For the past few years, I have noticed commercials which advertise a particular brand of electronic home security systems. One of those commercials is below.
This really sets my teeth on edge for a variety of reasons. The most rage-inducing has got to be how they portray women as being completely helpless against a male intruder, with the only option both the mom and the daughter have to save their lives is to run upstairs and cower behind flimsy, unlocked bedroom doors.
When the male phone clerk from the security company calls the house and says that he will summon the police for her, the mom is almost wet with gratitude. "Thank you so much!" she sobs into the handset. It doesn't seem to occur to her that precious minutes are lost by relying on a third party to call the police, since the woman could have done it herself in the time she was talking to a metrosexual sitting in a cubicle somewhere.
In my opinion, home security systems have a use as a way to safeguard the majority of your possessions. They can alert the fire department if your house starts to burn, the police if you are away from home and someone breaks in.
If you don't have a security system, then you are trusting your neighbors to call the authorities when they notice that something is amiss. In the case of fire, it would probably be when the blaze has grown so large that everything you own will be lost or damaged. In the case of theft, they will almost certainly never notice anything at all, and most of your valuable possessions will be loaded into a van and never seen again.
Unfortunately, the TV ads strongly suggest that the systems will safeguard someone from injury. The thief is bold enough tp break down the front door, but runs like a scared little bunny when he hears the alarm. Although he affixes the legal tenants of the home with a menacing and frightful glare, he doesn't take any violent action against them. And, in commercial after commercial, the noise of the klaxon is enough to keep everyone inside their homes safe as if they were in their mother's arms.
This is ludicrous in the extreme! If the criminal is dangerous, then he has plenty of time to kidnap, kill, or seriously injure the woman and her daughter before the police are even called. If he is annoyed that his plans on a rewarding evening are now cut short, why not simply shoot the two women from the doorway as they scamper to the illusory safety of their bedroom? There is a klaxon going off, after all, so it isn't like he would be worried that the noise from the shots would alert the neighbors.
It is an imperfect world, which means that police response time is never perfect when lives are in danger. These security systems actually increase it! After all, the metrosexual has to first call the home, determine that the police should dispatch a cruiser, and then finally get around to alerting the cops. The entire procedure would add a minute or two to the police response, and most of my students have been victims of violent crime that took less time than that.
Like I said, home security systems are useful to guard property. When it comes to foiling violent crime they are much less useful.
I was inspired to share my professional judgment with you today because of this heart-rending post. A woman was murdered, her daughter savagely beaten, and an editorial suggests that this wouldn't have happened if a home security system was in place.
Now you know how I feel about that.
UPDATE
Murdoc has a few closing thoughts.
Comments (7)
Excellent post.
I do think a lot of passive home defenses are worthwhile for general security. Locked doors, motion-detecting outdoor lighting, and a dog are all very helpful against random intruders. Home security alarms are worthwhile for the reasons you point out.
The difference that most people overlook, though, is that those sorts of things are unlikely to affect a criminal who has *intentionally targeted* a home. Those defenses are still helpful, as they make the perp work harder to get where he wants to, but some loser hell-bent on murder isn't going to let them stop him.
Good home defenses are layered. But there has to be last-ditch layer. If the last-ditch layer is "hope the cops arrive in time," you're going to let down far too often.
Posted by Murdoc | December 20, 2008 12:24 PM
Posted on December 20, 2008 12:24
Might this be a better commercial?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1094232574024579484
:-)
Posted by hsoi | December 20, 2008 1:05 PM
Posted on December 20, 2008 13:05
I have an alarm system, and I like it for the fact that if I am broken into, I will know via the audible alarm that I need to take action. Those few seconds might help me.
Also, it is very good for the run of the mill loser neighborhood kids that just want to steal your bike, make a quick purse snatch or whatever. Usually, I would think, the racket of an alarm going off would make those guys leave.
Posted by Dan from Madison![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 21, 2008 12:01 PM
Posted on December 21, 2008 12:01
Hell, I've installed security systems, driven the striped private security cars that respond to them and worked in the stations that monitor them.
I have such supreme confidence in alarm systems that I haven't given more than a passing thought to installing one in my own home.
Why?
There are a great many weaknesses inherent in your typical residential/commercial "digital dialer" system, not the least of which is its total reliance on your home telephone line (which in 90% of the cases is unsecured and accessible from OUTSIDE the house).
Burg systems prove a valuable resource to "limit" loss, IF they are installed, configured and monitored properly. Even in optimal circumstances the BEST that they do is limit a burglars time on the ground making the burglarly a "smash and grab" and protecting any well concealed or protected assets (lets not understate it, this IS a valuable outcome when protecting property).
The most valuable things in my home are not my possessions however. My wife and child are absolutely irreplaceable. Instead of spending my money on an alarm system that warns of an ACTIVE entry into my residence I hardeneded the perimeter (installed good deadbolts, kickplates around the handlesets and deadbolts, slide stops on the windows (openning 3" only) and rationalizing the perimeter lighting.
The last step was the installation of a perimeter CCTV system which allows any occupant of the house to view the entire perimeter of the house (or at least all the doors and windows on the perimeter) on any household TV.
When I finish perfecting the measures protecting the people inside my house I'll start working on the measures protecting the things inside my house.
Posted by Mugwug | December 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Posted on December 21, 2008 12:27
I hate those commercials, too. I've always felt (irrationally, perhaps, but nonetheless) that a security system would make me feel like a prisoner in my own home. Funny, but a Smith & Wesson doesn't make me feel that way.
Posted by April | December 22, 2008 1:11 PM
Posted on December 22, 2008 13:11
I was just having this conversation with my girlfriend last night. Thanks for making it more of a coherent position than the one I tried to give her.
Security Systems are a good idea, but the way they portray them in their commercials is absurd and very misleading.
Posted by Mjolnir | December 22, 2008 3:18 PM
Posted on December 22, 2008 15:18
My alarm system is there for when I'm away. When I'm home, I keep the doors locked and the alarm armed, but I also have two large dogs and guns. It isn't perfect, but it is better than nothing.
Posted by MadRocketScientist | December 24, 2008 6:20 PM
Posted on December 24, 2008 18:20