Conflict Between Private Security and Governance

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

A lack of mutual respect between law enforcement and private security has been established. Much of this is attributable to the perceived law enforcement differential status — the police attach a higher level or degree of status to the role of law enforcement than to private security (Raines, 2006). Therefore, mutual disrespect is nurtured by the existence of mutual negative stereotyping which reinforces itself and is rooted in misinformation, mistrust, distrust and prejudice. Police officers find themselves to be ‘professionals’ because they have been rigorously screened for jobs in a competitive process; have usually completed a minimum of one hundred hours of training required; have chosen law enforcement as a career; have subscribed to a detailed code of ethics; have to adhere to a strict disciplinary system; and have constantly updated and developed their skills (Avant, 2005).

Lack of Communication

The status differential assigned to respective roles of private security and law enforcement by some law enforcement personnel creates major problems ineffective communications. Expense research on the relationship between status and communication suggests that communication is normally aimed at those persons who are considered to have equal status or higher status; and when confusion is expressed regarding equality of status, communication appears to be avoided (Sarre & Prenzler, 2000). Because many law enforcement personnel believe that they have a higher level of respect than personal security and that the role of private security in crime prevention is not adequately understood, there will be a propensity to discourage contact with private security staff (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2010). But the intensity of feelings expressed by private security and the ambiguity of their relationship with law enforcement discussed in other conflict areas in this document. Private security, as a perceived higher status category, could be expected to communicate freely with police forces, indicating confusion as to the extent of law enforcement (Ross, 1993). Private security thus seeks to avoid contact with law enforcement staff; collaboration cannot be enforced without effective communication.

Lack of Cooperation

The data available indicate a lack of structured processes to promote cooperation, but demonstrates a desire on the part of both law enforcement and private security to increase their level of cooperation and to develop more organized methods of cooperation (Broadhurst, 2006). Law enforcement challenges the motivations and honesty of private security staff as they comply with the desires and practices of corporate and corporation for the private implementation of criminal acts. When police assistance is requested, they do so often reluctantly, with a minimum level of cooperation, and with the underlying feeling that their investigation will not result in any prosecution (Fijnaut & Huberts, 2002). Private security also cites another area of lack of cooperation as an insufficient response to burglar and hold-up alarms by law enforcement. Nonetheless, law enforcement complains about the drain on police patrol units responding to frequent false alarms and reports several fatal incidents where patrol officers and warning operators have experienced serious traffic and other injuries in responding to false alarms in emergencies. Private security shares law enforcement’s concern with false alarms, but believes law enforcement is cultivating a sense of complacency that results in low priority being put on alarm responses. Private security has a propensity on the part of law enforcement to view any warning as a false alarm in which no intruder is identified or there is no physical evidence of a break-in (Albert, 1978).

Lack of Law Enforcement Knowledge of Private Security

It is evident from a wide range of sources that law enforcement misinterprets the role of private security; has difficulty accepting restrictions on the protection and reduction of private-sector assets; has restricted exposure to a wide range of private-security products, services and organizations; and develops negative private-security stereotypes that are reinforced by limited security (Gambetta, 1996). Private security executives attribute many of these issues to the fact that law enforcement staff receive most of their training in statutory laws, law enforcement, criminal and procedural law, criminal investigation, patrol techniques, field interrogation, traffic law, accident investigation, and community relations: law enforcement staff have crime prevention cited as part of their role of defence. Less than 10 per cent of law enforcement agencies included any private security information in their training programs in the Private Security Task Force survey. Lack of private security material in training curricula and the emphasis on crime prevention gives law enforcement a limited perspective on crime control tactics and technique As noted earlier, crime prevention seminars and institutes provide training for law enforcement personnel in crime prevention planning and techniques but the dissemination of this knowledge throughout the law enforcement agency depends on the agency’s commitment to crime prevention (Reaves, 2009).

Perceived Competition

Similarly, private security sees law enforcement as competing with them in providing security to private interests and concerns (Stenning, 2000). This competition is more prevalent in the private safety practice of moonlighting law enforcement personnel. Law enforcement staff take work outside as security guards, shop detectives, armed couriers, and private detectives. Law enforcement personnel have in some cases created their private security firms. Private security strongly objects to law enforcement by its uniforms or equipment to accept individual owners or merchants ‘ private security jobs and considers private security enforcement moonlighting unfair competition (De Waard, 1999).

Lack of Standards

One of the recurring issues in the discussion of the previous conflict between law enforcement and private security is that in their approach to the protection activities law enforcement considers itself as a ‘professional’ organization and views many aspects of private security as non-professional (Elms & Philips, 2009). Law enforcement believes that the level of private security workers will not be significantly improved unless there are minimum standards of professionalism that are accepted and enforced nationally. In its ASIS membership survey, the Task Force for Private Security discovered the need for a’ set of privacy standards’ for 87% of these Private Security managers (Nalla, 2001).

Perceived Corruption

All law enforcement and private security consider wrongdoing on the other hand and this in many cases restrict collaboration to personal relationships. Two kinds of corruption have been reported affecting both authorities and private security, but their pervasiveness could not be assessed. Payoffs, bribes, kickbacks, and security and extortion schemes are the most prevalent form of corruption (Sarre & Prenzler, 2000). They are an inducement to enable crime, encourage collusion, overlook testimony or evidence, and refuse to retain the property, overlook violations of criminal law, obtain private security licenses and influence private-security regulatory activities.

References

Raines, J. (2006). Ethics, integrity and police misconduct: Analyzing ethical awareness, standards and action of law enforcement officers in the United States. Integrity and Police Misconduct: Analyzing Ethical Awareness, Standards and Action of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States.
Avant, D. (2005). Private security companies. New Political Economy, 10(1), 121-131.
Cunningham, W. C., & Taylor, T. H. (1985). Crime and Protection in America a Study of Private Security and Law Enforcement Resources and Relationships: Executive Summary (Vol. 86, No. 12). US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Sarre, R., & Prenzler, T. (2000). The relationship between police and private security: Models and future directions. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 24(1), 91-113.
Ross, M. H. (1993). The management of conflict: Interpretations and interests in comparative perspective. Yale University Press.
Abrahamsen, R., & Williams, M. C. (2010). Security beyond the state: Private security in international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Broadhurst, R. (2006). Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber‐crime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management.
Fijnaut, C., & Huberts, L. W. (Eds.). (2002). Corruption, integrity, and law enforcement (p. 3). Dordrecht: Kluwer law international.
Albert, K. (1978). The police and their image: a comparative study of the American and Cape Town policeman (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town).
Gambetta, D. (1996). The Sicilian Mafia: the business of private protection. Harvard University Press.
Reaves, B. A. (2009). State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies (2006). Diane Publishing.
Stenning, P. C. (2000). Powers and accountability of private police. European journal on criminal policy and research, 8(3), 325-352.
De Waard, J. (1999). The private security industry in international perspective. European journal on criminal policy and research, 7(2), 143-174.
Elms, H., & Phillips, R. A. (2009). Private security companies and institutional legitimacy: Corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 403-432.
Nalla, M. K. (2001). Designing an introductory survey course in private security. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12(1), 35-52.
Sarre, R., & Prenzler, T. (2000). The relationship between police and private security: Models and future directions. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 24(1), 91-113.

Click Here To Order Now!