Technology have influenced every sphere of human life. Education system has not been left behind. Schools have continually used technology in various spheres of their operation. For instance, in school security schools have embraced the modern technologies to track children and their activities and keep them safe. These modern technologies include CCTV, fingerprint identification and RFID (radio-frequency identification) chips.
The first video surveillance system was installed by Siemens AG at Test Stand VII in Peenemunde, Germany in 1942,for observing the launch of v-2 rockets.
The noted German engineer Walter Bruch was responsible for the design and installation of the system. Outside the government special facilities, video surveillance was developed initially as a means of increasing security in the banks.
Until the mid-eighties, the deployment of CCTV systems had largely been limited to private spaces (Hempel 2001). The appearance of these systems in settings typically considered ‘public’ is a more recent phenomenon; and, it is one which occurred with considerable alacrity in many countries.
A diverse array of aims and objectives have motivated the introduction of CCTV into public spaces including: public safety, deterrence, enhanced detection and increased response times. In the contemporary context, the predominant uses of CCTV in public spaces are in the management of risks, traffic jams, fire, accidents and crime prevention (Hempel 2001).
In larger metropolitan districts, CCTV had less impact upon personal crime (Brown 1995). Within smaller market towns, the number of assaults declined (Brown 1995). Violence in Burnley town centre underwent significant reductions in the area covered by CCTV (Armitage 1999).
Webb and Laycock found decreases in incidences of robbery in London Underground Stations that were smaller and less complex in their layout (Webb and Laycock 1992).The Ilford study revealed a reduction in robbery and theft from the person offences.On drugs, Burnley underwent significant reductions in the area covered by CCTV (Armitage et al. 1999).
CCTV and Fear of CrimeThe ways in which CCTV will affect public space is determined, to a larger degree, by public response to the presence of the cameras. Most studies show a considerable degree of public support for CCTV systems. For example, Tilley found that 67% of those interviewed ‘did not mind’ being observed by street cameras (1999). A full 79% of those interviewed thought they would make people feel less likely that they would become victims of crime (Tilley 1999). Other studies have shown that even those who are profiled by the cameras are supportive.
A number of researchers have found that CCTV reduced levels of fear of crime (Chatterton and Frenz 1994; Brown 1995; Mahalingham 1996; and Sarno 1996). Armitage suggests that the methodology utilized to ascertain fear of crime levels should be questioned before conclusions are made (2002). The installation of CCTV did not effect avoidance behavior – the proportion of those avoid ‘dangerous’ part of the city. However, small reductions in fear of victimization were apparent (Tilley 1999). In Glasgow, Tilly found that 72% of all those interviewed believed CCTV cameras would prevent crime and disorder.
The United Kingdom (UK) government has described CCTV as “vital” for detecting offenders (Porter 2016), majority of British officers surveyed by Levesley and Martin (2005)believed that CCTV was a useful investigative tool. A report on the value of CCTV commis-sioned by Dyfed-Powys Police in Wales argued that cameras were valuable in the detection of crime, citing the opinions of police investigators and local prosecutors. However, the report also recommended that live-monitoring of CCTV cease because it was ineffec-tive at preventing crime or improving the initial response to incidents (Instrom Security Consultants 2014).
Student behavior is a problem that cannot be regarded as trivial. The problem of school children bringing weapons to school is an issue that will not go away by itself. Students are harming each other with regularity. The problems are particularly acute and are complicated by their connection to the prevalence of poverty, crime, and despair. Installing video surveillance system will help students focus on their studies and not make them worry about outside violence.
In this study, CCTV, or Closed Circuit Television, refers to electronic monitoring systems which make use of video cameras, connected by means of a ‘closed’ (or non-broadcast) circuit, to capture, collect, record, and/or relay visual information about the event-status of a given space over time. IP Network – is a computer network made of devices that support the Internet protocol Monitor – A device that displays images or symbols generated by computers.
In this study surveillance is broadly defined as ‘the observation of persons, vehicles, or activity taking place at some given location for the purposes of obtaining information regarding the activities and identities of the persons (Lyon 1997; Taylor 1999). Direct surveillance is taken to involves the physical presence and senses of a human surveillant, whereas electronic surveillance (of which CCTV is only one type) involves mediation and, typically (though not necessarily) distance from the object or context observed. Further distinctions can be drawn between different types of surveillance: visual, auditory and olfactory
Surveillance camera – This is using camera to watch over people( students) and property.Theft – is the illegal taking of another persons property without that persons freely – given consent. Vandalism – is the behavior attributed originally to the vandals, by Romans, in respect of culture:ruthless destruction or spoiling of anything beautiful or venerable. Such action may include defacement, graffiti and criminal damage.
CCTV and the Theory of DeterrenceThe promise of CCTV lies in the expectation of deterrence. Deterrence approaches, and of crime prevention strategies in particular, aim to put into place practices or conditions that ‘convince criminals to desist from criminal activities, delay their actions, or avoid a particular target’ (Siegel 1992:133). These approaches are premised on a number of behavioral expectations – and some submerged assumptions about the cognitive processes, motivational impulses, and empirical experiences of potential offenders. To the extent that efficacy of CCTV as a deterrence tactic depends, at least in part, on the degree to which these expectations and assumptions hold true, a reconstructive explication of the chain of expectations and assumptions is necessary.
Hence, the deterrent effect of CCTV will obtain if:
A potential perpetrator enters a space monitored by CCTV and is either already aware of the fact of monitoring or somehow become aware of the fact. The potential perpetrators either: a) already holds the belief that a crime committed in a space monitored by CCTV is more likely to be detected or b) the potential perpetrator somehow comes to that conclusion once they observe the cameras in operation. The submerged assumption here is that potential perpetrators are motivated to avoid detection.
The potential perpetrator either: a) already holds the belief that they are more likely to be identified if they commit a crime in a space monitored by CCTV or b) the potential perpetrator comes to that conclusion once they observe the cameras in operation. The submerged assumption here is that the potential perpetrators are motivated to avoid identification.
The potential perpetrators either: a) already hold the belief that they are more likely to be apprehended if they commit a crime in a space monitored by CCTV or b) to come to that conclusion once they observe the cameras in operation. The submerged assumption here is that the potential perpetrator is motivated to avoid apprehension. The potential perpetrator engages in a calculation, in which s/he weighs the potential gains and against the following motivations: a) not to have their crime detected b) not to be identified c) not to be apprehended
The potential perpetrator concludes, as a result of this recalculation, that not having their crime detected, not being identified, not being apprehended or any combination outweighs the potential gains associated with going ahead and committing the crime anyway.
The potential perpetrator, in the face of this conclusion, makes the decision not to commit a crime. The potential perpetrator abides by this decision. The submerged assumption is that the potential perpetrator is actually in control or himself or herself to the degree that s/he is capable of obeying reason rather than impulse. To the extent that the assumptions or expectations do not obtain with respect to particular potential perpetrator, we can expect the probabilities to decline proportionally
This study will focus on the security system of individuals in schools by having a defense security system using video surveillance. It will only identify the needs of the group concerned, explanations or reasons for these needs will not be concerns of this study
This research will help the students to feel safe inside the school; they can concentrate on their studies without bothering on what could possibly happen to them while they are in school vicinity.
With the help of this study the security of the students in school will be intensively monitored by the use of security systems installed. Students may be less inclined to cause trouble because of the solid documentation that the video recordings provide. It will maintain a piece of mind for the school administrators and staff. The CCTV system will decrease the property damages such as vandalism and theft, as it is now easy to identify the perpetrators.