Deterrence vs detection: why prevention is the cure

Is it better to detect a threat once the worst has happened, or to stop it before it has even begun?

It’s a question that should be integral to shaping the decision-making process for any project manager, site manager, or retail manager when looking for protection against threats like intrusion, theft, or anti-social behaviour (ASB).   

In the timeline of a threat, stopping or preventing an incident before it can enter the detection phase is far more advantageous to an organisation that wants to mitigate risk and protect itself against intrusions, theft, or anti-social behaviour.  

This approach is encouraged at government level. The National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) advise that a true threat or risk mitigation approach considers the protection of assets through deterrence as laying ahead of the consideration of methods of detection in a comprehensive strategy. 

Common sense, it would be assumed. However, recent examples in the media suggest a push for detection ahead of deterrence.

Take recent developments in the use of AI facial recognition devices in our town and city centres, with this technology potentially becoming more commonplace in solutions targeted at retail sites and major public events (as discussed in this bbc news article).   

However, this kind of strategy assumes that the worst has already taken place, and more questionably, assumes criminality in all potential customers/visitors.

This leads to wider questions surrounding privacy, and the spirit of a fair, equal society.  

Our approach has always been in prioritising prevention over cure. As such, deterrence should come first. By putting visible, proactive solutions at the forefront of our security strategy, we place the focus on avoiding and preventing incidents as opposed to simply just detecting and visually verifying them.  

Whether it be intrusion, anti-social behaviour, or theft, we believe deterrence to be the crucial method by which business can avoid costly incidents and damage to their reputation, while also maintaining peace of mind.  

So, what’s the difference between detection-based security and deterrence-based security?

Detection-based security methods, such as alarms or motion sensors that are recorded or monitored remotely, serve a very valid purpose.

They provide evidence of criminality or risk related activity and notify a business when something has potentially happened.

In this instance, any criminal offences carried out on your site/premises will have already taken place and could potentially have resulted in significant financial and operational loss.  

On the other hand, deterrence-based security offers a more proactive approach. Deterrence looks to stop the criminal activity before it is attempted on your site.

No matter the incident, the principles of deterrence ensure that a strong, visible security presence will drastically reduce the likelihood that crime occurs on your site.

This works by planting the psychological seed of doubt in the mind of the criminal that whatever action they plan to carry out will be seen and result in further action. 

To identify the key benefit of deterrence in site security, we once again ask whether it is better to detect a threat once the worst has happened, or to stop it before it has even begun?

The answer is clear; a preventative approach is far more effective for most businesses.  

By reducing the likelihood of crime, deterrence makes for a more effective solution. It’s less disruptive on operations and far more cost efficient than having to deal with an incident that has already taken place.  

Studies and reports further support this approach. A study by the College of Policing found that the visible presence of surveillance cameras will have a ‘very strong’ effect, drastically impacting the likelihood of crime.  

The key driver behind this was the increased perception of risk in the offender that they would end up getting caught.

The presence of a visual deterrent also had the knock-on effect of increasing public vigilance, which also allows for the likelihood of being caught to rise.

Crime prevention is the single greatest advantage to a deterrence strategy.  

A deterrence-based site security strategy will guarantee several more advantages to any business, including:

• With the assurance that they are being protected, staff, clients, and stakeholders will feel safer while at work.

• With no incident to tackle, operations can continue without disruption, saving you time and keeping your day on track.

• Reduced costs as criminal activity on your premises can result in expensive damages, financial loss due to theft, or costly procedures in accordance with legislation.

While detection remains a vital component in the security strategy for most organisations, the prevention of incidents through strong deterrence systems is consistently a smart choice for all organisations who face threats like intrusion, theft, vandalism, and anti-social behaviour. 

As we have shown, businesses that invest in preventative site security have the ability to benefit from fewer incidents, reduced operational costs, and thrive with greater peace of mind.