Citizen surveillance: does it work? – NH News

“Civil surveillance is a form of social control,” says sociologist Don Weenink, affiliated with the University of Amsterdam. According to him, this applies especially if the contact between young people and the citizen concerned is good.

earlier concluded researcher and sociologist Vasco Lub in ‘De Burger opwacht’, that such neighborhood watch has taken a huge turn in recent years. In many places, patrolling civilians are said to be active. In our province we know several examples of vigilantes. Think, for example, of active citizens in times of the curfew. Or the initiative in Niedorp, where citizens came together to increase their sense of security, they say.

Pilot neighborhood Beverwijk

Harry Anderies started with a vigilante in Beverwijk at the time. After disturbing messages about violence between young people in Velsen-Noord, he now also offers his help there. In view of the seriousness of the situation, he believes that there will be great willingness in Velsen-Noord to participate in a civilian surveillance team. “It’s a close-knit core of people who are involved in what’s happening in their village,” he says.

However, it is questionable whether civilian surveillance can bring about anything. According to a police spokesperson, the power of active citizens does not extend beyond that of ‘ordinary citizens’. For example, someone who makes a mistake may be arrested by a citizen invigilator, but he must be handed over to the police immediately.

However, according to the spokesperson, it can certainly be helpful. Sociologist Weenink also states this: “It can simplify mediation between the police and young people.” In his research, Vasco Lub also points to the positive effects of combating crime, extra alertness among residents and vigilantes as an extension of the police and services. Moreover, according to him, it makes a positive contribution to collective self-reliance.

‘Playing in front of your own judge’

According to researcher Lub, various observations and interviews also reveal negative consequences of neighborhood watch. Consider, for example, stigmatization of other groups, disproportionate social control and making the goal ‘safety’ absolute. It would also lead to ‘playing in front of one’s own judge’.

Weenink also sees the latter as a potential danger. It is therefore important, according to him, that a vigilante remains neutral, does not judge and only enters into dialogue. Moreover, according to him, the contact between the police and citizen surveillance must continue to be leading and the police must clearly communicate what is needed and what the active citizen can help with.