Public surveillance provides only minimum protection against the vandalism of public property, but the use of closed-circuit television monitored by hired personnel may help reduce crime in public places.
Although several theories have been advanced concerning the deterrence of crime by means of more deliberate use of surveillance, little research has been done in determining the specific factors which cause deterrence and citizen intervention. It may be that offenders have a good idea of the chances of intervention from various classes of witnesses and are unwilling to risk being seen by those persons who are most likely to take effective action. Most offenders would avoid being seen by those who will be familiar with the prosperity or persons being threatened. The implications of this theory to crime prevention are that the general public cannot be relied upon to report offenses to property in which they have no immediate interest, although the same people could be relied upon to protect their residences. A study of vandalism to public telephones in London which confirms the lack a significant deterrent effect by the mere presence of a member of the public near the vandalized property, contrasts with findings from a study of the effectiveness of television monitors in the London subway. Special policing techniques and equipment was cost-effective in reducing thefts. Tabular data and references are provided. (TWK)