Have public authorities not learnt prevention is better than cure?

THE ARTICLE “Thieves target City libraries and damage infrastructure” refers (Cape Times, June 4).

I have written to the Cape Times several times before, on the subject of break-ins, vandalism and theft in our schools and other public buildings; particularly during holidays.

I questioned why the authorities did not provide measures of security adequate enough to prevent the break-ins, and subsequent theft and damage to property.

Given the many prior episodes of school break-ins, vandalism and theft, I suggested that the authorities should be well aware that the cost of repairing public infrastructure and replacing stolen or damaged equipment is many times greater than that of providing security measures that could have prevented the break-ins and loss of property.

My conclusion was and still is that armed with this acknowledgement and understanding, the authorities should be dedicating resources to prevent crimes perpetrated against schools and libraries, rather than, “after the fact”, paying to repair the damage and replacing the stolen equipment.

Nonetheless, the incidence of school break-ins, vandalism and theft has got worse, along with the mounting expense of repairing the damage. The authorities seem not to understand the wisdom of that old, familiar adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.

During holidays and other similar periods of inactivity in our schools and other facilities, I’m wondering why expensive desktop computers, hard drives, monitors and other easily stolen electronic equipment, can not be temporarily stored in a more heavily secured “safe room”, inside a school or library, rather than left out in the open, to become “easy pickings” for thieves.

Sure, it might require a little extra work to move the expensive devices to a secure “safe room” before school holidays, but there’s the added benefit of knowing the devices will be there and available for use when the school reopens.

I can recall reading accounts of unarmed security guards on duty at schools and other public facilities, being threatened at knifepoint and/or gunpoint and driven off the premises, allowing the perpetrators to go about their business, unimpeded.

In each of these facilities, why not install a panic button warning device (similar to those commonly used in banks), which would be directly connected to the nearest police station? At first evidence of a break-in, the security guard(s) would be trained to “hit the panic button”, thus immediately alerting the police to respond to the break-in. A panic button could also reduce the risk for security guards, of a dangerous encounter with the perpetrators.

We clearly have a major problem providing proper security for our schools and other public infrastructure, and something needs to be done about it.

This problem is best addressed, first, by the authorities acknowledging the obvious benefits of preventing break-ins and then, “stepping up”, to ensure that these important facilities are provided with adequate security.