Security of an Organisation and Civil and Criminal Law - Essay Example

\ Security of an Organisation and Civil and Criminal Law. In the present day scenario of increasing threats to a security of business establishments, the study of security of business organizations assumes importance at various level be it intellectual property laws, crime involving pilferage of information of clients by employees, violation of various criminal and civil laws within an organization. Security is defined as a stable, relatively predictable environment in which an individual or group may pursue its ends without disruption or harm, and without fear of disturbance or injury (Fischer & Green 2004). The concept of risk is foremost when considering the protection of assets. Indeed, the likelihood of occurrence of the threat posing the risk will determine the need for intervention in the activities within a facility. In other words , Security may be considered assured freedom from poverty or want, precautions taken to ensure against theft, espionage, or a person or thing that secures or guarantees . According to Fischer and Green, (2004, p. 21) “security implies a stable, relatively predictable environment in which an individual or group may pursue its ends without disruption or harm and without fear of such disturbance or injury.” These are the primary reasons underlying the widening horizons and increasing scope of security industry. The security requires manifold diversification of deployment of man power. Thus, the security industry is a diverse and a specialty industry that has a requirement for both generic and domain specific skills (Hesse & Smith, 2001; Manunta, 1996) and being a relatively young and emerging discipline, continues to expand (Fischer & Green, 2004). However, this expansion has resulted in limited tertiary education programs and research to determine the knowledge structure of security. Security in a wider sense applied to a polity may be expanded to consider national security and the defence of a nation which is managed and secured through use of force and control by armed forces. The power to control is exercised through laws to control a state’s citizens and aliens. Security necessarily implies policing of public which includes citizens and aliens with the aid of the armed forces, state police armed with various civil and criminal laws. It is also considered useful in prevention of crime, risk management or loss prevention. This diversity results in a society that has no clear understanding of what security is, but has divergence of interests from many stakeholders. A traditional definition of security is the provision of private services in the protection of people, information and assets for individual safety or community wellness (Craighead, 2003). Thus more and more business and commercial establishments are bending towards increased security services in preventing undesirable, unauthorized or detrimental loss of an organizations assets. But security may present very different meaning to different people given time, place and context. It has been suggested that security has to have a shared definition among many disciplines, that this is essential and urgent (Manunta, 1996) This is more so in view of the fact that current international fight against terrorism and related threats has given the security a new meaning and dimension encouraging the scholars to study the subject with diverse perspectives, in national, domestic and international fields. The security to the organization can be studied from two perspectives. Traditionally, the security threat perception of a business organization has been different from security threat perception of a country. However , in recent times this distinction if blurred by the increasing trans-national and multinational activities. The threats to a security is posed by various factors, financial, intellectual property thefts, property thefts, breach of trust, theft of physical property, contractual arrangement with the employees in cases where there is a bar on pilfering the information by them, and also terrorist activities. In the above scenario, the legal implications involved in management of a security operation within an organization can be viewed in the light of application and impact of civil laws and also from application of criminal laws. Civil law courts provide necessary forum for deciding the security threats and breach applying the law of torts and commercial laws. Law of torts may be applied on the cases of breach of trust, negligence, duty to take reasonable care involving matters where private parties and organizations is at large. However, when the threat or action breaching the security is brought into action, criminal law of the country comes into play represented by the prosecutor or some other agent for the state, takes action against an individual (or legal equivalent including a government department), which comes into the domain of public law. There is marked difference between criminal law and civil law including law of torts. The property of an organisation is protected by the criminal law. Tresspassing is unlawful entry onto the real property of another and any physical breach of premises of an organisation is covered by criminal law. The penal codes provide penalties for conversion, embezzlement, theft, all of which involve property offences. Robbery is also included in this category. It may be seen that criminal law generally prohibits acts involving moral turpitude and invites serious punitive action including deprivation of liberty. The crime includes act and the intension. This requirement is known actus reas or some physical act amounting to crime. In regulatory offenses this requirement is enough to show the committing of crime and law attaches strict liability offenses. However, other category of criminal offences and conviction for them has another requirment known as mens rea which bad intent. In such cases which involve imprisonment and other punishment of a person both actus reus and mens rea are to to be proved to the present. From the point of view of security of an organisation, this means in case any person is involved in offences relating to property, person, finances, intellectual property rights, terrorist activities, a criminal action under the appropriate criminal law of the jurisdiction can be initiated. In the tort liability, however, these requirements are not the essence, being a private action. It is sufficient to prove the damage and civil liability is attched. There is considerable distinction between tort liability and criminal liability. However, there are certain factors which are common in both tort law and criminal law. In English Law and in various other jurisdiction where tort law is applied assault is both a crime and a tort (a form of trespass to the person). But in tort action, since the purpose of the victim is to obtain a remedy that serves their own purposes the action for damages and injunctive relief is initiated. Howver, in criminal actions the purpose to initiate an action to attract punishment to a person in terms of imprisonment etc. Some torts have a an element akin to criminal action like public nuisance. See also Ronen Perry, The role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts; A descriptive Theory, (73) 2006. While it is established that imminent threat to business security lies internally to an organisation, external threats contribute to a company's security demands. Therefore, the applicability of both tort and criminal law assumes importance and the staff and employees should be shouldering more accountability and responsibility towards security of both business and premises. REFERENCES 1. Angus & Roberston. (1992). Dictionary and thesaurus. Sydney: Harper Collins Publishers. 2. Craighead, G. (2003). Highrise security and fire life safety. (2nd ed.). 3. Fischer, R.J., & Green, G. (2004). Introduction to security (7th ed.). Boston: Butterworth Heinemann 4. Hesse, L. & Smith, C. L. (2001). Core curriculum in security science. Proceedings of the 5th Australian Security Research Symposium, Perth, Western Australia: Edith Cowan University. Horvath, J. (2004). The fear factor. 5. Manunta, G. (1996). The case against: Private security is not a profession. International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention., 1(3), 233240. 6. Ronen Perry, The role of Retributive Justice in the Common Law of Torts; A descriptive Theory, (73) 2006. . Read More