Example Of Research Paper On Private Vs. Public Law Enforcement

Public and Private Police forces; a comparison

It can be said that the law enforcement vista is swiftly changing. Police forces, both from the public and private sector, are increasing their levels and areas of collaboration. This instance poses possibilities for conflict as well as convenience (Australian Institute of Police Management, n.d., p. 1). Favorable outcomes in community policing agendas are dependent on building and strengthening partnerships. Aggressively looking for new avenues for cooperation allows for opportunities for the development of new approaches in issue resolution. Specifically, collaborations between private and public policing agencies are one avenue that is ripe for improving community policing initiatives and engaging collective objectives (Community Oriented Policing Services, n.d., p. 1).
Policing services provided by the public sector are confronted with several difficulties compared to private security services. As police officers are basically salaried, these have a lower number of opportunities to negotiate for better compensation rates and do not receive any additional compensation for excelling in their line of work. This is in contrast to the situation for law and security officers in the private sector; security officers from the private sector have their pay scale adjusted for enhanced performance. Here, the agency can renegotiate their fees for exemplary levels of service.
Furthermore, public police forces are additionally encumbered with the limits that are imposed on them both by the law and by political dispensation. As private security and law enforcement agencies do not face the same challenges as do their public counterparts, these are better focused on performing their jobs with an increased level of efficiency and efficacy. In addition, owing to decreasing state capital outlays, public police agencies are not able to have access to the latest technological progressions in the security sector. Compare this situation with private policing organizations; as these are mainly driven by profit, these have enormous resources at their disposal, being able to plow back their profits as investments to grow their company (Inner State Security, 2014, p. 1).
The debt ridden city of Detroit is not the only urban center that has opted to engage the services of private police forces. Instead of allocating scarce resources to rebuild the public mechanism, these urban centers have opted to switch to private police entities. In these situations, private police entities have come to either support or even displace public police forces for many crime ridden areas from New Orleans to Oakland and urban areas from Atlanta to Baltimore (Thompson, 2014, p. 1).
Local crime prevention in the United States can be described as a chaotic network of two components- public and private police forces. At the turn of the 20th century, “public-private” police collaborations have included investigatory work, data sharing, and collaborative restoration work. A number of business entities, from recreational and leisure facilities to schools and residential communities have come to depend on private sector police forces to secure their businesses. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, private police organizations have increasingly enlarged their participation in safeguarding society in a scope that is unprecedented in American history in the 1990s.
In the domestic and global front, allegations of infringements of violation of civil rights and human liberties have abounded with regards to actions of private police forces. For example the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq engaged the services of private police forces. In 2008, the US government charged 5 security personnel connected with the Blackwater security agency for the deaths of 14 civilians in Iraq. In the United States, private securities forces in Harvard and at Yale accused of “racial profiling” have also denied “Freedom of Information” requests for personnel data, stating that public reporting are not applicatory to “private” agencies (Enion, 2009. p. 523).
This conduct of private police forces is well chronicled in American history. The Pinkertons were at one time the biggest and oldest private security force. Since the agency was paid by the hiring party, these were beholden to protect the interests of the employer and not that of the wider public. With this operating philosophy, the agency was soon condemned by the American public and much more by impoverished citizens. With the conduct of Pinkerton elements in abusing their liberties, the 1893 Pinkerton Act was adopted. The law placed limits on the parties that can engage the services of these private police forces, and the conduct that the agency can do when their services are engaged.
Regrettably, even though the law is in effect, and the damning evidence of countless negative information on the use of private police forces to patrol public areas is a flawed policy decision, the average American has raised not even a whimper when the use of private police forces will only ensure that well-off Americans will be guaranteed protection to the detriment of poorer Americans (Thompson, 2014, p. 1).
Engaging the services of private police and security forces can be considered as a “two-edged sword,” both beneficial and detrimental. The American fundamental law and the Bill of Rights as well as the 14th Amendment are geared to constrain the Federal and state government’s appropriation of force. Nevertheless, following the observations of the US Supreme Court, the amendments are only designed to solely restrict state action as to the “public supply of force.” Withal, as seen in American history as well as in these present times, many jurisdictions have opted to use a combination of public as well as private entities to maintain law and order as well as secure the peace in many communities. This principle of state action, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, insufficiently guides research activities on the combination of private and public police (Enion, 2009. p. 523).
However, those that are concerned on the rising powers allocated to public police in the “War on Terror” are probably guilty of ignoring a similar but equally significant entity. On an increasing pace, private police forces are regarded as the initial line of defense against extremist threats in the United States. However, not much information can be gathered about private police forces, yet this entity is considered as the biggest provider of security and police services in the US that is least three times the size of the public police force.
More significantly, the tasks, actions, and even the imagery that is associated with private and public police forces are slowly becoming indistinguishable. This situation has largely went unnoticed; what is at issue here is that the law ultimately sets a clear line of distinction that must be set between public and private police and security forces.
In this light, this can be interpreted as the private police forces being largely free to go about their tasks sans the burden of constitutional law and by local and state government regulations. Though the law is still churning out distinctions to distinguish private from public police agencies and elements, the two basically carry out similar actions majority of the time, and private security forces gain from extensive public sector participation.
In the recent past, the private security establishment outstripped public police organizations with regards to police personnel and in capital outlays. At present, both of these entities are the primary providers for services with regards to crime restraint activities and security maintenance. Private police are commonly seen patrolling leisure and shopping facilities, “gated communities,” and public thoroughfares. What is more noteworthy is that with regards to conduct, there are no distinguishable traits that can separate the two. Many of the responsibilities and task commonly given to the public police force-detaining suspects, directing searches, evaluating crime scenes, and preserving order in an certain setting (Joh, 2004, p. 50).
Though private and public police forces share a number of goals and objectives, this wide ranging declaration must be clarified. Private police forces center their efforts on eliminating security and criminal threats that can adversely impact the property that these are guarding; this is the primary thrust of private police forces. These thrusts are mainly centered on the prevention of crimes against property, inclusive of “petty theft,” property defacement, and civil disturbance control, but not on other police responsibilities.
In this light, it can be deduced that private police agencies, as with similar private, for profit police entities, will allow types of criminal malfeasance and will be allowed up to a certain degree; if the action will prove to be too expensive or adverse to a client’s interest, then these entities may opt not to intervene (Joh, 2004, p. 89).
It can be stated that throughout the history of the United States and that of the United Kingdom, the contrast of private and public policing has largely been befogged. The long held English governance principle has argued that the state, as the sovereign, is obligated to maintain law and order in the society. The sovereign maintains a monopoly on the disbursement of power and the use of force. Private police entities will be viewed as hirelings, eager to comply with their client’s wishes detached from societal needs and demands for security (Enion, 2004, p. 533).

References

Australian Institute of Police Management (n.d.). Public-private policing. Retrieved 6 February 2015 from <http://www.aipm.gov.au/news/public-private-policing-exploring-new-security-frontiers/
Community Oriented Policing Services (n.d.). Private security and public law enforcement. Retrieved 6 February 2015 from <http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2034
Enion, M. (2009). Constitutional limits on private policing and the state’s allocation of force. Duke Law Journal Volume 59 pp. 519-553
Joh, E.E. (2004). The paradox of private policing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 95 Issue 1 pp. 49-132
Thompson, H. (2014). Rescuing America’s inner cities? Detroit and the perils of private policing. Retrieved 6 February 2015 from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-ann-thompson/rescuing-americas-inner-c_b_5526012.html
Inner State Security Agency (2014). Public policing vs. private security. Retrieved 6 February 2015 from <http://www.interstatesecuritycorp.com/private-security-2016/