The paradox of visible security presence: Crime deterrence vs. increased public anxiety – What does the evidence say?

The tragic recent mass stabbing incident at Westfield in Sydney, where six people—amongst them a security guard on his first day on the job—were fatally stabbed, has sparked renewed debate on whether private security personnel should be equipped with more protective gear, such as bulletproof vests or capsicum sprays. These measures could serve as a deterrent to potential assailants and provide critical protection for guards and the public they defend. Given this, why is the adoption of additional protective gear a contentious issue?

Visible security measures in public spaces—such as security personnel, cameras, and metal detectors—are implemented with the intention of deterring crime and enhancing public safety.

Research consistently shows that visible security measures can effectively deter various types of crimes. The presence of private security guards, for example, has been linked to lower rates of theft and vandalism. Surveillance cameras, while controversial, have been found to reduce crime in public areas, particularly car parks and residential neighbourhoods. The principle behind this is simple: the possibility of being watched or caught increases the perceived risk for potential offenders, which can dissuade them from committing crimes.

Violent attacks and terrorism constitute another concern. Unlike natural disasters, the threat of terror in stadiums, shopping centres and other public venues is dynamic, meaning it’s directly influenced by our preparedness. The likelihood of a violent attack against such venues is closely tied to the perceived strength of security measures. The security posture of a target significantly shapes an aggressor's decision-making, determining the perceived likelihood of an attack's success or failure.

However, the presence of these security measures can also be seen, by some, as a cause for anxiety, suggesting that heightened security might induce fear rather than providing reassurance. This perspective opens up a debate on the true impact of overt security—does it make public spaces safer, or does it compromise public comfort by signalling potential threats?

The concern that is often raised is that, particularly in areas where such measures are intensified suddenly, the increased security presence can suggest a high-risk environment, potentially making the space feel more like a target than a safe haven. This perception can deter individuals from visiting or enjoying public areas, leading to economic downturns and a decrease in community engagement.

In a study conducted in Denmark, visible counterterrorism measures in urban spaces—such as fences, cameras, and uniformed guards—were generally met with positive reactions from the public. It suggested that a high level of societal trust might contribute to these positive perceptions, indicating that the context within which security measures are implemented (e.g., societal norms and trust levels) can significantly affect their reception.

Moreover, the acceptance and impact of security measures can vary significantly based on demographic and cultural factors. In densely populated urban areas, for instance, the reaction to an increase in security measures might differ markedly from that in a suburban setting. People’s backgrounds, experiences, and even the nature of the threat can influence how security measures are perceived. For instance, research shows that frequent business travellers and luxury hotel guests often view these measures as a reassuring sign of high standards and proactive management. In contrast, more casual environments like backpacker hostels might see a pushback against too stringent security protocols, which could impart a militarised feel to an otherwise relaxed setting.

The British Transport Police utilise a mix of both covert and overt security measures to prevent crime. These include the deployment of closed-circuit television systems, armed and unarmed officers, Police Community Support Officers, police dogs, and routine stops and searches. Additionally, they conduct public awareness campaigns to enhance security awareness among commuters. A survey of both members of the public and officers provides an insightful case study. Responses to this survey showed that the presence of armed police was noted as the most reassuring form of security for the public, significantly more so than awareness campaigns, which were seen as the least effective. However, interestingly, the investigation highlighted a crucial caveat: without sufficient public awareness and understanding, an increase in visible armed police could paradoxically increase fear and anxiety.

The effectiveness of visible security measures also intertwines with broader societal trends, such as increased surveillance acceptance following major terrorist attacks. Over time, populations may become more acclimated to the presence of security technologies, particularly when these technologies are presented as means of enhancing, rather than restricting, personal freedoms. However, this acceptance is often conditional and can be influenced by ongoing public discourse about the balance between security and privacy, the transparency of surveillance practices, and the accountability of those who implement them.

In crafting policies around security measures, it is, of course, crucial to consider their psychological and social impacts alongside their practical effectiveness. This involves a careful calibration of security visibility—enough to deter potential threats but not so much as to overwhelm or frighten the public.

For policymakers and security professionals, the challenge lies in designing and implementing security measures that are both effective and sensitive to public perceptions and societal norms. This entails maintaining a delicate balance where security enhancements are transparently communicated and carefully integrated into the broader social fabric, ensuring that they reinforce rather than compromise the public's sense of safety and communal harmony. Such an approach mitigates the risk while also cultivating a cooperative environment where the public feels an integral part of the security framework, capable of contributing to and reinforcing their own safety.

While police and private security personnel bear a critical responsibility to protect, there is also an ethical imperative resting on the public they serve: to safeguard those appointed to defend them. This support should include practical aspects such as training and the provision of adequate equipment under a clear regulatory framework. While this may impose additional responsibilities, particularly on private security firms, it seems to be an essential step in creating a reciprocal and all-encompassing framework of safety.