Protection on demand

A headline in this newspaper two weeks ago said it all: "Frustrated police move to combat crime: 13 robberies or assaults reported near campus in 16 days."

Thirteen in 16? It's no wonder the police are frustrated. But what's less apparent is why every day brings another incident. It's not because Penn ignores crime. The school has been taking measures to reduce crime for years. The problem is that those measures haven't been effective lately at precluding crime.

For instance, in 2003, Penn installed 400 video cameras on campus, a move for which it was given a national campus-safety award. The cameras were intended to be constantly monitored by police in the PennComm laboratory at 4040 Chestnut St.

And indeed, even at 5:40 a.m. on a recent Sunday, four officers were watching the cameras, or so I was told by the cop manning the lobby at 4040 (he didn't allow me to enter the lab because my visit hadn't been authorized by his boss). That four officers were watching at such an odd hour impressed me. So I asked the cop in the lobby how fast his forces could respond to a crime if they were to spot one on camera.

"Real quick," he said, "just like that. We got radios, so they could just radio a cop to the area in a second."

I probed further. "If you see something suspicious on camera, can you prevent a crime from happening?"

"How could we do that?" he asked me back. "We can't do anything until they commit a crime."

The cop had hit on the crux of the matter: Not even 400 cameras can prevent a crime -- they can only witness one. While cameras can deter criminals who fear being caught, they are only effective if the criminals know (and care) that they are out there.

Apparently, they don't.

But what if every student had the ability to call police or security by hitting a button on his keychain? What if every time a student were accosted, he could summon cops within 90 seconds to his exact location? Would criminals be deterred then?

You'd better believe it.

Just ask April Vournelis, the director of security at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut. Eleven years ago, that school began distributing small personal-alarm devices to students. Faculty now receive them, too. When activated, the devices send a silent signal to campus security officials, alerting them to the student's location (including what room he's in, if he's in a building). Security can then dispatch officers to the area within 90 seconds.

"Since we implemented the system, there has been practically no crime," said Richard Loehn, a Bridgeport campus security official. He added that the devices can stop criminals dead in their tracks.

"I remember two years ago, this guy was beating his girlfriend," Loehn said. "She secretly pressed her personal-alarm device, and we were there in a minute banging on their door. The guy had this look on his face like, 'How did you do that?'"

The statistics support the University of Bridgeport's assertions. In 2004, the most recent year for which information is available, there were only 22 non-substance-abuse crimes on and off campus. Compare that to Penn's 13 crimes in 16 days.

Of course, Bridgeport is a smaller school, with only 3,600 students. But its drop in crime is still remarkable, considering that its location rivals Philadelphia in crime. The city of Bridgeport actually had more burglaries, larcenies, stolen vehicles and thefts per capita than Philadelphia did in 2004, according to FBI reports. Overall, the city of Bridgeport had 1,500 more crimes per 100,000 people than the average city did last year. And yet university officials say the campus crime rate continued to plummet. The system must be working.

So I called Penn Vice President for Public Safety Maureen Rush to ask her if she would consider such a system. After all, Bridgeport officials paid only $800,000 to install theirs 11 years ago, I noted, while Penn recently shelled out $1 million just to increase the hours of security officers. It seemed like a no-brainer.

Rush felt otherwise. "We actually investigated this technology in 1995," she said. "The company, Secure System, told us that implementing it here wouldn't be feasible because of the density of our cement in certain areas."

Yet the company said cement wouldn't be a problem. "I don't know what Ms. Rush is referring to," said Mark Sandrow, Secure System's president. "This system works on radio waves and has worked in all the cement high rises we cover in New York. I'd love the opportunity to come down and do a demonstration for Maureen Rush."

Said Rush, "If he wants to get in line with the other companies and show me, let him."

For Penn's sake, I hope it's a date.

Gabriel Oppenheim is a College freshman from Scarsdale, N.Y. Opp-Ed appears on Fridays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.