Hey Fai! According to the crime research, the deterrent effects of CCTV depend on the slaughterhouse workers’ perceived probability of detection, not the true probability of detection. So, in principle, it’s possible for CCTV to have a meaningful deterrent effect even if the videos aren’t watched 100%.
For example, a government could identify which slaughterhouses have the highest risk of non-compliance and focus on those footage, then very quickly and clearly respond to any incidents they do detect. These visible, rapid responses would help convey the impression to slaughterhouse workers that the feeds are being monitored, which would increase the perceived probability of detection despite not all feeds being watched.
Yes—all else being equal, a higher probability of detection is a good thing, as it would lead to a stronger deterrent effect (as long as the authorities respond to violations with clear, effective enforcement actions)
Hey Fai! According to the crime research, the deterrent effects of CCTV depend on the slaughterhouse workers’ perceived probability of detection, not the true probability of detection. So, in principle, it’s possible for CCTV to have a meaningful deterrent effect even if the videos aren’t watched 100%.
For example, a government could identify which slaughterhouses have the highest risk of non-compliance and focus on those footage, then very quickly and clearly respond to any incidents they do detect. These visible, rapid responses would help convey the impression to slaughterhouse workers that the feeds are being monitored, which would increase the perceived probability of detection despite not all feeds being watched.
That makes sense. But if we can bring it up to >99% probability with little cost. I assume that is still a good thing to do?
Yes—all else being equal, a higher probability of detection is a good thing, as it would lead to a stronger deterrent effect (as long as the authorities respond to violations with clear, effective enforcement actions)