More cameras don’t stop more crime

The government’s increased camera surveillance is a blow to organized crime. That’s according to a lawyer who specializes in the field.

On Monday, the government’s investigators presented proposals for simpler camera surveillance. The permit requirement is to be abolished and there will also be no notification obligation for the municipalities or authorities that want to monitor cameras.

– The development of society has brought us to a point where crime greatly restricts people’s integrity, freedom of movement and security. This does not mean that we should not make a balance, but the development makes it justified to make the balance in a different way, said Minister of Justice Gunnar Strömmer (M) when he received the proposals.

Not effective

Peter Hellman disagrees. He is a lawyer and has been an active debater on the issue of camera surveillance for a long time.

– The research shows that camera surveillance is effective against certain types of crime and in certain areas. What it is not effective against is violent crime and disorder, when it comes to preventing that type of crime, he says and continues:

– It is also not effective in city centers or in what are known as special areas with apartment buildings, i.e. the million program areas, or in public transport. In those places, according to the research, it is known that the cameras do not prevent crime.

Cheap

But if the research is now clear why does the technology apparently have great popular and political support?

– It is a simple and tangible measure. Which is relatively cheap.

Hellman believes that an overall picture is required, around all measures to get crime under control. Not least from an integrity perspective.

– There are studies that show that cameras together with other measures have prevented crime, it could be that the lighting in a place has been increased. That it is the lighting that prevents crime and not the camera surveillance.