On CCTVs and crime

Tonight's episode of Bawal ang Pasaway brought into light fundamental issues regarding public policy and unintended consequences. The issue revolves around the increasing use of CCTVs in metropolitan areas in the Philippines, and the proposed law requiring private CCTV owners to submit their footages to help investigations of crimes. Here are some of the specific issues:

Do CCTVs deter crime? To be sure, evidence is mixed around the world. Also, it may depend on the context: e.g., how will CCTVs in Tondo compare with CCTVs in Forbes Park? But the specific question posed by Mareng Winnie was whether CCTVs can effectively deter crime when the death penalty cannot. Winnie Castelo went on to say things about criminal psychology, human behavior, but all the same failed to reach a possible answer to this: while the threat of execution via the death row is distant and highly uncertain, the threat of being caught on CCTV is much more immediate, tangible, and certain.   Human psychology would suggest that people value present risks more than distant risks, so there may be basis for the deterrence theory.

Will the proposed law ensure the protection of the right to privacy? This is of course a legal and philosophical issue, boiling down to whether private rights weigh more than what is (abominably) called the "common welfare" or "public welfare". A more practical issue may be the unintended consequence of the law on the very decision of private entities/individuals to install CCTVs. That is, given the danger of legal sanction if one refuses to submit CCTV footage, there may be a disincentive to expand the use of CCTVs, if at all, in favor of other deterrent security measures (e.g., improved lighting). This is a valid concern that necessitates empirical investigation before any wild guess/conjecture may be legitimately spewed out in public interviews.

Is extensive or widespread use of CCTVs optimal? This is related to the question of whether aspiring for zero crime is optimal. Obviously, it isn't, mainly for two reasons. First, costs are likely skyrocket faster than the rise in benefits after some point. Second, installing cameras in every nook and corner will result in a perverse equilibrium, one characterized by fundamental changes in the behavior and strategy of criminal elements. They will surely find a way to go around CCTVs, either by aiming to remove CCTVs in the routes they will use in executing a crime, or lobbying for the decreased use of CCTVs...name it, they'll think of it. As always, human behavior is endogenously determined, and will only adapt to the attendant exogenous parameters.