You Cannot Reduce Crime by Changing Outside Support Systems!

I began carrying a loaded pistol with me every day when I was about 13-years-old. Durham police frequently stopped me to confiscate my concealed weapons that always included a pistol and frequently a "hawk bill," a curved blade knife that ripped flesh as it cut. Why, some of them asked, can we always stop you and get weapons off you? "Because," I always replied, "I'd rather you catch me with it than for some of the people I run with to catch me without it." Taking my guns and knives didn't encourage me to stop doing crime. I just bought other weapons. They were always readily available. Sometimes local police also confiscated whatever cash I had on me, sometimes hundreds of dollars. They instictively knew I had stole the money, but they couldn't prove it, so they took it. I never knew what they did with the money. I assumed they kept it. Did taking my money motivate me to change? No! I just went and either stole more money, or property I could easily convert into cash, or I got in a series of gambling games until I won what I thought I needed.

Recently, I read a suggestion by David Gorman, a loss reduction specialist, who suggested that the government should take the $100 bill out of circulation because, from his perspective criminals favor those specific denominations to transact their various businesses. Will that slow down criminals? Will they transact less business? Will criminals conclude the following: "Well, they've taken our favorite money denomination out of circulation, so I guess we just gotta stop doing crime?

Given my personal experiences, plus almost 40 years of research into how criminals think, I conclude that David Gorman's suggestion is flawed at best Gorman's suggestions were published in the Providence (RI) Journal. It's interesting that almost everything Gorman wrote is true. For example: "The underground economy and criminal economy thrive on paper cash, especially the $100 bill." That's right! "In fact, the payment of choice by drug cartels and terrorist organizations is the $100 bill because it is easy to store, launder and transport." That's true, too. "Because 100s are difficult to change, and are risky and unnecessary for law-abiding Americans to carry, the functional use for the $100 bill has been declining while its demand in the underground economies is booming." Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but I concede the point.

However, I take exception to Gorman's sweeping conclusion. He wrote: "By simply demonetizing the $100 bill, we can do more to undermine terrorist and other criminal activity without any expense to the taxpayer and no harm or loss of life to law enforcement and our troops. In fact, it would be a peaceful and nonviolent method for preventing crime, drugs and terrorism and will assist law enforcement in their crime-solving efforts." That's not true, not by a long shot!

There's no easy way out of this mess!

Recalling my 20 years as a criminal--from five-years-old until 25-years-old--it was quite a time before I got my thieving hands on a $100 bill. Yes, I liked $100 and $50 bills during my criminal lifestyle. But I also liked $20s, $10, fives and ones just as much. Therefore, I don't believe that demonetizing $100 and $50 bills will do anything to reduce crime and terrorism. Certainly, it will not prevent it.

Now, I'm not trying to discourage anyone from taking these bills out of circulation. Go ahead, do it! But please let's not kid ourseleve into believing that somehow that alone will prevent potential criminals from becoming full-fledged offenders. Do not believe that operating criminals will walk away from the lifestyle in frustration because they can no longer get their greedy hands on these two denominations of money.

Let's hear the truth!

First of all, we are all stakeholders in this vision of crime reduction in our society! I define the stakeholder groups as: criminals, crime response professionals (police, judicial officials and correctional professionals), citizens--who, by the way, pay the total bill for crime and its responses,--careerists, change advocates, change activists and change conquerors. Crime reduction occurs when a criminal becomes a change activist, and continues a long and arduous transformation process along the Change Continuum until he or she becomes a change conqueror. Other stakeholder groups must learn how to support this transformation process that begins inside and demonstrates itself in the outward behavior of change activists. For example, crime response professionals must learn to recognize and promote small and quick flashes of desires to change in criminals. Citizens must insist on change as the only equitable return on their prodiguous investment in crime and the criminal justice system. Careerists--the people who determine who works--must learn to recognize the difference between changing and conning. They must stop refusing jobs to former criminals just because they've been convicted. Change advocates must learn how to become catalysts for change and not enablers of criminal thinking. For example, we must sacrifice a particularly silly belief that by completing a prison sentence, a criminals pays his or her death to society.

Consider the scenario. A thief burglarizes your home! Who paid for the stuff the thief stole? You know! You did! You report the crime to the police. Who pays the police? You again, right! The police arrest and jail a suspect. Who pays for the nation's jails? Yep, that's you again. So on the day, you go to court to testify against this cad for invading your space and stealing your stuff, you pay the judge. Worse, you pay the prosecuting attorney to do his or her best to send this thief to prison, while simultaneously paying a public defender or court appointed lawyer to help the thief avoid prison. Let's suppose now that the court gets a conviction, however it occurs, and the thief goes to prison. Well who pays for the nation's prisons? You know the sickening answer--you do! So when did the criminal pay, and precisely what did he or she pay? Actually, when released from custody, all the criminal did was outlive a court sanction.

So if the current criminal justice system fails in its attempt to foster widespread change among criminals, how it the world will demonetizing two demoninations of money: " . . . undermind terrorist and other criminal activity . . .?"

Change is hard, hard, hard work! As a 40-year change activist and currently a change conqueror, I know firsthand how challenging it is to transform from criminal to community contributor. But I also know that the payoff, the outcomes make all the challenges, the obstacles, even the frustrations worth the struggles.

So Mr. Gorman, let's roll up our sleeves together and begin working hard to help criminals change. Transformed criminals don't do crime. That's the vision! Let's get on with it!

I have spent almost 40 years mastering the principles of how to stay out of crime and prison. I am now an expert and I want to share this expertise with others. For more information, please visit [http://www.miltoncjordansr.com/index.cfm?id=4901&fuseaction=browse&pageid=55]

How Effective are CCTV Security Systems at Reducing Crime?

Since the July 7th London bombings, CCTV security systems (closed circuit TV) across the world have been examined with greater scrutiny and with greater expectations for reducing crime. Although not a panacea for preventing crime, many CCTV surveillance systems have been successful at reducing some types of crimes like property crime, for acting as a deterrent in car parks or in other public places, and for making citizens feel safer. However, the results are mixed when addressing violent crimes and when the crimes involve alcohol.

In the UK, where an average person may be watched 300 times a day by the prevalent closed circuit television systems, numerous case studies paired with crime statistics have been used by Britain's Home Office to determine the effectiveness of these CCTV systems and to see how well CCTV saves time and money for their police force. In fact, from 1999 to 2001, the British government spent £170 million (approximately $250 million) for closed circuit television security schemes in town and in city centers, car parks, crime hot spots and in residential areas.

Keys to evaluating CCTV systems

According to Coretta Philips of the Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, CCTV systems are evaluated using these identifiers which help police pinpoint where and when the CCTV security camera systems are most beneficial.

o Caught in the act -- When potential offenders fear being recorded by the CCTV cameras for courtroom purposes, they usually abandon any idea of conducting a crime.

o Publicity -- If the CCTV camera schemes are public knowledge, then the would-be offenders may leave the target area, but may head to another area. Home Office data found that in the days leading up to the CCTV system activation, crime went down due to the increased publicity. However, if the publicity of the CCTV system is private, then offenders may be more likely to be deterred because they may think that CCTV security cameras may monitor other areas as well.

o Effective deployment of law enforcement officers -- CCTV systems increase the response time of police officers to the incident scene before a member of public has to call the police. According to data compiled in 2004 by the Home Office, CCTV operators can determine how many officers to send to the scene and the CCTV surveillance cameras can indicate what the offenders are doing at the scene before the police arrive.

o Time for crime -- If the offenders think that they can complete their crime before the CCTV systems can record it, then the police will have less chance at capturing the offenders. For example, if car thieves know that the security camera's angle, range and speed are limited, they might determine how to best avoid the CCTV security cameras. However, the Home Office CCTV data has shown a reduction in car thefts in car parks, revealing that some offenders may still be captured on camera despite the speed of the crime.

Where CCTV systems scored well and where they missed

Although CCTV systems seem to reduce and deter property crime in public areas, such as car parks or shopping malls, CCTV systems aren't as effective at stopping or preventing violent crimes. Although the CCTV systems do help at deploying police officers quickly to these violent crimes sites, the offenders may avoid the security cameras, since the security cameras are mounted in public zones, where violent crimes don't take place. In this case, better street lighting may help to prevent such violent crimes from occurring. In addition, when alcohol is involved, the offenders don't consider the consequences of their actions, making the CCTV systems ineffective as a deterrent amongst the intoxicated offenders.

On a positive note, the CCTV systems do reduce the public's fear of crime and they do ensure the quick deployment of officers to the incident scene which gives less time for the offenders to act more violently. To truly verify if the CCTV system is effective, the law enforcement body needs to conduct video surveillance evaluations over a long period of time to weed out any inconsistencies in the crime data. Also, if the CCTV operators are well-trained and know the fastest way to deploy the police officers, then the CCTV system will be more effective. CCTV systems are the future for preventing crime, and as the CCTV security cameras become more sophisticated, more offenders will be caught and more crimes will be prevented.

Copyright © 2005-2006 Evaluseek Publishing.

About the Author
Alice Osborn is a successful freelance writer providing practical information and advice about video surveillance security systems for business, non-profit and home use. Her numerous articles include tips for saving both time and money when shopping for video security products; equipment reviews and reports; and other valuable insights. Learn more about specialized video surveillance equipment like the video multiplexer when you visit Video-Surveillance-Guide.com today!