 2009). A research on the effectiveness of CCTV on crime rate revealed that surveillance reduced crime levels only marginally in the UK (Welsh & Farrington, 2002). Considering the huge amount of capital required setting up CCTV and maintaining this surveillance, opponents of the same see this as unjustifiable. However, such studies fail to take into consideration the fact that crime rates in most developed nations are on the rise and as such, it could be argued that the levels of crime would be much higher without CCTV.
One of the areas where surveillance has had a huge impact in is the criminal rehabilitation system. For many countries, the prison population is increasing and containment of offenders is a hugely expensive affair that is catered for by the tax payer. Surveillance in the form of electronic monitoring presents a manner to monitor convicts with minimal costs to the taxpayers as well as no strain on the correctional facilities. Canada, in particular, has had a history of electronic tagging convicts who have non-serious offenses and therefore pose to a big risk to society since 1987.
This is a move that is applauded by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2006) which states that electronic tagging is a lesser violation of human rights as opposed to imprisonment and also results in a sharp drop in levels of reoffending. However, electronic tagging is not without its opponents who view it as just the beginning of the “Orwellian nightmare” which is a scenario where the government monitors and intervenes in every aspect of its citizens’ daily lives (Lyon, 1994). The risk of us becoming a “surveillance society” as envisioned by Orwellian in 1984 is hugely a function of fantasy and therefore should not be taken as a depiction of reality.
Arguably the most important role played by criminal justice system is deterrence. This is because the most desirable function of punishments should be to deter would be wrong doers thus leading to a harmonic society. In an ideal environment, punishments should never have to be executed but their mere presence should cause all to abide to the rules and regulations in place therefore peacefully coexist. Public surveillance especially as implemented through CCTV and DNA analysis can be a great deterrence tool.
Proponents of mandatory DNA testing asset that it would lead to great deterrence from crime for all members of the community since the risk of getting caught by the police would be greatly increased as a result of the universal DNA databanks (Rosen, 2003). However, there exist fears that surveillance by universal DNA analysis could constitute an invasion of privacy. These are not baseless fears for as Rosen (2003) confirms, the danger with DNA databases is that they provide an “inescapable means of identification, categorization and profiling”. Bearing in mind the huge advantages that may be reaped in form of deterrence through universal DNA analysis and CCTVs, the privacy and individual liberty may be disregarded for the greater good to the society through crime deterrence.
One of the justifications for public surveillance is that it is necessary to protect the public interests. This sentiment is best articulated by Lyon and Zureik (1996) who suggest that it is the government’s “right to monitor the activities of citizens to ensure fairness and equal access to services and the law”. This is especially true considering the fact that surveillance is viewed as an essential law enforcement tool.
Through surveillance, the rule of law can be upheld therefore leading to a harmonious society. Christie (1972) refutes this claim by demonstrating that in the year 1968, the US government used undercover agents to spy on candidates for public office who could not in any conceivable situation be considered as potential criminals. This claim negates the notion that surveillance is used to safeguard the rule of law when there is probably cause of a person being a threat to the public interest. While it may be true that people with low criminal potential are at times monitored, the monitoring is done due to the huge public interest that such people have.
We live in a society where the need for public security and safety is sometimes in conflict with personal freedom. This paper set out to demonstrate that public surveillance is hugely beneficial and while at times people are forced to give up their rights to personal freedom, the benefits gained are incomparable. The effectiveness of electronic surveillance as an alternative to imprisonment has been addressed and the economic soundness and social justification of such moves highlighted.
This paper has demonstrated that while there exist reasons which make some people decry public surveillance as an instrument of repression, these reasons are mostly based on exaggerations and misinformation. Public surveillance should be regarded by people as beneficial or at the least non-burdensome since the benefits that it brings to the society far outweigh the dangers it poses to individual freedom.
References
BBC. (2009). Warning over ‘surveillance state’. Web.
Christie, C. G. (1972). Government surveillance and Individual Freedom. New York University Law Review. Vol. 47: 871.
Lyon, D. (1994). The Electronic Eye: The rise of surveillance society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyon, D. Zureik, E. (1996). Computers, surveillance, and privacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Rosen, C. (2003). Liberty, privacy, and DNA databases. The New Atlantis, A Journal of Technology & Society, Vol. 37.
Welsh, B. C. & Farrington, D. P. (2002). Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review. UK: RDS Publications.