This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 03 October 2014, At: 03:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce,Media, PoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcss20

Social control in sports and the CCTVissue: a critical criminological approachStratos Georgoulas aa Department of Sociology , University of the Aegean , Mytilene ,GreecePublished online: 12 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Stratos Georgoulas (2013) Social control in sports and the CCTV issue: a criticalcriminological approach, Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 16:2, 239-249, DOI:10.1080/17430437.2013.776254

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2013.776254

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social control in sports and the CCTV issue: a critical criminologicalapproach

Stratos Georgoulas*

Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Greece

When criminological discourse on sports is restricted to causal explanation of deviantbehaviours without thorough examination of the part played by the dominant structureand institutions within this social phenomenon, the discourse is limiting and its primaryobjective is the reproduction and legitimation of the established opinion. Our approachdetermines the connection among deviance, social control and sports through the scopeof critical criminology. Finally, our proposal is completed with a relevant approachregarding the issue of the use of closed circuit television cameras in sports fields, theworking hypothesis of which is that this use conserves and reproduces the dominantproduction relations legitimating the stigmatizing and selective operation of formalsocial control. As a consequence, a measure of criminal policy which is presented asthe most suitable treatment of violence in sports fields constitutes, in fact, a neo-conservative policy of expanding social control.

What is crime: a critical approach

Crime and punishment should constitute a focal point of social theory. The specific

perspective legitimizes the need not only for a completed or pluralistic approach but also

for a study of crime mainly freed from restrictive interpretations of the phenomenon,

which at the same time cloud the social roots of crime itself. The danger of autonomy of

the object of inquiry, in relation to these roots, may lead to a legitimization of the status

quo. For instance, when scientific questions about the nature of crime attempt to discover

its nature, as if ‘another’ reality is researched, the pursued answers result in the production

of technical knowledge by experts who work under ‘laboratory conditions’. Although they

draw scientific conclusions through positivist approaches, i.e. through the use of scientific

methods and techniques, their framework of operation is idealistic. The main ideology that

is supported in this way is the ideology of the maintenance and reproduction of a specific

state, which does not become object of scientific inquiry. If the scientific question has an

aetiological dimension, and issues of cultural, historical, social, political and economic

perspectives are excluded, then the answer will be teleological and clearly conservative in

advance and results in an academic justification of the existent policies of discrimination

in the institutions of the formal social control.

If we do not wish to follow this track, we should be ready to bring policy back to what

it was a conversation on technical issues of application, we should deal with society as a

whole. As the authors of New Criminology1 wrote, this is nothing but an old criminology

that renegotiates the same problems encountered also by classic social scientists. In fact, it

is about a sociological study of the entire social framework of the inequalities of power,

wealth and authority, which is the result of class relations of industrial society with a

simultaneous critical rejection of analytic individualism, either in the idealistic form of

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

*Email: s.georgoulas@soc.aegean.gr

Sport in Society, 2013

Vol. 16, No. 2, 239–249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2013.776254

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

neoclassicism or in the form of individual positivism – a study based on the tradition of

dialectical materialism where freedom of will and absolute determinism are vitiated, a

study where anti-positivist radicalism will be promoted beyond the world of personal

interpretations in the critique of history and structure of society, a study where the

criminological interest is orientated to the great questions of social structure and

interactions of humans with the structures of power and rule within the framework of

which criminal phenomenon as a process takes place. There is no need for the difference to

be approached as pathological, since crime cannot be considered as a marginal

phenomenon, but as an endemic phenomenon dispersed in the society. On the contrary, the

opposition to this – criminalization – as integral part of the totality of the phenomenon is

approached through the aspect of conflict.

The theoretical aspect of conflict as a conceptual instrument of sociological analysis of

the reality constitutes a clearly defined framework of interpretation development, which is

opposed to functionalism. The ‘indisputable evil’ product of a social consensus is replaced

by the evil defined as the result of a procedure of criminalization controlled by the socially

strong winners in the social conflict, against the socially weak losers. Such a social conflict

always ends to an attempt of conservation and perpetuation of the winner’s authority. This

takes place originally through the law that first protects the goods and values or behaviours

of the strong and keeps on with the operation of mechanisms of formal social control that

through their actions or omissions secure the result of the pre-existent conflict. The greater

the social conflict, the more possible for the strong to criminalize the behaviour of those

having questioned or questioning their authority and threatening their interests. So, the

analytical framework of record of crime followed by the critical criminology is set

according to all the above, characterized by socially examined postulates-estimations,

such as the following:2

1. The values and interests of a person are formed by his/her living conditions. In

modern societies, people live under different conditions, hence their values and

interests are different.

2. People act according to their values and interests. When values are opposed to their

interests, they adapt the values according to the interests.

3. Laws support the values and interests of people. When there are opposing interests

and values, the law supports the interests and values the dominant social group or

groups.

4. Usually the law implementation agents, since they operate within bureaucratic

structures, are more efficient in simple cases than in more complex ones. Simple

cases are those of infringements by individuals or groups that have a low political

and financial power. On the contrary, complex cases refer to the infringements of

powerful groups or individuals.

5. Exactly due to the previous discretionary operation of the law implementation

agents, the officially recorded crime, which is a record of their action, will present

features that are in accordance with the power distribution in a society. In other

words, the majority of the criminals are expected to be people without financial and

political power, violating values and interests of the powerful.

Instead of searching for fake and idealistic causes of crime, we should prove how

crime is politically and economically fabricated through the social control institutions

within the framework of political economy of the capitalist society, as well as historically

in every social reality. This involves that our priority should be also the study of those

institutions and the suggestions for their change. At the same time, however, the wider

240 S. Georgoulas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

spectrum of thinking should be focused on the suggestions of social and economical

change of the current reality within which the criminal phenomenon is developed and

preserved. The main objective should be the structure of a new, rightful society, where the

elements of human differentiality cannot be subjected to the power of criminalization.

Critical criminology of sports – methodology

On the one hand, when we do scientific research on sports, it is customary to study mainly

quantitative changes and compare courses of action. On the other hand, when we research

crime, we usually look for the causes, which will lead us to crime-fighting proposals.

Therefore, when we speak of criminology of sports, we usually refer to the official and

unofficial recording of offences committed at a specific place and time of action. From the

above, it becomes clear that when a researcher restricts a concept to one object of inquiry,

the combination of two or more concepts creates a much more restrictive thought and thus

narrows theoretical path for research. This is the first danger resulting from such partiality.

The second danger is when the study indicates without questioning the restructuring of

existing institutional framework and thus reveals the sense of the unavoidable. The

scientific discussion revolves around pre-constructed solutions and policies that can be

reproduced as results of a technical specialization. For instance, is the application of

closed circuit television (CCTV) an effective measure or not for the prevention of sports

crime? The superficial reliability of the research findings as confirmation of scientific truth

does not cancel the fact that the scientist’s question is pre-constructed, restrictive and

ideologically orientated. Partiality usually connected with a teleological perspective is

restrictive and therefore anti-scientific, while behind it lays a political discourse: the

reproduction of status quo knowledge and thus the lack of doubt, social regression and

conservatism.

To go back to our initial question, if we consider crime and sports as social practices

that enter all spheres of social life and examine their interaction and how this is manifested

as institutional practice, we will have a broader object of inquiry. If we cancel the

naturalization of this manifestation through a historical and comparative study, we will

deny its self-evident character and we can develop more easily than before a more critical

approach to the relation between these two social practices.

It is clear that a basic precondition for this theoretical pathway is the effort to analyze

and define social practices in a broad sense. What needs to be clearly recorded, however, is

a specific social practice, such as the one formed behind the term ‘criminology of sports’,

organized around a specific part of social life, providing a regulatory framework for

human action. This means that we should be open to the ‘positive’ side of this practice and

avoid thinking that when we talk about criminology of sports, we refer only to the

‘negative’ meaning, i.e. to actions that endanger the specific regulatory framework. On the

contrary, it could be an inseparable part of the regulatory framework for human action in a

specific place at a specific time, for example the practice of ‘black labour’, i.e. labour

without employer’s social security contribution, is an inseparable part of the regulation of

‘life’ at a sports club. Such practices also evolve in the course of time, in a way that their

present character is moulded not only by history and tradition but also by their present

status. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the history of this social practice, interlinked

with the space in which it develops, i.e. the social history in relation not only to the specific

subject of the study but also to the wider area that concerns our space research reference.

Another point that is connected with the aforementioned one is that such social

practices are built upon knowledge, techniques, norms and financial procedures. All

Sport in Society 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

participants in this social practice are guided by this thinking in general and are obliged to

confront situations within the institutional framework of this practice. This world of

knowledge, norms, techniques and financial procedures that dominates a specific social

practice is not exclusively self-fulfilling because it is connected with social worlds of other

practices, which form a social network, a social structure. It might be too difficult to

present a model of the interrelating forces that define the world of the specific social

practice, since the latter is not a closed mechanical system, which is maintained through a

structural necessity. Nevertheless, it is worth trying to form such a model for a case study.

A significant part of our attempt is the political economy of the social practice. Questions

regarding the connection between such a social practice and the mode of production,

mainly the relations of production, the division in owners and working people, in rich and

poor, unemployment and the economic development of the spatial-temporal framework of

our research reference are very important for the understanding of the social world that

restricts human activities to the framework of this practice. However, in order to avoid any

economic partiality, we should clarify that the actors in this practice recognize the market

needs and the interests of the dominant economic group.

Another point that should be put forward in this debate is the ideological-political

forces that through class relations aim at reproducing and legalizing the dominant pattern

of the social structure in the specific social practice. In order to be more specific and

comprehensible, on the one hand, we should examine criminality and the discourse about

crime as an institutional practice, which functions on a level above the protection of

dominant services and goods, as this is expressed by existing economic relations.

Regarding the specific connection between social practices of crime and sports, our study

will focus not only on how deviation is institutionally defined as a threat to the dominant

market disposal of sports, but also on how deviation and its punishment reproduce images

of people and social relations during sports as tools of dominance and class intimidation.

According to Pashukanis,3 the law of the bourgeoisie derives from commercial exchange

relations. This production of law as a non-stop procedure of self-referred renewal reveals

an interactive relationship. Crime in sports is committed by isolated egoistic people who

have their own autonomous private interests. If this is proven through the institutional

practice of formal social control mechanisms and is reproduced by both formal political

discourse, and the discourse of mass or not communication, we can talk about a

materialization of specific economic interests in a vocabulary of total value. The criminal

is one or some of the ‘users or providers of activities’. The accused as a legal subject has

‘accountability’ and ‘free will’; therefore, the sentence she/he receives, as society

demands or at least as its ‘TV representatives’ require, should ‘correspond’ to the offence

she/he committed. His/her imprisonment is the ‘payment’ to society at the greatest cost,

‘his/her freedom’.

So we see that crime in sports is produced as a social practice compatible with the

dominant structure that defines it, namely the capitalist market. It would be a mistake,

however, to restrict our survey to this conclusion, because the aforementioned social

practice, together with all the elements that define it, affects in turn the surrounding

economic structure, by supporting it at least in a symbolic field. All activities that

characterize the practice of crime in sports are transformed from conceptual categories of

the dominant economic group into universal categories that concern all of us, into values,

into natural and self-evident elements.

More specifically, the aim of the critical criminology of sports is to demonstrate the

true functions of sports concerning the definition, prevention and fighting deviance, to

show which are the real consequences of this function to the various social strata, to reveal

242 S. Georgoulas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

the systems of thought that support these institutions and these practices, and to cooperate

with all people engaged in this system, in order to modify institutions and their practices,

as well as to develop other forms of thinking.

Scientific discourse is a force based on knowledge. When it is guided and restrictive, it

becomes a mere scientific specialization, totally submitted to its guides (often sponsors),

thus serving their values and controlling the previous product, namely research. Therefore,

the partiality of research produces partiality of knowledge, institutional policies that

function as self-fulfilling prophesy and demonized by the public, which either is afraid and

becomes more conservative or retreats unable to act against the mighty ‘evil’ society.

Reversing the research interest, especially in the field of criminological research, the

critical researcher, instead of reproducing these structured power relations through the

(interpretative) creation and (statistical) confirmation of a criminal pathology, examines

the terms of an initial criminalization from the part of formal social control agents, and the

reproduction of these terms in the social framework, in a clear context of dialectical

relationship between the two of them. Aiming at revealing respective practices, placing

them within their historical framework, the researcher goes beyond superficial and

predominant ‘acceptances’, knowing that when remaining in the area of positivist

confirmation of a criminal pathology, not only is this not an evaluative neutral social

research, but also it is a risky act of normalization and stigmatization that serves the aims

of power, having tangible (negative) results on human lives as well as on the violation of

human rights and freedoms, on the whole. ‘Common knowledge’ and ‘reality’ become

myths and hidden truths, being revealed when critical social research in the field of

criminology, too, questions the official discourse, through the research of theories,

policies, legislation, media representations and practices of institutions dealing with crime

and its treatment.

CCTV in sports fields and critical criminology of sports

According to our theoretical framework, the use of cameras as a criminal policy in sports

fields constitutes an important part of a regulatory framework for human action in these

sites and an institutional practice aiming at the organization of a specific aspect of social

life (which confirms positively its existence operating only when it reveals actions that put

at risk the wider social regulation in the area in which it is integrated). As a result, it

pertains to the field of critical criminology on sports, as already illustrated.

The following stage that should be recorded is the historical course of this social

practice, as well as the special (or not) character of its contemporary implementation in

other socio-cultural contexts.

First, scientific records shoot down the myth of invocation of a ‘historical purity’, and

hence the ‘new’ and ‘modern’ that conforms with arguments of post-modernity about

globalization of crime and the need of finding ‘new’ ways of crime control policy to deal

with it. It is not a new, worse and untreatable criminal violence that gave birth to the need

for the use of cameras, since photography and television, as soon as they were invented,

were used as crime control methods. Photography was invented in 1839, while in the

following years it was used as a method of criminal policy both in France4 and England.5

BBC started broadcasting in 1936, and in the next decade the metropolitan police of

England attempted to use cameras as crime control policy.6 Finally, for the first time,

CCTV for reasons of crime control policy was used by English police in the mid-1950s,

while in the next years video recording was also used for the same purpose just after its

Sport in Society 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

invention. Socio-political demonstrations, the London Underground and football fields

were among the first areas that it was used7.

Of course, until the 1990s, with the exception of England, the implementation of

CCTV as a criminal policy was globally limited to local implementation and was mainly

aimed at the control of certain populations or groups considered dangerous for the

established order, without, however, meaning that ‘supervised society’ had not undergone

other, not so technologically specialized, mechanisms of recording human action. On the

other hand, however, already since the 1960s, a large private market and implementation

of CCTV systems had been developed, as a method of criminal policy, which largely

expanded mainly in the USA, so that according to a study,8 until 1996, 75% of the private

sector in this country used CCTV. During the 1980s and 1990s, neoliberal governments in

both countries (the USA and England) turned the state sector into a major client for

companies selling electronic systems of supervision. It is worth mentioning that around the

mid-1990s, three-fourths of the total budget of the English Government for crime

prevention was allocated to the purchase of CCTV,9 a trend that did not seem to change

after the electoral win of ‘New’ Labour Party, since, as it is esteemed for the decade 1994–

2004, about £4–5 billion were given only for the installation of CCTV systems. On the

opposite side of Atlantic and under the pretext of the twin towers of New York – 9/11, in

two months 80% of the structures of the formal social control purchased and installed

CCTV systems (IACP, 2001), so that officials of the respective industry estimated the sale

of the systems by the end of the year 2001 to the amount of $5.7 billion (Nieto et al,

2002:32–33). Relevant trends are observed in other countries, too, and in particular in

South Africa,10 Japan, Middle East,11 Israel and Australia.12 Especially in Australia,

however, while initially the trend followed almost closely the English example first time

applied in the 1960s, in certain locations (among which sports fields, too) a differentiation

is observed in relation to the contemporary implementation of the use of CCTV

countrywide. This market almost depends on state funds, which are managed differently

by each federal area, having as a result the existence of wide variation in the federal states

of Australia in regard to the size and number of CCTV that are in operation in

responsibility sites of formal social control.13

A comparative European research completed in 2004, with a field research in seven

European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, England, Hungary, Norway and Spain),

concerning the size of the market and implementation of CCTV systems has shown14 that

there are many differentiations regarding these two issues, depending on the country,

while other studies have shown a wide emerging market of CCTV in Czech Republic,15

France,16 the Netherlands,17 Ireland18 and Italy,19 where CCTV systems have been

installed in most of the sports fields. Norris, McCahill and Wood,20 studying the history of

CCTV worldwide expansion, believe that this takes place in four stages, starting by the

private sector, moving to closed public places (schools, sports fields) and ending in public

space of town centre, and finally, to full electronic supervision of whole areas. This

evolution is inevitable only when the social-economic, legislative, political framework of

a country allows it. In particular, the reinforcing factors of the use of CCTV systems as a

method of criminal policy are the liberal deregulation policies and a fabricated strong fear

of victimization, the lack of legal framework for the regulation of the use of CCTV

systems,21 for the protection of privacy22 and human rights,23 and finally governments’

willingness to pay large amounts of money for the installation and operation of these

systems. On the other hand, the weakening factors of the use of CCTV systems are,

accordingly, policies that support a welfare system of criminal policy, strict legal

frameworks of human right protection24 as well as governments that have evaluated the

244 S. Georgoulas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

implementation of CCTV systems and have found that, regarding their use, not only is the

cost and benefit ratio problematic25, but also, in the mid-term, either they have no effects

on the fighting against crime or rise in crime is observed.26

Beyond, however, a macro-sociological field of analysis regarding the implementation

of the use of CCTV systems, it is interesting to also record discourse elements on

techniques, norms and procedures that define and support the mode of operation of such a

system, as recorded through various case studies, as well as the way that these are

perceived and expressed through behaviours regarding the social community. For

example, the Minister of State for Security of the UK claims that, for the government, the

CCTV system is an important tool for fighting against crime that enjoys public support, but

it needs improvement mainly in the technical field aiming at the systems’ better

coordination.27 Nowhere in this speech, the effectiveness of this measure is based on

scientific research, and apart from technical issues no other functional problem is reported.

The same ‘official’ discourse is also dominant in the approach of the Australian

government. However, researches carried out with the use of semi-structured

questionnaire to people responsible for the everyday operation of these systems (in

Australia) provided more complex results on the cause, they believe, that led to the use of

CCTV systems. In particular,28 these reasons are associated with a need of consumption

development and support of a market that presents problems (e.g. market of sports tickets,

big leisure parks), as well as with the development of a new market, that of security

systems.29 A fabricated, mass media-led, rising of citizens’ insecurity supports these

causes, while the triggering mechanism is always a particular case of criminal event.

A second element that is kept from public knowledge is the human intervention

required for the operation of these systems. In a research in Mexico, local authorities and

eminent members of local society, without the intervention of ‘scientific discourse’, define

first ‘the problem’ and orchestrate the CCTV system to deal with it.30 The fact that CCTV

system is a technical tool in the hands of formal social control means that its use is

governed by the principles defining the way of function of social control agents, as

recorded above. This means that the CCTV system conserves and reproduces a

stigmatizing function on certain populations, victimized and monitored based on the

principle of guilt and not the proof of innocence, also constituting part of the proactive

policing and not of the common reaction of social community, as expressed through the

consensus standard.31 On the other hand, CCTV systems better operate when a total

supervision is ensured in advance by other structures using entrance–exit rules and

internal discipline in activity (space distribution, activity control, summation

capitalization of time and a meticulous administrative system).32 In this way, action and

behaviour control is achieved without increasing oppression and often with the consent of

the person who is potentially monitored.

This particular point is also related to the ‘myth’ of a homogeneous social acceptance

for the use of CCTV systems as a criminal policy, or at least for its exceptional

implementation in special locations, among which sports fields is one. The above-

mentioned comparative European researches33 have shown that even if there is uniformity

in researches that took place in population samples, this is in regard to the fact that there is

no sufficient awareness and information on these systems. On the other hand, public

opinion – in these researches – follows the dominant political behaviour towards the use

of CCTV system, according to the criteria recorded above. This simply means that the

countries of liberal deregulation have followers in their decisions on the expansion of

CCTV systems as a criminal policy, with the exception of young teenagers.

Sport in Society 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discussion

The approach of critical criminology, as applied in the study of the athletic phenomenon,

and in particular in the study of social practice of the use of CCTV systems as a method of

violence and crime prevention in sports fields, leads us to the report of certain working

hypotheses requiring a research approach:

1. This type of system is not going to decrease/treat the violence incidents in these

locations. With the exception of political declarations, there is no evidence

whatsoever to support this argument.

2. This is a system that functions without questioning the dominant values and

interests characterizing the way of operation of the established criminal policy

structure so far. Hence, it is expected that this system will continue to selectively

operate in accordance with the existing distribution of power, which will be

reproduced by it. The final product of the use of this system (the criminals recorded

on camera) will be no other than the ‘usual products’ of similar procedures, i.e. the

socially–politically–economically weak.

3. The trend of the governmental criminal policy towards the expansion of the use of

CCTV systems is associated with the neoliberal policy of welfare state deregulation

and the emergence of a new significant market, that of the ‘security’. This market –

which will be at the forefront in the following years – is a market broadly

expanding through public orders; in other words, it is a dependent market. For this

reason, such an action has to be legitimized by the social community. To this end,

the citizens’ ‘insecurity’ is fabricated (mainly by the dominant mass media).

4. Especially for the expansion of the use of CCTV systems in sports fields, one cause

is also the effort to revive a market (mainly of the football spectacle), which, in the

last decades, is in its death throes. Such an effort will not be successful in the long

term, since it does not deal with the causes of the fall of this market

(commercialization), but it ‘responds’ to an artificial myth: that people do not go to

football fields due to the riots (hence due to ‘insecurity’), a myth that is easily shot

down by a historical research.

5. The demands of technological improvement that can answer to a possible future

negative evaluation of the use of CCTV systems in regard to their declared aim, i.e.

the fight against violence, are demands ofmajor political importance. CCTV systems

are structured to operate more efficiently when total supervision, social isolation,

order in movement and precise administration pre-exist. When all the above are

masked by a scientific discourse and the social community is not able to see the risk

of the adoption of these anti-democratic political projects, then the panopticon,

through technological simulation, becomes reality.34 The risk for such a social

acceptance is high, since already TV audience (and not only) has learned to accept

and seek the opposite: the private intrusion on public places and themonitoring of the

few (either ‘celebrities’ or those willing to get TV publicity) by the many.

6. The real and at the same time hidden crime in the case of CCTV systems is the

violation of fundamental principles of law as already recorded since the early years

of the Enlightenment. It operates based on the evidence of guilt, violates privacy

(there will be no unmonitored locations), is characterized by the transparency in

collection, circulation and elaboration of personal data, and pre-exposes and pre-

records population groups that are pre-stigmatized, even before the (prospective or

not) event. The practice of CCTV systems so far has shown that in Europe most of

these violate the legislation of the states in which they are deployed (mainly in

246 S. Georgoulas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

relation to personal data and their use).35 However, to be in accordance with the

principles of critical criminology, the laws support values when they do not conflict

with the interests of the dominant group. If this happens, then ‘exceptions’ are laid

down, such as for the EU directive 95/46/EC (on the protection of individuals with

regard to the processing of personal data), which does not apply in any case

concerning national security, public security and crime.

A social research on the above is integrated in the context of critical criminology. In

this way, it will be examined how this social practice of criminal policy really functions,

and what its effects are on social groups. Until then, however, social alert (and not

indifference) constitutes the best answer to the security hyper-weapons. The expansion of

supervision, the open or hidden discipline, has no importance if it does not affect the spirit.

This should be kept open and free.

Notes1 Taylor, Walton, and Young, New Criminology.2 Vold, Bernard, and Snipes, Theoritical Criminology.3 Pashukanis, Law and Marxism.4 Sekula, ‘Body and the Archive’.5 Lemagny and Rouille, History of Photography.6 Williams, ‘Police Surveillance’.7 McCahill, ‘CCTV in Britain’.8 Slobogin, ‘Public Privacy’.9 Welsh and Farrington, ‘Surveillance for Crime Prevention’.10 Van Rensburg, ‘Safety and Security Requirements’.11 Keynote, Closed-Circuit CCTV.12 ioImage, ‘Total Track Case Study’; Morgenstern, ‘Biometrics Helps Secure Israel’s Borders’.13 Sutton and Wilson, ‘Open-Street CCTV in Australia’.14 Hempel and Topfer, Urban Eye: CCTV.15 Mate, ‘Czech Police Force’.16 Hempel and Topfer, Urban Eye: Inception.17 Flight, van Heerwaardem, and van Sommeren, ‘Does CCTV Displace Crime?’18 McDowell, ‘Press Release’.19 Calabria, ‘CCTV Closed Circuit Television’.20 Norris, McCahill, and Wood, ‘Editorial. The Growth of CCTV’.21 Sharpe, Electronically Recorded Evidence.22 Molnar, Information Society; Taylor, ‘State Surveillance’.23 Walton, ‘China’s Golden Shield’.24 Deisman, CCTV Literature Review.25 Winge and Knutsson, ‘Evaluation of CCTV Scheme’.26 Ditton and Short, ‘Yet it Works, No, it Doesn’t’.27 Gerrard et al., National CCTV Strategy.28 Mackay, ‘Multiple Targets’; Sutton and Wilson, ‘Open-Streets CCTV in Australia, idem.29 Garland, Culture of Control; Zedner, ‘Pursuit of Security’; McCahill, Surveillance Web.30 Botello, ‘Orchestration of Electronic Surveillance’.31 Valier, Crime and Punishment.32 Georgoulas, Critical Criminology of leisure.33 Hempel and Topfer, Urban Eye: CCTV.34 Bogard, Simulation of Surveillance.35 Hempel and Topfer, Urban Eye: CCTV.

References

Bogard, William. The Simulation of Surveillance – Hyper Control in Telematic Societies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Sport in Society 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Botello, Nelson A. ‘An Orchestration of Electronic Surveillance’. International Criminal JusticeReview 17, no. 14 (2007): 325–35.

Calabria, Maria. ‘CCTV Closed Circuit Television – Italy: Industry Sector Analysis’. IndustryCanada, 2003, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr110247e.html.

Deisman, Wade. CCTV Literature Review and Bibliography. Research and Evaluation Branch,Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services Directorate. Ottawa: Royal CanadianMounted Police, 2003.

Ditton, Jason, and Emma Short. ‘Yet it Works, No, it Doesn’t: Comparing the Effects of Open CCTVin Two Adjacent Scottish Town Centres’. In Crime Prevention Studies, ed. Kate Painter andNick Tilley, Criminal Justice Press, 201–23, vol. 10, 1999.

Flight, Sander, Yvonne van Heerwaardem, and Paul van Sommeren. ‘Does CCTV Displace Crime?An Evaluation of the Evidence and a Case Study of Amsterdam’. In CCTV, eds. Martin Gill,93–8. Leicester: Perpetuity Press, 2003.

Garland, David. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2001.

Georgoulas, Stratos. Critical Criminology of Leisure. London: Lit Verlag, 2010.Gerrard, Graeme, Garry Parkins, Ian Cunningham, Wayne Jones, Samantha Hill, and Sarah Douglas.

National CCTV Strategy. UK: Home Office, 2007.Hempel, Leon, and Eric Topfer. Urban Eye: Inception Report to the European Commission. 5th FP,

Technical University of Berlin, 2002.Hempel, Leon, Eric Topfer, Urban Eye: CCTV in Europe Final Report, Working Paper No. 15,

Technical University of Berlin 2004.International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). ‘Executive Brief: The Uses of CCTV/Video

Cameras in LawEnforcement’. IACP, 2001, http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/Publications/UseofCCTV.pdf.

ioImage. ‘Total Track Case Study: The Israeli Parliament’. ioImage Company, 2003, http://www.ioImage.com/objects/pdf/TotalTrack-case-study.pdf.

Keynote. Closed-Circuit CCTV: Market Report 2003. Middlesex: Key Note, 2003.‘A History of Photography’. ed. Jean Claude Lemagny and Andre Rouille. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1987.Mate. ‘Czech Police Force Case Study’. Media Access Technologies, 2004, http://www.mate.co.il/

data/pics/Czech%20Police%20Force%20Case%20Study.pdf.Mackay, Dave. ‘Multiple Targets: The Reasons to Support Town-Centre CCTV Systems’. In CCTV,

ed. Martin Gill, 23–35. Leicester: Perpetuity Press, 2003.McCahill, Michael. The Surveillance Web: The Rise of Visual Surveillance in an English Town.

Cullompton: Willan, 2002.McCahill, Michael, and Clive Norris. ‘CCTV in Britain’. Urbaneye Working Paper No. 3, Center for

Technology and Society, Technical University of Berlin, 2002, http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp3.pdf.

McDowell, Michael. ‘Press Release’. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2004,http://www.progressivedemocrats.ie/local_elections_update/136/.

‘Information Society as Surveillance Society’. ed. Laszlo Molnar. Budapest: Arisztotelesz Press,2003.

Morgenstern, Joseph. ‘Biometrics Helps Secure Israel’s Borders’. Globes (online edition), Oct. 92003, http://www.globes.co.il/sevreen/globes/docriew.asp?did¼730309.

Nieto, Marcus, Kimberly Johnston-Dodds, and Charlene Simmons. Public and Private Applicationsof Video Surveillance and Biometric Technologies. Sacramento: Californian Research Bureau,2002.

Norris, C., M. McCahill, and D. Wood. ‘Editorial. The Growth of CCTV: A Global Perspective onthe International Diffusion of Video Surveillance Publicly Accessible Space’. Surveillance andSociety 2 (2004): 110–35.

Pashukanis, E. Law and Marxism: A General Theory. London: Ink Links, 1978.Sekula, A. ‘The Body and the Archive’. In The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of

Photography, ed. R. Bolton, 342–89. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992.Sharpe, S. Electronically Recorded Evidence: A Guide to the Use of Tape and Video Recordings in

Criminal Proceedings. London: Fourmat Publishing, 1989.Slobogin, C. ‘Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance and Public Places and the Right to Anonymity’.

Mississippi Law Journal 72, no. 1 (2002): 287–95.

248 S. Georgoulas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014

Sutton, A., and D. Wilson. ‘Open-Street CCTV in Australia: The Politics of Resistance andExpansion’. Surveillance and Society 2 (2004): 310–22.

Taylor, N. ‘State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy’. Surveillance and Society 1, no. 1 (2002):66–85.

Taylor, I., P. Walton, and J. Young. New Criminology. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul, 1973.Valier, C. Crime and Punishment in Contemporary Culture. London: Routledge, 2004.Van Rensburg, J. Safety and Security Requirements around 2010 – South Africa. USA: Department

of Commerce, 2008, www.buyusa.gov/newhampshire/southafricasafety.pdf.Vold, G., T. Bernard, and J. Snipes. Theoretical Criminology. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University

Press, 2002.Walton, G. ‘China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology

in the People’s Republic of China’. International Centre for Human Rights and DemocraticDevelopment, 2001, http://ichrdd.ca/english/commdoc/publications/goldenShieldEng.html.

Welsh, B., and D. Farrington. ‘Surveillance for Crime Prevention in Public Space: Results and PoliceChoices in Britain and America’. Criminology and Public Policy 3, no. 3 (2004): 701–30.

Winge, S., and J. Knutsson. ‘An Evaluation of the CCTV Scheme at Olso Central Railway Station’.Crime Prevention and Community Safety: An International Journal 5 (2003): 49–59.

Williams, C. ‘Police Surveillance and the Emergence of CCTV in the 1960s’. Crime Prevention andCommunity Safety 5, no. 3 (2003): 27–37.

Zedner, L. ‘The Pursuit of Security’. In Crime, Risk and Insecurity, ed. T. Hope and R. Sparks,200–21. London: Routledge, 2000.

Sport in Society 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

03:

52 0

3 O

ctob

er 2

014