Comparing Public Security Sector and Private Security Sector - Research Paper Example

Comparison and contrast of public security sector and private security sector Introduction Public Security Public security entails security offered by public institutions or the government, where it employs individuals to offer security to the public thus ensuring there is peace and harmony at particular specified places. Such personnel include Police officers, sheriffs and detectives who majorly form the public sector security employees. Their main goal in their jobs is to make the society is in peace and crime free day and night. All these officers are equipped with skills as they go for academic training and studies on how to maintain law and order. All the remunerations for the police officers are funded by the government thus they are accountable to the society in maintaining law and order in efforts to minimize crime. Owing to the nature and baseline of their responsibilities and roles, public security individuals are therefore unlimitedly tasked to gather intelligence information in their bid to successfully and effectively address all possible threats and factions which may in any way compromise the security situation of the state. The recruitment and deployment of public security personnel remains at the helm of the national government and is done in relation to the need. Private Security Private sector security involves the services offered by private organizations or individuals to provide personal security to individual’s homes, apartments and businesses. Private security guards are limited as they are unarmed compared to public security officers. Since private sector security are owned by individuals, their funding is private and combined thus not accountable to the society at large but to the personnel whom they are providing security to. The nature and responsibilities of private security firms is to provide personalized security and including special operation services where and when required. Despite such security firms being limited to weapons and almonry by the state, they play a big role in ensuring that companies and systems conform to the laid down regulations including prevention of unauthorized personnel, activity or entry, traffic regulations, access control and in other facilities or environments fire and theft prevention or detection. Therefore, private security firms are effectively and consistently in place to bridge the security lapse and gap that the national government and public security firms cannot fill owing to the large number of citizens and activities carried out within a given environment (Li, 2008). Discussion The public police play a big role on behalf of the government and society performing duties such as enforcing laws, maintain peace and order, detecting crime, responding to emergencies such as fire, accidents, offering assistance to victims of crime, and prosecuting offenders. This has become an increasingly positive phenomenon as they are able to combat various criminal situations using their well equipped and trained facilities. Being one of the forces legally enabled to use firearms in the public, they are therefore better placed in controlling rowdy crowds, criminals and other incidences, which affect the stability as well as compromise the security of the nation. On the other hand, Private investigators perform the same duties conducted by public police such as investigations for instance locating people who go missing after leading high profile crimes, obtain information for civil and legal litigation cases. They are also in place to provide consultations to risk management, and implementing measures under security to curb crime and emergencies such as fire, and investigating corporate fraud. Owing to the nature of Private investigators, they have made it easy to deal with high profile gangs and other criminals who escape unidentified. Security guards as police officers maintain order and enforce regulations; they are invited to public events to provide protection on properties against theft and vandalism thus ensuring law and order is maintained during the session. The Private Security firms are entrusted in transporting of valuables such as money or transportation of confidential parcels. The private firms have the same rights as the public police in arresting the trespassers i.e. According to 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". There is greater difference between public and private security officers which all under training where police officer get training and education in depth thus paid highly compared to a private security officer. Thus Large private security firm are trying to put in depth to training and education thus increasing their level of professionalism. The public officers are shielded by strong union as their remunerations are from taxpayers thus being said they are not held accountable to their actions as individual, moreover the private security officer are held accountable to any mistake thus putting their job at risk to a lay off thus they perform their duties under the policies and procedures of the company (Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority, 2007). Through this regulation, private security officers have learnt the importance of handling each and every individual professionally as well as all the situations and tasks they are assigned to perform. Such regulations are also in place to ensure equity and reliable service to all named institutions and individuals despite the interests attached or hardship involved. The strong unions and board decisions required for a public officer to take responsibility of any irresponsible action, have proven to be the result of the common indiscipline cases witnessed across the security firms. The positivity coming from the relationship of public and private policing is appealing as many geographical location environment are becoming safer thus conflicts and criminal cases declining on a daily basis as. Having a good example in Kenya during the post election violence the private and public security were hand in hand to curb the crimes which were happening during that, they really helped much to minimize the crime situation thus giving a hand of appraise to both the security sectors. Comparing on the knowhow of how to deal with investigations public sector security has sophisticated equipments compared to private sector as they are expensive to acquire thus giving the public sector a greater percentage in performance. The public sector has a greater advantage as it’s funded by the government while the private sectors are funded by individual personnel. On the other side also the private sector is minimized in its powers as it can’t employ some power given to public officers such as detaining, questioning and apprehending arrest to an individual on a public or private ground. According to 5th Amendment Rights (Severino, 2009) the private sector security are exempt from violating an individual right but a public officer must have a probable cause to search an individual. Such limitations have heavily affected the operations and effectiveness of private security firms as they are forced to either release of forward criminal suspects to the police, an action that compromises the security of the institution and facilitates evidence tampering. To effectively ensure that suspected criminals are limited and face full force of the law, private security firms should be given the authority to investigate as well as arrest any suspected criminal. Through this, the police may find it easier to identify and ensure that all criminals are prosecuted. Public-private partnerships are a major issue of discussion in businesses and government agencies. However, this issue has received a much less thorough treatment in scholarly literature on security. This is surprising, as public-private partnerships are perhaps the most dynamic and important subjects for security practitioners today. Public-private partnerships have been defined as collaboration between a public sector (government) entity and a private sector (for-profit) entity to achieve a specific goal or set of objectives. This collaboration results in government-business relationships that include service contracts, supply chains, ad hoc partnerships, channel partnerships, information dissemination partnerships, and civic switchboard partnerships.These partnerships have been discussed in narrow ways in the scholarly literature in related disciplines (such as public administration broadly understood) and some of the various subfields of security. Discussion of the private sector’s role within other subfields, such as intelligence, cybersecurity, transportation security, public health, and hazard mitigation shows increasing understanding of businesses’ impact on security. Overall, however, the scholarly literature has not yet caught up to the practitioner understanding of public-private partnerships’ prominence in security. This article begins to fill a gap in homeland security scholarship by identifying the essential role that public-private partnerships are now taking in homeland security, and by examining the implications of this transformative shift in the field. As we will see, public-private partnerships hold great promise, but also face significant obstacles that will need to be overcome. The article begins by tracing the development of public-private partnerships in homeland security. It then examines multiple subfields of homeland security and highlights the growing role of public-private sector partnerships in homeland security. The article concludes by discussing ongoing challenges that will need to be considered and addressed for public-private partnerships to be successful over the long term. Private security sectors are much surge and flexible for example in a war they can quickly provide field additional forces incase to defeat or nearing retreat without any political or bureaucratic lead of time in mobilizing the army forces. Whereas public security sector will have some delays due to political and bureaucratic procedurals as it’s only the Chief Commander In Chief (President) has the consent of release the military forces. Private security firms are therefore, more liable in dealing with emerging issues and criminal unearthing as they are flexible and available within any given area. Their commanding structure is also irrigated providing an effective platform to deal with issues without biasness. The public security is more biased and issue based when it comes to deployment and issue arresting including emerging trends and calamities within the state. For any public security officer to be deployed, the commanding officer, all protocol observed must first approve before deployment, meaning that urgent situations cannot be dealt with effectively. The private security has an added advantage as it can recruit retired MPs officers, Retired Special Personnel who stand to have more experience and expertise in several areas which help in boosting defense forces. It also can hire or recruit internationally which is much harder and difficult for national military organizations to find those kinds of specific skills and experience, and deploy them to a particular arena. Private securities become advanced owing to their flexible nature to recruit more qualified and experienced expertise from variant fields with a common agenda of providing effective security to the specified personnel. The public security is most affected as the recruited personnel are limited from age, and boundaries as the most experienced personnel are bound to retire. All the personnel also recruited must be within the given state pledging loyalty to protect only the nation and its citizens consistently unless stated otherwise. Public securities are aimed to provide security to the society as they earn from the same societies taxpaying whereas private security sectors are seen to provide security and working hard in need of profit, thus the standard of sending national troops working for the nation is difficult as it’s expensive. Public security is too weak to responses in case of an accident or theft no compared to private sector. The response time is further minimized because the on-site guard is familiar with the layout of the business or residential property. Being a private security firm case of embezzlement of funds and corruption are restrained by the terms and conditions of the firm. For example public security in case of an emergency they don’t arrive to the scenery before you top up some cash which make insecurity lead on the high side. Having the same private security guard in place daily enables employees and the public to become acquainted with the guard. This interaction gives employee’s added satisfaction regarding their personal safety at work. Private security tend to spend more compared to public sector as it employs experts in technology, forensics investigation, fraud who often hold on professional certificates and advanced diploma and degrees. With such additional benefits and advancements, private firms have proven to be effective in combating crime associated with the new technological trends. Due to technological advancements private sectors have automated devices and equipment which alert and protect them against crime thus a public security is countered as they do have less or non automated devices thus giving a buying chance to private security sector. Lack of such facilities have affected the public security firms a lot as they have on their own basis lost crucial evidence or even freed potential suspects increasing the chances of crime within the given area. Private security can expand or withdraw rapidly from a hostile situation. A good example; the war in Iraq, the U.S. government used private security contractors to supplement ground forces. These forces provided essential security while having the flexibility to grow or shrink with the demands on the ground. Thus the military personnel maintain rigid schedules and require a vast and expensive support structure. Both public and private sector security officers are at risk for using unnecessary force. As both the public and private are limited in using unnecessary power, the private sector may violate the rules due to closely working with the employers where tend using much force to guard their employers. Private sector security is not effectively regulated as most security personnel who use firearms cannot be tracked on their activities within the state. Most of the security personnel lose their ethical and moral behavior in a way that they lend their firearms to hire rated criminal or in one way or the other co operate with them to execute criminal activities. Since most of them cannot be traced and are not in uniform, they pose as a threat indirectly to the community, which should entrust them in providing effective security. Public security firms tend to be more effective as they are always in uniform and any activity or place they go is considerately regulated and controlled. All their firearms and any machinery they use in combating crime is effectively recorded as well as the personnel handling it, making it easier to know which machine was used and by whom. As has been the case for several years, private security personnel continue to outnumber police officers. This is seen to be an effective way of managing the security and ensuring that orders as well as systems operate as required. It has also proven to be an effective way of reducing the number of jobless youth, as it provides an income opportunity to them. Conclusion As public-private partnerships continue to grow, there is also a compelling need for scholarly investigation of effective management and successful outcomes in public-private partnerships. From a theoretical perspective, public-private partnerships also raise important questions. Our understanding of security is increasingly linked with concepts, rather than agencies. Flexibility, adaptability, and resilience have become hallmarks of homeland security programs at all levels of government. Incorporating these concepts into agencies’ plans and operations helps to produce favorable outcomes. But do public-private partnerships sufficiently align with these concepts? Some might argue this is clearly true – contracting represents a “flexible” way to expand homeland security staffing. However, others could demonstrate that this is hardly the case; contracting can increase government dependency on the private sector, reducing organizational flexibility In light of these trends, government and businesses must effectively plan for the future of homeland security. Converting private sector jobs to public sector positions requires focused government effort. Competencies, skills, and knowledge must smoothly transfer from business to government hands. Yet there is little financial incentive for businesses to cooperate in this process. Doing so contradicts their self-interests. After all, firms in the homeland security space make money from government contracts. For its part, government may find it has lost the capacity to perform in certain areas of homeland security. This may be due to over-reliance on the private sector – the “hollowing out” of government mentioned above. Further complicating this picture, there is a continual flow of homeland security officials between the public and private sectors. Firms’ employees may join government to gain excellent benefits, promotion potential, and predictable work schedules. Public sector employees can gravitate toward the private sector for substantially higher salaries and fewer bureaucratic constraints. Downplaying or ignoring these trends hinders effective long-term planning in homeland security. Business and government officials should carefully consider these factors in their respective plans for the future. The effectiveness of private security firms has been brought about by the chain of command and resources, which enable them to deal with emergencies as they come. Private security firms do not conform to the traditional bureaucratic and rigid structures, which must be followed before the firm attends to a given situation. Therefore the public security needs to ensure that the common rigid structures are dealt away with and modern management structures put in place if it still aims at providing equitable and effective security to the citizens as well as other emerging situations deemed to be crucial. Private firms also have access to the unlimited resources and training on basic security skills, which make them updated to the latest technological trends as well as new ways of combating crime. Such additional benefits are in place to motivate the personnel used as well as enable them to be composite in dealing with such situations. It will prove beneficial not only to the state but also the citizens, if the public private firms are well equipped in terms of human resource, financially and human capacity. Through this they will be able to attend to their roles and responsibilities effectively. One of the benefits of hiring private security personnel is that they deal and handle situations privately as they spend more time within the institution allocated. They are therefore, best fit to handle any emerging situation as they hold both geographical and physical understanding of the area. It will be of importance to the nation and citizens if both the public and private security firms work together with a common agenda of providing effective and immediate security (Rigakos, 2002). References List http://www.ehow.com/facts_5592116_benefits-private-security_.html#ixzz2v8Ju0wK1 http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200604.military.avant.privatemilitarycompanies.html Li, G. (2008). Private security and public policing. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008010/article/10730-eng.htm Law Commission of Canada (2006). "In Search of Security: The Future of Policing in Canada" Ottawa, Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority. (2007). Making life Safer. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.psira.co.za/ Severino, C. (2009). Just Answer. Criminal Law. Retrieve from http://www.justanswer.com/questions/1rdg2-conflict-regarding-definition http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2034 Rigakos, G. (2002). "The New Parapolice: Risk Markets and Commodified Social Control" Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Read More