Private Security Industry - Essay Example

Identify and evaluate the core objectives of the Private Security Industry Act of 2001. Do you agree with Richard Child's prediction that under the new regulatory framework, 'a more professional private security sector regime that will be put in place will then be able to challenge the perceived wisdom that policing is a state run policy only, Introduction Security guards or security officers are those employed by private agencies engaged in security services in order to protect the lives, properties, and rights of their assigned employees. They perform specific and limited jobs that are closely related to police function, usually carried out in a duty detailed order. Their job description is private in nature, that is, they serve only under the benefit of their employees. Police officers, on the other hand, have limitless task that range from patrolling in the streets to the prosecution of case of arrested violators. They play a vital role in the administration of the Criminal Justice System as the first pillar of the system. They help enforce the fundamental duty of every state to serve and protect the lives and properties of its people. Police officers are far better trained than security officers. They are even receiving better salaries and benefits since. They received their salaries directly from the treasure box of the government they serve. Despite of these differences with the police service, security services are a booming industry nowadays. Because of the spiraling crime rate in the society, many people now are security conscious. Businessmen, politicians, and other high profile individuals are those that usually engage the services of security agencies. There is a limit as to what police agencies can do. One of these limitations is that police agencies cannot serve at the pleasure of private persons since they serve the public in general. Security agencies, on the other hand, capitalize much on these limitations. They conduct activities 'which the police service has neglected because of the increase in its workload for the recent years' (Chief constable predicts break up in police 'monopoly', 2001). In the early years of security industry, operators or owners seemed to neglect the implementation of strict requirements in recruiting and employing of security guards. Since said activities is usually conducted in a business matter, operators and owners recruit and employ only to obtain high profit with fewer expenses. This is because of the absence of strict laws that regulate the business. Operators and owners have the freedom to select and employ their security guards. That is why they often end up with security guards who are unlicensed, less educated, inexperienced, untrained, and incapable of performing security task. With the concept of self-regulation of these industries, security guards also received meager salaries and less benefits which to not equate to the long hours that they render service. The Private Security Industry Act of 2001 In the recent developments, many states had already adapted means and measures within which to improve the status of their security industry. One of these means is the passage of laws or acts which are primarily aimed in enhancing and regulating this booming industry. The United Kingdom, for instance, passed a regulatory act entitled "Private Security Act of 2001" that received Royal Assent on 11 May 2001. As explained in the Explanatory Notes (2001), The Act sets out a system for the statutory regulation of the security industry. It aimed to raise standards, ensure greater consistency, and introduce arrangements that vet people working in the industry to exclude criminal elements who tarnished the image of the industry. It also aimed to provide recognition to companies who can provide a satisfactory service measured against relevant agreed standards and who are able to demonstrate such recognition to costumers through voluntary scheme. To achieve realized these objectives, the Act created the Security Industry Authority, referred through out the Act as the "Authority", a Non-Departmental Public Body which has the responsibility for licensing individuals to work within the designated sectors of the private security industry, and under voluntary arrangements approving suppliers of such services. The Explanatory Notes (2001) stressed that, License is now required for everyone working within the designated sectors of the industry. It is now prohibited to work without license or to employ unlicensed person. Suppliers of security are now required to seek the approval of the Authority and be open for inspection. The private security industry comprise several factors, including those concerned with guarding people and property, immobilizing vehicles, private investigators, ad security consultants. The Richard Child's Speech - PSIA 2001 Conference The passage of the Act sparked many debates as it was conceived to 'open the door to competition by the private security industry for roles traditionally fulfilled by the police (Chief constable predicts break in police "monopoly", 2001). Some of the most remarkable issues raised were those delivered by Richard Child, QPM, BSC, on 20 September 2001 to delegates at the Private Security Industry Act of 2001: Raising the Standards Through Regulation. Child was then the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police. Child (2001) welcomed this government interest. Although he admitted that it would have no impact on the police service, the Act calls for break-up of police monopoly it has over policing. He stressed that a more professional private sector regime will put in place which will be able to challenge the perceived wisdom that policing is a state run activity only. That is, private security industries will have a chance to share to the traditional policing activities that are exercised only by law enforcement agencies for a period of time. As quoted in the article Chief Constable predicts break up of police "monopoly" (2001), He foresees the industry participating in the lower tiers of policing activities, such as neighborhood patrols, handling low level disorder, reassurance and visibility, and possible crime inquiries, which the police service has neglected because of the increase in its workload in recent years. I disagree with Child's (2001) prediction that under the new regulatory framework, ' a more professional private security sector regime that will be put in place will be able to challenge the perceived wisdom that policing is a state run activity only.' In the first place, there is no monopoly of the policing by the police agencies to speak of. Long before the organization of the police agencies, security services were already there but in an informal structure. It started from the formation of able-bodied men called watchmen, who watched over vegetable plantations of the earlier civilizations, and the formation of groups of men defending the king of tribes. Walker and Katz (2005) explained that, The police today are the products of their history. Basic police practices and procedures are rooted in the past. Robert Peele, a member of England's elite and political class, deserves the credit s the "father" of modern policing. His London Metropolitan Police in 1829 reflected his vision of efficient, proactive police force. The London Police introduced three new elements that became the basis for modern policing: mission, strategy, and organizational structure. Walker and Katz (2005) also quoted in their book the argument of David Baley in relation to the essential features that separates a security guard from modern police. The modern police is "public, specialized, and professional." They are public in the sense that government agencies have primary responsibility for maintaining public safety. They are specialized in the sense that they have a distinct mission of law enforcement and crime prevention. Finally, they are professional in the sense that they are full-time, paid employees. My stand is supported by a part of Child's (2001) speech that drew the line between the police works and the security works. He said that only the police have the infrastructure to deal with major incidents and major crimes, and as agents of state, to handle the cost. Again from Walker and Katz (2005), The watch resembled the modern-day policing in some respects. Watchmen patrolled the city to guard against fire, crimes, and disorder. At first, it was only a night watch. (). Eventually, the watch evolved into paid professional position. Child (2001) is aware that there is really an evident distinction as to what security services could do and what it could not. With this Act, the fact remains that the 'state is the primary evidence gatherer and that through one or other "wholly owned" agencies'. Secondly, it is the government that organized and funds these law enforcement agencies. It is but awkward for it to compete itself, that is, to form another agency that will topple the other of the same kind. The Act itself placed delimitation as to what Act is made for and as to what it can do. Lastly, the wisdom of the Act is clear. It was designed 'to raise standards, and ensure greater consistency, building upon progress that the industry has already achieved over recent years through self-regulation' (Explanatory Notes, 2001, par. 5). If the security industry will be professionalized, it will be a better partner for the law enforcement agencies in its task of providing a safer place to live in. It will become a more effective aide of police organizations in the United Kingdom in the lower tiers of policing activities 'which the police service has neglected because of the increase in its workload in recent years (Child, 2001). Whether they will admit or not, there are those policing activities that police organizations cannot work on effectively. It is good that there are private security agencies that work on it "to fill the gaps". However good they may have seemed but in the absence of regulating laws, we will always be haunted by the shortcomings of the unorganized security groups of our pat. ' A professional security service provider could provide an improved service in the carefully selected policing areas, keeping in line the police as a player, a crucial pivotal player, in the total response to crime' (Child, 2001). References Child, Richard., 2001, Full Text of Mr. Child's Speech-PSIA 2001 Conference, viewed 3 December 2008, retrieved from Security Park. Net, http:www.secuitypark.co.uk/article.asparticleid=1745 Chief constable predicts break up of police "monopoly", 2001, viewed on 3 December 2008, retrieved from Security Park. Net, http:www.secuitypark.co.uk/article.asparticleid=1744 Explanatory Notes to Private Security Industry Act of 2001, 2001, viewed on 3 December 2008, retrieved from OPSI website, http://opsi-gov.uk/acts/acts2001/enlukpgaen_20010012_en_1 Walker and Katz, 2006, The Police in America: An Introduction, Mc-Graw Hill Companies. Read More