D.C. crime watch

OPINION:

During testimony on Monday before the D.C. Council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier indicated that crime is down in the District compared to this time last year. Her testimony followed the release of the Closed Circuit Television System 2007 Annual Report, in which she boasts the effectiveness of the surveillance system on reducing crime. But there is no clear picture. Is the chief watching crime or suppressing crime?

According to the chief, “violent crime within 250 feet of the cameras decreased 19 percent [in 2007] when compared to 2006.” This is certainly a welcome statistic, but it’s important to point out that citywide violent crime increased 1 percent overall and property crimes increased 2 percent in surveillance areas while there was a 5 percent increase citywide. Some skeptics, including committee Chairman Phil Mendelson, suspect that the surveillance cameras simply displace crime rather than deter it. We share Mr. Mendelson’s concern.

Since 2006, the Metropolitan Police Department has installed 73 cameras to combat crime, and it plans to add an estimated 50 cameras over the next two years. The initial camera installations cost $3.8 million. New cameras, upgrades and maintenance are expected to cost more than $4.5 million. The cameras were strategically placed in high-crime areas. Still, it is difficult to get an accurate picture of their effectiveness. More important still is the fact that Chief Lanier has yet to employ an effective anti-crime strategy. Nor has the chief explained which is more beneficial: $4.5 million worth of surveillance equipment and maintenance or $4.5 million worth of human resources?

There is no denying that surveillance cameras offer an investigative edge after crime has occurred. Until recently, the video from the cameras was only monitored for evidence. Since the end of last year, Chief Lanier has ordered more frequent monitoring in real time — a policy decision that aided law enforcers when a Maryland prisoner escaped and stole several cars. The cameras allowed police to track the convict. The video also has aided in dozens of other police investigations.

The issue, of course, is where the surveillance ends and real-time patrolling begins. If another 50 cameras are shown to reduce crime nearby, will the chief add 50 more? And 50 more after that? If officers are behind desks watching live video feeds from surveillance cameras where crime is “decreasing,” who will be patrolling the streets watching the criminals displaced by the cameras?