The Private Security and Risk Industry - Essay Example

PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY Introduction: In the recent decades, the private security and risk industry has grown tremendously showcasing itself as an alternative solution to a globally terrorist hit and high risk public security system. Initially, starting out as a helping arm to the public security establishments such as Police and Military – the private security industry has now expanded its reach to almost all areas covered by police and military. Starting with helping police patrol key crime areas or high risk residential areas, the private security moved into helping big organizations in guarding their assets and personnel. With the increase in terrorist activities around the world, they were increasingly used to give a helping hand to woefully inadequate police staff in airport securities, bank securities and other important public establishments. With the onset of Iraq war, the private security industry came into its own by providing technical and support services, maintenance services, training services etc to the armed forces. In UK, Private security agencies are common and used extensively. In fact, the security in magistrates courts and Prison escort duties are also being contracted out to private security. But unlike other areas, for these two specific duties, they have been given special powers which are almost at par with the police forces. They can stop, search any person they feel can create problems or disrupt the court proceedings and they can use reasonable force if required. Similar powers are given to prisoners escort officers. But in other areas such as airports and public transport systems etc. the private security does not have the power to search a person or use force to enforce order. Of late there is a growing demand in certain sections to extend this model of enforcement powers to other private security officers as well. Growth of private security sector: But the concept of private security guards is not a new phenomena. It has been in practice for last few decades. In fact the field of private detectives or private investigation has been immortalized in the stories and cases of Sherlock Holmes. As per Nalla and Newman, (1990), the use of private security companies was practiced even before the police forces were established by the governments Similar sentiments of police forces using community groups for reporting crime have been expressed in US where a possibility of enhanced relationship between private security companies and police have been recognized and explored.(Cunningham, et al., 1990). In UK also, law practitioners and police leaders are advocating the development of private security sector on regulated lines.(Golsby, 1993 and Swanton, 1993). In fact, the concept of private security has been in vogue since long and many people have tried to describe it as a very broad enterprise (South, 1983) and being very complex. (Spitzer,1987). Earlier Shearing et al. (1980) distinguished between police and private security with respect to their legal status. Obviously police authorities have more legal powers than the private counterparts. And the principal areas where private security lags behind the police are the training facilities, the knowledge or the expertise in solving and detecting crimes and crime prevention resources. These days, the private security industry offers services that cover a large area such as guarding people and property, immobilizing vehicles (wheel clamping), private investigators and security consultants. These agencies are now guarding transport of valuables, guarding shopping centers, airports, as well as nuclear and military facilities along with helping police and military staff with intelligence inputs. Besides , they are also involved in restructuring and aid process in the post invasion period. 1991 ACT: One of the far reaching consequences in private security sector came through the Criminal Justice Act of 1991 in UK. Among its numerous and varied provisions, is a part that focuses on the contracting-out and privatization of a number of security services which were previously run exclusively by state institutions. This includes the magistrates’ court security, the prisoner escort service and the running of certain penal establishments. There are large amount of magistrates courts in Britain and they deal with about 95% of all criminal cases annually in the country totaling to about two million. As the sheer number of cases suggest , the police required to handle the witnesses and their supporters is usually large. But this wasn’t a problem initially as most of the courts were situated in the vicinity of police stations and cases required police personnel to be present at the courts to provide necessary evidence etc. But this changed after the new laws required less police personnel to appear in court. Thus the courts were allowed to appoint private security persons for handling court security. These persons were given more powers than the normal private security and were at par with the police powers. Via Section 77 of the 1991 Act the magistrates’ court security officers are allowed to search anyone and any article in their possession, who is in the courthouse or is seeking to enter it. This is done so that there is no disruption during court proceedings. They are also allowed to refuse entry to people who refuses to be searched or surrender any article which the court security officer believes may jeopardize order or safety. They can also remove those persons if have already entered. They are also empowered to use force, where necessary, in the exercise of this power. Further, Section 78 of the 1991 Act makes it a criminal offence to assault, resist or willfully obstruct such officers. The maximum sentence on summary conviction for assault is six months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding £5,000. In yet another part of the 1991 Act under section 80, the Home Secretary is empowered to contract-out the prisoner escort service with the exception of category A prisoners who are among the most dangerous in the prison population. Under this section the duties of private security officers involve the delivery of prisoners to court and their custody whilst at court, the delivery of prisoners from court to prison or police station, the transfer of inmates from one prison to another and the custody of prisoners whilst temporarily outside the prison. They are supposed to prevent the escape of prisoners, prevent any other unlawful acts attempted by them and in general ensure good order and discipline of the prisoners. These officers are known as the prisoner custody officers and are allowed to search any prisoner in their charge in accordance with prison rules and to search any person who is entering a place where a prisoner is being or going to be held including the searching of any article in their possession such as a bag. And they are also allowed to use force where necessary in the exercise of all prisoner custody officers powers and duties. The Extension of Enforcement powers of Private security: The demand to use this model of enforcement power to other areas is increasing. It is not surprising to see why? The above model has proved useful to the police and government. Not only has it provided relief to current lot of police personnel by reducing their load, it has also saved the government a cost burden of additional manpower. Moreover, this helps them to reduce training costs as well as the other administrative costs. The current manpower was not sufficient to handle the load and giving the duties to police without increasing the manpower meant distraction from their other important work areas plus additional stress and over burden to the personnel. The private security has proved to be a major cost benefit to the police force as now all the logistics are handled by the private security agency including the verification and payouts. Only developed countries such as US and UK have the bulk of private security agencies working in their countries. There are about twenty five security agencies operational in UK who are offering wide range security services and the net worth of the UK security and risk industry is around €1.5 billion. (Avant, 2005) With the onslaught of a series of terrorist attacks in European countries, they are also showing signs of developing and using the private security agencies. The range of services being provided by private security agencies is increasing with them moving into areas which were initially considered to be handled by public police services. But still the major area of private security operators is the private businesses. These companies provide security services for other private businesses. without involving the use of armed force. But now there is an increase in the tasks involving military support and maintenance, and training. They are also getting involved in post invasion peace activities, restructuring and rebuilding of war ravaged areas. But this noticeable growth in private security agencies is being held under suspicion by both the public as well as the public security services. These public security services groups are wary of private forces as they fear their own standing may be undermined and feel that their traditional roles will be eroded. On the other hand, public fears stem from the fact that these private security companies may go out of control and might result in high handed behavior towards common people. All these concerns led the governments to regulate these private security bodies and their functioning. All countries that do have private players in the security sector eventually came up with regulatory bodies and Acts and regulations to control the growing private security industry. But there is no common body to do so and each country has its own policies and practices. Thus in UK, the Private Security Industry Act 2001 came into force to create a system of statutory regulation of the industry. This act established the Security Industry Authority (the SIA) which is the regulatory authority for the industry as a whole. The SIA will be responsible for giving out appropriate licenses to private security agencies to manage and provide the necessary services. All the private security officers such as those in cash-in-transit duties, guards, wheel-clampers, security consultants, private investigators and managers of security organizations will be required to obtain licenses prior to their functioning. Of late, there has been growing demand for the extension of Enforcement Powers held by private security officers at Magistrates' Courts and in Prisoner Escorting to be applied throughout the private security sector. The argument given by the supporters of extension of powers is that it will help take the load off the already hard pressed public security services. And this has assumed enormous proportions only in recent times with the increase in terrorists and jehadi attacks on common public establishments such as metro trains, business and financial establishments etc. The usual police force is inadequate to handle such an enormous job and thus the private security players fill in the gaps between the current security and the required security. Moreover the checking and frisking duties are necessary to prevent such attacks in future. There are so many airports and flights that the usual government agencies already have their hands full. Add to that the number of critical defense and political establishments needing security and the risk prone areas such as metro trains, public parks and markets – the list is endless. The powers that are being talked about are not too many -=- only involves checking and refusing entry to risk prone areas such as crowded trains or airports etc. Of course, they are allowed to use reasonable force which is necessary otherwise no one will cooperate or listen to them. Since the terrorists or jehadis do not make a difference between common public and rather try to target areas where maximum people could be killed – it is imperative to fight them with a strong hand. Without their powers, the private security is useless as they will not be able to stop or prevent any such crime. On the other hand, the critics point out that giving such powers is going to provide fertile grounds for misuse and inappropriate use of power by these private security persons. They can stop and check at will – any person they suspect of being a problem maker. This power can also be used to settle scores or humiliate foes in public. People opposed to this move point out that the private security guard is not an agent of the state and hence is not constrained by constitutional safeguards and can therefore act in an unlawful manner. Since he is the employee of a private employer he will be more interested in serving the particular interests of his employer. Even if carried out in good intention, the private security personnel may be ill equipped to handle such frisking or checking in a more sensitized manner. The consequences of passing the boundaries of lawful restraint or reasonable force, can be disastrous for the emerging security sector. Many private security personnel avoid getting into confrontational mode with the public and do not enforce the law for fear of such consequences. However, these personnel will have to do it if they want to thrive in this industry. By not doing their duty they are directly being responsible for the problem that may arise due to their ineffectiveness. It is being hoped that such dilemmas may be avoided or significantly reduced once the persons are adequately experienced and trained. Thus it is important for security companies to cross check and verify the antecedents of the people they employ for security duties. Otherwise they may be out of business very soon. Moreover, if people or the common public turns against them, then it is not going to be easy for the government to use the private forces and the potential for growth in this sector may be lost. A good step in this direction is the Private Security Industry Act 2001 which asks for and demands greater accountability from the private security industry in the future. Hopefully, the licensing system will keep the security agencies on its toes and make them accountable for the security lapses by its personnel. Conclusion: Therefore in conclusion, we can say that although there are some underlying apprehensions regarding the role of private security personnel in doing their duty properly and not in high handed fashion, there is always an assurance that the private enterprise who deploy these forces will not want to drive away their customers in the name of security. Since they want their customers to come back for more, they must also provide a secure environment. Thus they will always keep things tightly under control and cover their activities in the most inconspicuous way possible. Even our experience tells us that we do not feel threatened when the private security is at work. Moreover, if they do overstep their limits, their consequences will be bad as they will lose business quickly. So, it all boils down to pure business sense that will keep private security officers in check. Some critics may say that since private security needs to keep customers happy, they will not be able to do the job effectively and will not be well equipped to deal with terrorists. But the reality is that a private company or an airline for example will never allow its customers to feel threatened or under some kind of danger. Otherwise, they will lose their sales. The only difference is that it cannot afford to be sloppy and make life miserable for its customers in the name of security as well. Therefore, the pure business economics will not let private security personnel to misuse or abuse their powers. Thus it is really in the interests of general public and government authorities to get more powers and private players in the fray to heat up the competition and reap the benefits of the privatization of the security sector. References: Avant, D., (2005) The Market for Force: The Consequence of Privatizing Security, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 9. Cunningham, W.C., Strauchs, J.J. and Van Meter, C.W., (1990) Private Security Trends 1970 to 2000 The Hallcrest Report ll, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston USA Golsby, M.J., (1993) 'The Potential for the Private Security Sector to Contribute to an Overall Community Crime Prevention Strategy', Crime Prevention Strategies for the 90s, Griffith University, Brisbane July 12- 13. Nalla, M. and Newman, G. (1990) A primer in private security, Harrow and Weston, New York. Shearing, C.D., Farnell, M.B. & Stenning, P.C. 1980, Policing for Profit: A Study of Contractual Security in Ontario, University of Toronto Press. South, N., (1988) Policing for Profit: The Private Security Sector, Sage Publications, London. Spitzer, S. (1987), Security and control in capitalist societies: the fetishism of security and the secret thereof, in J. Lowman, R. Menzies and T. Palys (ed.), Transcarceration: Essays in the Sociology of Social Control. Aldershot: Gower. Swanton, B., (1993) 'Police and Private Security: Possible Directions' Trends and Issues, No. 42, February 1993 Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. . Read More