The Development of Private Police and Community Policing - Term Paper Example

How Privatization of Police and Community Policing Have Changed Law Enforcement In many modern democracies, law enforcement has seen a significant change in the last century. What was once the sole domain of government appointed public police, is now shared among public police, private organizations, and community police. Private police and community police have changed the focus of law enforcement from catching criminals to preventing crime and ensuring security. However, commercial private police are not affordable to all and there is an unequal distribution of security based on class, while community policing is limited to some geographic locations. With no rules to govern them, private police also become intrusive. In order to achieve law enforcement without compromising on right to security and without intrusions, extensive propagation of community police model can help. Introduction Many people consider law enforcement as synonymous with policing. In the late 20th century, the systems of law enforcement and crime control in many modern nations have undergone a paradigm shift. For many centuries, government employed police had the responsibility of enforcing law. Early 1980s saw the evolution of pluralized policing; apart from government employed police or public police, private security personnel, and communities started offering paid and voluntary police services, respectively (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). They have affected law enforcement to such an extent that many new definitions of the word police include these forms of police service as well. In order to understand how these systems have changed law enforcement, we shall consider the evolution of these systems, law enforcement in these systems, their limitations, and possible solutions. The Development of Private Police and Community Policing Private police or private security is not a new concept — since ancient times groups of mercenaries have been selling their services, be it as guards, as warriors, or as bounty hunters. Before World War II, this system had an unfavorable reputation, viewed as motley gangs of heavies hired either to spy or to use illegal force. Both civilians and the police considered them a "dangerous and unauthorized intrusion by private interests into a government preserve" (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). With increasing crime rates in the 20th century, overburdened police forces and the public began to consider them a necessity. Since 1980s, many governments have started to outsource to private security agencies (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Today, private police outnumber public police in many nations, including in the United States. Community policing on the other hand is a relatively recent development, unheard of a few decades ago. Initially, it was considered a form of vigilantism (Bayley & Shearing, 1996), but public and lawmakers attitude towards this form of uncommercialized policing has changed since then. According to Fielding (1995), this system in the 1970s often referred to short-term strategies aimed at repairing relations between police and communities. In a short while, this term began to encompass prediction and prevention of crime in communities, providing security, and extending patrol services (Fielding, 1995). Today, community policing takes the form of citizen patrols, neighborhood watches, groups working for crime prevention, escort services, and monitoring of areas such as schools (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Law Enforcement and Pluralized Policing The global increase in crime rates in the last century left public police ill equipped and overburdened to enforce law to the maximum possible extent. However, rapid increase in private security employees ensured that many crimes were controlled and even prevented. Bayley and Shearing (1996) observed that in 1996 there were nearly 2 million private security personnel compared with 650,000 government-employed police in the United States. Another area where they outpace public police is the amounts spent on them (Joh, 2004). Communities with noncommercial policing also saw a decrease in crime rates. This system has its foundations in the thought that law enforcement by the police is impossible without public participation. Therefore, police train communities to work for their own safety. In this system, the police are no longer the emergency crime fighters, but diagnosticians and treatment coordinators (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). In many communities, private police supplementing the police have ensured public safety in cases where public policing may act as a deterrent (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Unlike public polices emphasis on ensuring justice, private security works towards ensuring security (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Private police enforce law by reducing risk of crime through preventive action, while public police enforce law by catching and punishing perpetrators of crimes (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Public police use arrest as a tool to deter crime. They often focus on clearing cases of crime rather than ensuring public safety. Being government employees, they have certain immunity against failure; they are not fired if they fail to ensure safety or to clear a case. Private and community police on the other hand are accountable to property owners and their respective communities. They stand to lose their jobs if they fail to ensure safety. This impetus is responsible for their emphasis on safety by preventing crime. Private police especially are experts at anticipatory regulation and amelioration (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). They are trained in strategies that reduce the risk of crime occurring. They play a significant role in maintaining security and enforcing law in private properties accessible to public such as malls, hospitals, and entertainment centers (Morgan & Newburn, 1998). Joh (2004) calls them the "first line of defense" in post-9/11 world. Community police also enforce law by preventing crime, while providing another dimension of safety in their respective communities — they prevent civil unrest (Fielding, 1995). According to Fielding (1995), the community police have better insight into the communities strengths, weaknesses, sentiments, threats, and risks. This allows them to interact better with members of their communities and prevent crime. Fielding (1995) cites the example of many car officers response to a homicide call that residents considered an "unnecessary influx of heavily armed police". Community foot patrollers put an end to tensions because of their position of trust among the residents. Publics trust in them helps them prevent crimes related to drugs as people are likely to become informants to community police with whom they interact on a regular basis, rather than drug squads (Fielding, 1995). Community police can play a greater role in communities of ethnic minorities. According to Moskos (2008), African-American officers acknowledge that both good and bad people live in the ghetto, and that their role is that of peacekeepers rather than crime fighters. White officers on the other hand consider all ghetto residents as bad and that their primary role is to fight crimes (Moskos, 2008). Community policing in such minority communities is more likely to prevent crime and promote peace as the public can confide in community police without fears of racial prejudice. Limitations to Law Enforcement by Private and Community Police Inequalities in law enforcement and crime prevention One major limitation of private policing is that it does not promote equality of safety across societies (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Private security personnel offer their services for money. It follows that people and organizations with more money are more likely to hire private security. If community policing or crime preventive public policing do not complement private policing, an unequal distribution of security may take place based on financial status (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). As a result, the rich feel more secure because of preventive policing by security agencies, while the poor subjected to public policing in the form of deterring crime feel less secure. Community policing on the other hand provides security to people in some geographical locations. If community policing is limited to the some sections of cities, it could end up adding to race and class based disparities in crime prevention and law enforcement (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Lack of laws governing private police In recent times, the roles of public and private police have been blurred, but the laws governing private police are not as comprehensive as those governing public police (Joh, 2004). Although many private police personnel perform the same law enforcement and crime control tasks as their public counterparts, there is minimal or no statutory regulation governing them. Their classification as night watchmen is inadequate and archaic (Joh, 2004). This lack of governmental rules in private policing sometimes makes them more intrusive, affecting rights of the people (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). Possible solutions A possible solution to remove inequalities in law enforcements caused by private securities and community police could involve adoption of the community-policing model by the public police in high-crime economically poor regions (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). It imposes social and governmental restraints, but makes police accountable to serving interests of the public (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). So, equality in security can be achieved without compromising on peoples rights. Conclusions Law enforcement today is not limited to public police alone; private police and community police have become important players in this field. These systems have changed the focus of law enforcement from deterring crime to preventing crime and providing security to the public. However, private policing has introduced some disparities in law enforcement based on financial status, while making policing more intrusive. Participation of public police in community policing model could remove disparities in law enforcement and public safety, while avoiding intrusive policing. References Bayley, D. H., & Shearing, C. D. (1996). The Future of Policing. Law & Society Review, 30(3), 585-606. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97816452 Fielding, N. (1995). Community Policing. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58611773 Joh, E. E. (2004). The Paradox of Private Policing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95(1), 49+. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008791036 Morgan, R., & Newburn, T. (1998). The Future of Policing. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62291747 Moskos, P.C. (2008). Two shades of blue: Black and White in the blue brotherhood. Law Enforcement Executive Forum, 8(5). Read More