Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

psycnet.apa.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#11

Post by pbhjpbhj »

js8 wrote: post #8
raxxorrax wrote: post #3

Probably true, but I think CCTV reduces civil intervention. Would be an interesting study to conduct.

I doubt it, I am actually more inclined to think it's the other way around. My own decision to intervene is mainly driven by my own feeling of safety. So if I am in an environment where is more people, or I perceive is better monitored, I will be more likely to help, because I am less worried to get into trouble.

(I'm in the UK.)

I think there's an extra bystander effect if you know there is publicly monitored CCTV. "Why interfere and take a risk, the police know what's happening and will be on the way if it's serious".

If I see suspicious behaviour I might stop and watch, intending to intervene if necessary. If there's police nearby, then I'd point it out to them and carry on with my own business. If you think the police already know, then it seems reasonable one might carry on and ignore uncivil, unlawful, or antisocial behaviour.

There's a secondary effect, if you interfere and end up physically challenging someone then they might not even recall it a later time if they were drunk/drugged. But, if they see footage later, when sober, they might feel annoyed/angry that they were challenged and seek your prosecution.

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#13

Post by soared »

jsbaby608 wrote: post #12

My theory is that because guns are banned in the UK, the only real way to reduce crime is to have cameras everywhere.

I’m not following the logic - are you implying police with guns are intimidating, which is the only effective way to stop crime? There are many countries that counter that multiple ways. Look at the militarized police in Central American countries that are 10x more intimidating but much less effective.

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#14

Post by pmorici »

soared wrote: post #13
jsbaby608 wrote: post #12

My theory is that because guns are banned in the UK, the only real way to reduce crime is to have cameras everywhere.

I’m not following the logic - are you implying police with guns are intimidating, which is the only effective way to stop crime? There are many countries that counter that multiple ways. Look at the militarized police in Central American countries that are 10x more intimidating but much less effective.

I think they are saying that part of the calculation a person makes before committing a crime is what is the likelihood that I am caught or seriously injured. In a society that outlaws citizens having guns the chances of serious injury are much smaller than one where say 20% have a weapon. To the extent that CCTV Cameras increase the likelihood of being caught they have the same deterrent effect of knowing that there is a 20% chance your victim is able to defend themselves.

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#15

Post by jinglebells »

jsbaby608 wrote: post #12

My theory is that because guns are banned in the UK, the only real way to reduce crime is to have cameras everywhere.

And yet the crime rates in the UK are considerably lower than the US, could it be because guns aren't widely available?

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#16

Post by astazangasta »

If people aren't familiar with it much of this myth making came from the story of 38 witnesses doing nothing while Kitty Genovese was attacked three separate times in a Queens apartment building. From the (much later) NYT correction of their initial flawed report:

>While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#17

Post by taborj »

jinglebells wrote: post #15
jsbaby608 wrote: post #12

My theory is that because guns are banned in the UK, the only real way to reduce crime is to have cameras everywhere.

And yet the crime rates in the UK are considerably lower than the US, could it be because guns aren't widely available?

That's not the whole story. Here are some numbers: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kin...

You'll note that, yes the US has a higher violent crime rate, but other crime rates are higher - some far higher (drug offenses, for example, are 327 times higher in the UK; total crime victims is 25% higher in the UK, etc).

So certain types of crime rates are lower - even considerably lower - than the US. But other types of crime rates are higher - even considerably higher - than the US.

It's like there are pros and cons to everywhere.

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#18

Post by lkrubner »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #11
js8 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it, I am actually more inclined to think it's the other way around. My own decision to intervene is mainly driven by my own feeling of safety. So if I am in an environment where is more people, or I perceive is better monitored, I will be more likely to help, because I am less worried to get into trouble.

(I'm in the UK.) I think there's an extra bystander effect if you know there is publicly monitored CCTV. "Why interfere and take a risk, the police know what's happening and will be on the way if it's serious". If I see suspicious behaviour I might stop and watch, intending to intervene if necessary. If there's police nearby, then I'd point it out to them and carry on with my own business. If you think the police alr…

“Stop and watch“ is still intervention. Twice I’ve broken up what seemed to be incipient fights by stopping and staring intently at the aggressor. Unless they are drunk, they don’t want to be observed. They will walk away if someone is staring at them.

Re: Cross-national CCTV footage shows intervention is the norm in public conflicts

#19

Post by BeeOnRope »

taborj wrote: post #17
jinglebells wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet the crime rates in the UK are considerably lower than the US, could it be because guns aren't widely available?

That's not the whole story. Here are some numbers: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kin... You'll note that, yes the US has a higher violent crime rate, but other crime rates are higher - some far higher (drug offenses, for example, are 327 times higher in the UK; total crime victims is 25% higher in the UK, etc). So certain types of crime rates are lower - even considerably lower - than the U…

I think we can be reasonably certain that drug crimes are not 327 times higher in the UK.
Post reply on HN