Public Policing Versus Private Security - Essay Example

? Public Policing Vs Private Security Public Policing Vs Private Security Introduction Although private security and public police basically carry out different errands, often the policing performed by them are mutually supportive. The public police operate on behalf of the government and society to put laws in force to sustain peace. They detect crimes, assist victims of crime, respond to emergencies and provide assistance in prosecuting criminals. Apart from these services they engage in community support and outreach programs. Such programs include crime prevention and drug awareness. They have the authority to search, arrest, and detain individuals under the provisions of territorial and other police acts. They have the integral responsibility to protect the public property and places. On the other hand, private investigators usually carry out investigations to locate missing persons or obtain information for civil and legal litigation cases. Some of the other important services rendered by them include, ‘investigating corporate fraud, endowing with risk management consultations, and executing security measures to defend property from theft and fire’ (‘Private investigator, 2011). These personnel are not recruited by the government; instead they are directly employed by security companies and public administration industries. The private security personnel renders their services in protecting the ‘mass private property’, which means venues that are privately owned or run, but used widely by the public such as the privately owned airports, sporting arenas, or shopping malls. In the same way they offer many services offered by the public police, but they act only on behalf of the employer and not on behalf of the public. Some Distinctive Features Private security professionals like the ASIS helps to develop security management standards and guidelines. Their commission works with numeral national and international standards-setting organizations to advance their security practices. Utilizing the knowledge and experience, they practice worldwide through development of standards and guidelines (ASIS IT security, July 2011). The primary objective of private security officials is to keep up order and enforce rules at public events and concerns. They also provide a vast variety of services like providing armored car service for transporting valuables, controlling the access to venues, and protecting the property from theft and vandalism. Usually corporate companies directly employ the security personnel for their protection and safety. They are also employed at public administration, banking companies, entertainment and recreation industry, transportation and warehousing, healthcare and social assistance, and accommodation and food services. Private security personnel, acting on behalf of the employer have many of the same cranial law enforcement powers as public police have. They are legally able to arrest and detain individuals. The trespass laws, in particular, are frequently used by private securities, because most of such laws allow them to arrest the trespassers. The Supreme Court of Canada defines that “the trespass acts are the workhorse of private security services in their patrol of the shopping malls, airports, sports stadiums and other private spaces where the public tends to congregate”( In search of security, 2006). Major Differences in Leadership On comparing both policing, we find that public policing and private security have many distinctive features with regard to leadership. Public policing is the ability to implement the law and maintain order in the society; whereas, private securities are paid agencies which perform defensive and loss-preclusion duties. Though both forces are handling different services and duties, the ultimate goal is to maintain a composed and tranquil atmosphere in the society. In the same way, as Allen and Sawhney (2009, p. 40) point out, the day-to-day activities of police and detectives differ according to their occupational specialty—such as police officer, game warden or detective—and also depending on for whom they are working; for a local, State, or Federal agency. Regarding the different aspects of the law, job duties and location of work are divergently ascertained to the policemen and the security departments. However both write reports and maintain meticulous records that are needed if they are testified in court. Besides, a distinctive feature of the role of uniformed policemen is having general duties enforced by the law, which includes maintaining usual patrols and quickly reacting to the calls for service. They have to spend much of their time in office doing paperwork and responding to calls. Unlike the private security officials, the public policemen control the traffic at the accident sites, investigate a robbery, or hospitalize the accident victim. However, in large police departments, officers are generally assigned to a specific duty. On the other hand, private security officers are plainclothes investigators, who accumulate facts and collect evidence for criminal cases. Some of them are dispersed with interagency mission forces to investigate on specific types of crime. Their work span is distributed to different tasks; for instance, they conducts interviews, examine records, observe the activities of suspects, and take up raids or arrests. Generally private security detectives are specialized in investigating similar type of misdemeanor, like homicide or fraud. They continue to investigate on the cases assigned to them until the arrest and conviction is made or until the case is dropped. Roles in Criminal Justice System The role of the police in criminal justice system is only reactive. They usually concentrate more on arrests and investigation of past crimes. And also executes the usual patrol of public places and responds to emergencies. However, the private security handles a more proactive role than that of the public police. They concentrate more on maintaining a sense of security by taking measures to prevent crime and make feel a sense of safety. They hardly respond to past crimes. Nevertheless, the scenario has been changing over the years. The Task Force on Private Security of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, in 1976, detected that the criminal violators known to private security personnel are not referred to the criminal justice system. They conclude that the “private criminal justice system” is highly affected by ‘employee restrictions, suspensions, and demotions’ (Dempsey, 2007, p. 46). The report further explains that most members of the society are not utilizing the formal system of criminal justice but watch over themselves by informal means and sanctions. The relationship can be enhanced if the two divisions would collaborate with one another. This enables them to combine their essential policies for the current roles they perform. The private securities and the public police can grow and work together for the common interest of the criminal justice system. The public police alone may not be able to provide the enhanced safety and security that many environments demand. Security professionals, not meaning to replace the public police, do have a great role to play in the safety and security of the community, especially in privately owned public places. Industry standards must be formalized invoking best practices for security practitioners to achieve the professional standards in safety. As a result, the citizens may receive an enhanced security in the public areas. It also helps in bringing out the professionalism existing in both the public and private police services. As an essential element of policy regarding policing, the law requires the police to remain free from the influence of the political establishments. The police must support the rule of law by being accountable for their actions. It is noted that wherever effective policing had been achieved, it depended on the partnership efforts with the public, packed with mutual trust and respect. As Carty (n.d.) says, regarding the changes in the policy of policing, the public has the right to demand for the police change, but at the same time they have the obligation to support for such changes by direct participation or through the local political establishments. It is advisable that both the public policing and the private security opt for an efficient common and applicable policy for their better performance. They can achieve their specific goals working within the parameter of such specific policy. Importance of a Comprehensive Security Plan Looking into the current global situations, it is a matter of great concern that every police agency must have comprehensive security plan in performing their duties. A comprehensive security policy should be established to control and interpret the discretionary powers regarding the administrational and operational tasks exercised by various police agencies. In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommended the essentials for a comprehensive security policy. As cited in Palmiotto (2000, p. 65), the commission states down that every police chief executive should be authorized to put forward the fundamental objectives and priorities for his agency by discretionally controlling the resources to implement such objectives. A policy should be established to control the discretionary powers used by police personnel regarding arrest alternatives. Every chief should initiate inspection to make sure that the junior officers exercise their powers adhering to the agency policy. An efficient and comprehensive security plan must comprise of the technological advantages too. Maggio (2008, p. 302) writes that not many of the security policy makers truly understand the importance of technology in defending and shielding the national assets and human lives. A comprehensive security plan must suggest for the integration of public policing and private security. An efficient and competent integration and partnership of these two wings must consist; knowledgeable, committed staff who are able to carry forward the objectives of joint venture mission mission statement evaluation and measurement of the mission clear assignment of responsibilities strong leadership from the public as well as the private sector goodwill, trust, and respect equally shared powers, and regularly scheduled meetings with agendas and sharing of useful information (Source: National policy summit: Policy Paper, 2004). Conclusion Regardless of the common goals and duties of both private security and public policing, the latter has a much wider mandate than the former. The public policing functions on behalf of the government and hence receives more benefits when compared to the private security individuals. However, the current global scenario requires rather collaborated efforts of the both forces for making law enforcement easier and effective. It is possible if and only if a comprehensive security plan is set, which involves the essential elements of a well defined security policy. References ASIS IT security, Physical security, utility security, and security architecture councils release joint white paper. (July 2011). ASIS International. Retrieved from http://www.asisonline.org/ Allen, J. M & Sawhney. R. (2009). Administration and Management in Criminal Justice: AService Quality Approach. USA: Sage Publications, Inc. Carty, K. (n.d). Policing and the rule of law. Strategic Police Matters- Addressing Threats to Security and Stability. 297-310. Retrieved from http://www.core-hamburg.de/documents/yearbook/english/07/Carty-en.pdf Dempsey, J. S. (2007). Introduction to Private Security. USA: Cengage Learning. In search of security: The future of policing in Canada. (2006). Law Commission of Canada. 1-176. Retrieved from http://www.policingsecurity.ca/Final.pdf Maggio, E. J. (2008). Private Security in the 21st Century: Concepts and Applications. USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. National policy summit: Building private security/ public policing partnerships to prevent and respond to terrorism and public disorder. (2004). Policy Paper: Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships. 1-39. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/Publications/national_policy_summit.pdf Palmiotto, M. J. (2000). Community Policing: A Policing Strategy for the 21st Century. USA: Aspen Publication. Private investigator. (2011). Criminal Justice USA. Retrieved from http://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/private-investigator.html Read More