Convergence: Can It Coexist in the Realm of Public and Private Security - Research Paper Example

Convergence: Can it coexist in the realm of Public and Private Security? Introduction Whenever two extremes exist in any field, the only solution is the middle ground. One side never really eats up the other. There is always resentment left if there is no giving after taking. If they hold their extreme positions rigidly they only waste precious time. In the end they have to converge. The matter of public vs. private security isn’t very different. The solution is convergence but the real question is how soon will that happen? The concept of police has been relatively new one, since the beginning of society there has been a need of security (Dempsey, 2010). Since the beginning of civilization, there had always been the need for security against crime and disorder. In the nineteenth and most part of the twentieth century, the matter of security has mostly been dealt as public. It is now, in the second decade of the 21st century that we see an increase in the private security systems. Although the private security firms are not controlled as rigidly as official police department but they must still respect the rights of others (Hess, 2008). Convergence (define it)  Conveyance by definition means to focus at a central point. Just like the beams from a light source converge to a central point after passing through a convex lens. In this particular context, convergence implies a common ground between the two extremes; public and private. Discus convergence from two viewpoints (comparison and contrast) Comparison It is interesting to compare the public and private security fields. There is no denying that a conflict exists between the two. For instance on private property, police and other public security forces have less authority than private guards. This is a general comparison of the power between the two sides. Private security can ask police to step off the private property. It is a challenge to police power that has legal backing. The private guards are only acting within their legal rights. The comparison also seems interesting in terms of representation. The police represent the city, county or state. The private security firms don’t represent government organizations; they represent the private property owners because their job is their protection and security. As far the matter of on and off duty parameters are concerned, an off duty officer is still legally bound by the 4th and the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The police has other restrictions that keep them from asking everyone if they live on a certain private property or not. The police also cannot ask every person what their business is. Violating this can drag the police into civil lawsuit. The only exception is when they have ‘reasonable’ suspicion for inquiry (Advanced Protective Security, 2013).. This suspicion cannot simply be based on doubt or hunch. They have to explain in understandable terms why they questioned someone. In comparison, private security has the right to ask anyone. The reason they have this privilege goes back to the same matter of representation; they do not represent the city or state, the constitutional limit regarding questioning people does not apply to them. Apples to apples comparison shoes that private security does have more muscle when it comes to exercisable options. These options also translate into arresting powers. Private security personnel have similar arresting powers in comparison with the police (Advanced Protective Security, 2013). They can arrest any person violating federal, state, city, county law etc., just like the police. This is also effective even if they are not present at the moment of violation. Contrast There is the matter of income that creates a contrast between the motivations of the two sides. It would be highly unethical to question loyalty or sense of responsibility of the police officers. Having said that, human nature does govern the actions, regardless of the thought or resolution. Police officers sometimes have to do off duty jobs that are not linked with their pay checks. They don’t get paid for patrolling when there is a high alert. It’s part of the job. Private security, on the other hand, have their incentives tied up with the additional work hours. They don’t get paid if they do a sloppy job even if they are doing overtime. This creates the contrast between the motivations of the two sides. It is ironic to examine the contrast between the authority an off duty police officer has and private security personnel doing extra hours. It is easy to understand that a police officer will not be fully committed to an off duty job because the constitution limits the powers in such cases (Advanced Protective Security, 2013). Moreover, an individual dragging a police officer to court for civil lawsuit when the officer was acting ‘off duty’ can still make the officer lose their job. This makes the job of a police officer more difficult. The contrast also becomes evident in regards with civil vs. criminal matters. The police department is designed for protection against crime. Even if they show a desire they cannot be involved in civil matters. These matters involve civil litigation, lease and contractual agreements (mercantile law). The police does not have the expertise neither the responsibility in these matters. Private security shows a contrast, they have the expertise and responsibility (depending on the services a private security agency provides) regarding both the civil and criminal matters. This definitely gives them an edge over the police department. Even though the matter is debatable but from the client’s point of view, they would consider the private security agency to possess more power than the public officials. It is quite a contrast that a client taking the services of a private security firm gets more insurance protection (coverage) than taking police protection. This is especially true when there is damage done involving an off duty police officer. Private security firms have sufficient protection in this regard (Advanced Protective Security, 2013) where the client is the beneficiary of the insurance certificate (the client is insured). Convergences' applicability to the security profession From the comparison and contrast above it seems that private security guards do enjoy more power than police officers. But this is only true in specific circumstances. In other words when they are compared apples to apples, both departments have specific privileges. It is certainly not a competition of rivalry between the two sides. When both departments have a common goal (protecting public/clients against crimes) the convergence only becomes more natural. Charles P. Nemeth (2011) mentions in his book Private Security and the Law that private security companies themselves want suppress this competition like environment. In fact, The Hallcrest Report I mentions certain suggestions that security firms can act more responsibly in client’s (as well as public interest) if they get more powers like the police. For instance the report mentions the philosophy behind private security firm operations; “Private security should be involved in community crime prevention.” (p. 326) When they recommend community interest like above it is an implication of convergence. Probably private and public security can work in cooperation with each other. Similarly other suggestions by the report mention more involvement from private security in public interest. Economic Crime Institute is mentioned in the report (Nemeth, 2011). More participants from private security firms in this department can converge both units. It seems as if the common ground already exists. The need is to make and apply laws in cooperation with recommendations such as mentioned in The Hallcrest Report I. It is not just the freedom and more access to private firms that will help in convergence. Some check and balance in this regard will certainly bolster the efforts. For instance, it should be mandatory for private security firms to develop crime loss reporting data and information (Nemeth, 2011). This will help keep track of their performance in regards with public interest. There is an issue with private security firms about their regulation. The police department is highly professional with high scrutiny. They manage their home department under strict guidelines. When there is a talk about convergence then there need to be some amendments in the operations of private security department. For instance these firms should formulate employee awareness programs and specific polices for corporate matters, crime and businesses ethics (Nemeth, 2011). This will help private security firms to turn more public. Convergence can be achieved in more than one ways. Merging is also an option but it needs elaboration. Alternative policing arrangements, strategic planning as well as moving specific policing facilities to private sector (Nemeth, 2011) won’t only be helpful in convergence but they will help protect public interests better. This also highlights why these two fields need convergence in the first place. Other than conflict resolution, their convergence is in wider public interest. Public security (police and law enforcement agencies) is a highly institutionalized department. Private security on the other hand lacks in this regard. Convergence can be attained when they develop an institution like Private Security Resource Institute (Nemeth, 2011). This will give them more structure; it will also help the public security when it comes to data sharing and collaboration. There is the ominous cloud of being overshadowed by the public security agencies that looms over the private sector. When it comes to collaboration it should be done on equitable basis (not equal). For instance if convergence demands private security firms to act more like public officials they need to have access to certain public resources too. This will help to play their part in wider public interest. They can still be serving a specific company or individual but also serving public by incorporating the wider public interest. The suggestion of having access to public archives has been raised in the Hallcrest Report I. It mentions that private security should have “total” (Nemeth, 2011, p. 327) access to criminal records. This might stir come controversies. Private security firms might seem to have too much power this way. However, this suggestion comes after the suggestion of institutionalizing the private security sector first. It must also not be forgotten that ultimately private security firms don’t get paid by the government. In the end it is a business. They need to generate profits to sustain and grow. This is a stark contrast from the police department. Therefore it is only acceptable that private security firms should be allowed to thrive just like any business. In fact this has been suggested in the report that private security firms should be allowed to have their own uniform, identity and freedom to advertise (Nemeth, 2011). They are not being paid through public tax money. Institutionalizing should make it mandatory for private firms to design such data base and archives that can be transferred to public sector. This can be helpful in many ways; for convergence as well as for wider public interest. When the need comes the police should be able to easily access private security firms’ data. Any conflicts of interests should be considered in this regard. The same effort of institutionalizing should be able to help form better documented structure of private security firms. They should support standardized qualifications, certifications and educational training (Nemeth, 2011). This act must not be limited to private personnel only. Countries hold joint military trainings usually when they have a common enemy. It is also practiced among friendly relations between two countries. One helps the other by training their personnel in combat or special equipment. The same formula can applied in this convergence. Private security agencies should be willing to train public officials if need be. They should also arrange for educational opportunities for them (Nemeth, 2011). This can help in joint operations. In fact a special task force can be made by this cooperation. When complicated tasks are at hand that require both the facilities of public and private sector, this task force would become not only useful but necessary. The convergence makes more sense when debated under the pretext of wider public interest. An active involvement of private sector in crime prevention, apprehension and deterrence can serve the public better. Nemeth (2011) mentions that the convergence between private and public security will become a necessary. Because no matter how ‘private’ an agency acts, they cannot remain isolated from public scrutiny or governmental regulations. The ever changing environment of security requirement almost compels this union. The private security is expanding and it requires more social responsibilities and obligations. This is not due to extra ordinary services of the private sector, there is a huge dissatisfaction over public security (Nemeth, 2011). The private security is providing relatively better services than the government counterparts. This adds more responsibility to the private sector. The global security situation is more fragile than ever. In future the picture looks even grimmer. Private security does offer many solutions for public concerns. Private security agencies might seem a better option but public security departments will be there in the future. Neither party can be ruled out of the equation. The convergence seems more suitable than ever before. Businesses would want to protect their data and they can pay cost for security. The ever changing market of global business makes their data more precious as well as more vulnerable. Private security does seem like a solution for these growing businesses. Public policing does not offer the facilities these businesses seek. They are limited in their governmental regulations. Private police seems more desirable as they can act with more ‘agility’ for protection of their data (Nemeth, 2011). The convergence between the two can help these businesses even more. Data sharing and information exchange can help both parties. Private sector can sometimes be bound under the security contract. They might not be able to share the sensitive information about a company they protect. For instance, it would be highly unlikely for a big tech company like Apple of Samsung to share their data with public security agencies. Convergence does not mean merging. It indicates selective mergence. The convergence can also offer some complications. There is already significant resentment in public about the quality of public security. Private agencies can grow too powerful in this ‘helpful’ environment. This can be one of the detrimental side effects of convergence. The Department of Home Security therefore offers the overseeing authority for this problem. The DHS also recommends the partnership between the two departments. Since the beginning when the department was called the Office of Homeland Security, their resolution suggested “close partnership” (Nemeth, 2011, p.327) between public and private security in anti-terrorism planning and activities. In this regard, presidential executive orders since 9/11 have repeatedly encouraged the partnership between the two departments. The DHS wants this convergence or cooperation to work. For this they have also designed some preliminaries that must exist for this joint venture. Nemeth (2011, p. 328) outlines them; “Common goals Common tasks Knowledge of participating agencies Well defined projected outcomes A timetable Education for all involved Tangible purpose Clearly identified leaders Operational planning Agreement by all partners as to how the partnership will proceed Mutual commitment to providing necessary resources Assessment and reporting” (Nemeth, 2011, p.328) The need for private security has been widely recognized by the DHS. The public department cannot go alone and it needs daily cooperation of the private sector (Nemeth, 2011). As mentioned above the convergence is not an option it is a necessity. The scenario can be brought down from macro to micro level for examination. A case can be considered to see what kind of complications this convergence can offer. David Maxwell comments on in his book Private Security Law: Case Studies a case regarding a small fight in a hospital where private security personnel took the law in his own hands. The matter went to court and the judge took note of the private security spilling into public law enforcement (Maxwell, 1993). The case presents the scenario if the private guards can act like public officials if they deem it right. Although the matter seems split in court rulings, Maxwell (1993) also offers similar suggestions as discussed above regarding convergence (p.331); “There needs to be a clear connection between public and private investigation Completion of the private act at the instigation of the police Close supervision of the private conduct by the police A private act undertaken on behalf of police to further a police objective” (Maxwell, 1993, p. 331) Analyzing the convergence reveals many things. First, the convergence is a necessity. What Maxwell says in his recommendations about the case is asking for a governing body over private security. It only makes sense because private security is powerful. Public trusts them and they want more protection from them as they have a client to serve. However the private security sector is not institutionalized. They may have unions, representations and organization discipline however convergence should not become a new problem by empowering private security firms. There is also a need for higher authority in cases where there is a conflict between two private security firms. Two companies under the protection of two separate private firms entangled in a legal matter can offer this problem. Each private security company will be acting in the best interest of their clients. They have separate individual clients. When they have a conflict it is a matter of ‘protecting my client from the other client.’ It also offers the problem of who gets better private security? The ones who can afford it! Shouldn’t security be equal for the whole public? Summation Private security is a reality. The need will only get stronger in the future due to precarious security situation of the whole world. Businesses are not limited to regions and cities, they are expanding and international trade is on the rise. Convergence between public and private security can offer more security for the public. It is only advisable to work on this convergence with institutional mind frame. The public resentment over poor quality of public security is also a reality. However, the convergence should not give the private security firms a freehand. Overseeing authorities like the DHS are a workable solution. In the supervision of such authorities the convergence can be fruitful for both sides as well as for the public. References Advanced Protective Security (2013) Private security vs. public law enforcement. Advanced Protective Services. http://aprotectiveservices.com/private-security-guard-services-vs-public/ Dempsey, J. S. (2010) Introduction to private security. CA: Cengage Learning. Hess, K. M. (2008) Introduction to private security. CA: Cengage Learning. Maxwell, D. (1993). Private security law: Case studies. MA: Gulf professional publishing. Nemeth, C. P. (2011). Private security and the law. MA: Elsevier. Read More