Private Policing

Mark Button

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351240758
• Edición: 2
• Categoría: Jura
• Categoría: Strafverfahren

The second edition of Private Policing details the substantial involvement of private agents and organisations involved in policing beyond the public police. It develops a taxonomy of policing and explores in depth each of the main categories, examining the degree of privateness, amongst several other issues. The main categories include the public police; hybrid policing such as state policing bodies, specialised police forces and non-governmental organisations; voluntary policing; and the private security industry.

This book explores how the public police and many other state bodies have significant degrees of privateness, from outright privatisation through to the serving of private interests. The book provides a theoretical framework for private policing, building upon the growing base of scholarship in this area. Fully revised, this new edition not only brings the old edition up to date with the substantial scholarship since 2002, but also provides more international context and several new chapters on: corporate security management, security officers, and private investigation. There is also a consideration of what the book calls the 'new private security industry' working largely in cyber-space.

Bringing together research from a wide range of projects the author has been involved with, along with the growing body of private policing scholarship, the book shows the substantial involvement of non-public police bodies in policing and highlights a wide range of issues for debate and further research. Private Policing is ideal reading for students of policing and security courses, academics with an interest in private policing and security, and practitioners from security and policing.

1

WHAT IS PRIVATE POLICING?

In this chapter a detailed exploration of what is meant by ‘private policing’ will be undertaken. The chapter will deconstruct what is meant by both the terms ‘policing’ and ‘private’, drawing out the key traits. In doing so some related concepts such as security, regulation and social control will be considered. It will then examine some of the previous attempts at classifying policing, before setting out the classification that will be utilised for this book.

What is policing?

It is important to define what is meant by ‘policing’ as it is a term that is often misunderstood. Policing is often seen as little more than what the police do. Indeed it is common to find many books and articles on policing dedicated solely to the public police. It is, however, only relatively recently that the association of the word police with policing began to be used. Before the mid-eighteenth century, policing encompassed a much broader concept of the regulation of government and the morals or economy of society (Johnston, 1992). It was only after the mid-eighteenth century that the word ‘police’ begin to be associated with the maintenance of order and crime prevention. It was only natural then to define the ‘police’ as the body of men and women which had recently formed to undertake these functions (Johnston, 1992). A problem that has emerged as a consequence is the assumption that solely ‘the police’ undertake policing. It is important that these terms are differentiated because there are many other organisations engaged in this process. ‘The police’ refers to a particular organisation while ‘policing’ refers to a social process of which the former and other phenomena are a part (Reiner, 1994). It has indeed been argued that the vast bulk of policing is carried out by people and organisations other than the police (Rawlings, 1995).

Although there is a debate over defining the police (to which the chapter will return later), it is relatively easy to conceptualise in comparison to policing (Brodeur, 2010; Reiner, 1994). They are the body of men and women employed by the state who patrol the streets, deal with crime, ensure order and undertake a range of other social service type functions (Reiner, 1994). Policing, however, is much more difficult to define. It is essentially a function of society that contributes to a particular social order and which is carried out by a variety of different bodies and agents. It must also be distinguished from two other related concepts: regulating and social control. The latter, which consists of virtually everything that contributes to social order, is thus a much more general concept (Reiner, 1994). It could range from the role of parents, schools, youth clubs and media through to public execution. It should also be noted that there is a long academic debate on what constitutes social control, which it is not possible to discuss in any depth here (see Cohen and Scull, 1983). Cohen (1985), for instance, has criticised the broad basis given to social control as turning it into a ‘Mickey Mouse’ concept. He has sought to address this amorphousness by restricting it to the organised ways in which society aims to produce a particular social order. Cohen (1985, p 3) defines social control as ‘those organised responses to crime, delinquency, and allied forms of deviant and/or socially problematic behaviour which are actually conceived of as such’. It is clear, however, that the police and many of the other bodies involved are part of the apparatus of social control. This gives a clue to the essence of policing as it must be a specific aspect of social control.

Regulation is another related concept. The essence of regulation is the control of an activity by systems of rules backed by sanctions. Francis (1993, p 5) has defined regulation as ‘state intervention in private spheres of activity to realise public purposes’. The police engage in regulation, as do many other public and private bodies (Levi, 1987; Gurinskaya and Nalla, 2018). For instance, many governments regulate industries, such as by setting rules around pollution with structures to enforce those standards and a variety of potential sanctions for their breach. The sanctions may encompass criminal options too. Does this therefore mean that regulation dovetails with policing? The answer is ‘partly’, and this section will return to this shortly. Before doing this it is important to return to the central question of what is policing?

Reiner (1994) argues that the essence of policing is those activities aimed at ensuring the security of a particular social order. This distinguishes policing from social control, in that the latter encompasses all those processes and activities that are aimed at producing a particular social order. Policing is an aspect of social control encompassing systems of surveillance combined with the threat of sanctions for the breach of a particular order with the ultimate aim of maintaining the security of that particular order. Reiner defines policing as:

an aspect of social control processes which occurs universally in all social situations in which there is at least the potential for conflict, deviance, or disorder. It involves surveillance to discover actual or anticipated breaches, and the threat or mobilization of sanctions to ensure the security of the social order. The order in question may be based upon consensus, or conflict and oppression, or an ambiguous amalgam of the two, which is usually the case in modern societies.

(1994, p 722)

There is still, however, a wide scope to policing. Consider a school with a set of rules on what school uniform should be worn. Would the teachers enforcing such rules be considered agents of policing? To do so for such behaviours would seem to make policing so wide as to be meaningless. However, if those same teachers were dealing with a theft of a pupil’s mobile phone or a serious assault on a pupil – both potential crimes – one could make a case for them being involved in policing. This is where regulation becomes a useful concept to help distinguish policing. Before we return to it, when ‘breaches’ of a social order are being considered it is also essential to distinguish the basis upon which those breaches occur: for example, breaches of the rules of an organisation, civil torts or criminal acts.

Many organisations, households etc have rules – like the school uniform example above. Such rules are the focus of the organisation and would rarely involve a policing body, such as the police. There are also a wide variety of breaches of regulations and civil torts in society which are not classed as criminal acts. For example in many of the medical professions there are strict regulations prohibiting sexual relationships with patients, for which those breaching them can be struck off. The relationship may be consensual and breach no criminal law and would therefore only be of interest to the regulating bodies. However, such bodies might also deal with fraud perpetrated by a medical professional which could also be – and sometimes is – pursued by the police too (Button et al, 2018). The police also sometimes use non-criminal regulations in their work, such as in relation to money laundering, firearms licensing and liquor licensing. It is also important to note that many breaches of regulations are also criminal and that specialist regulators deal with those alone or in partnership with the police. For example, to act as a door supervisor without a valid licence is a criminal offence in the UK. The enforcement of this is undertaken by the regulator, the Security Industry Authority (SIA), sometimes with the police in support. There is also a variety of criminal acts which the police can claim a monopoly over, such as murders, rapes and serious assaults. What the discussion leads to is the importance of the foundation of the breaches. It is important to distinguish:

• criminal acts;

• civil torts;

• regulations; and

• rules (of organisations).

The breaches the police deal with are largely criminal acts, although they will also in the course of their work deal with others. For regulators it is largely breaches of regulations and civil torts, but sometimes criminal acts too. In this book policing is therefore distinguished as dealing predominantly with acts that could be considered criminal acts. Figure 1.1 seeks to capture these overlaps.

FIGURE 1.1 The policing, regulating and social control overlaps

It is also important to confront the common observation in the literature of the role of the police as keepers of the peace or maintainers of order and not solely crime fighters (Reiner, 2010). There is extensive research highlighting the importance of these activities. Such work involves preventing incidents from occurring or escalating into something more serious. It is important to note that the basis of such work is largely rooted in the prevention of criminal acts. When the police arrive to deal with two men arguing in the street and send them in separate directions it is to prevent serious assaults or worse occurring (criminal acts). Maintenance of order (related to criminal acts) is therefore a central function of policing. The list below draws out the central functions of policing:

• maintenance of order/keeping the peace;

• prevention of deviant acts;

• surveillance for deviant acts;

• investigation of deviant acts;

• application of sanctions and referral for sanction for breaches.

For policing these are largely rooted in criminal acts of deviance, but may involve others. For regulation these are largely rooted in regulations/civil torts, but may also involve criminal acts. The more of these functions undertaken by a body the more deeply it can be considered a policing body.

Thus in the familiar sense the state police deal with incidents (keeping the peace), conduct patrols (prevention and surveillance), undertake investigations (investigation) and apprehend offenders for breaches of the criminal law. Sometimes they may apply summary sanctions (penalty notices) or pass on those with sufficient evidence against them to prosecutors for criminal prosecution or other bodies for sanction (sanctions) (the extent of investigator/prosecutor separation/cooperation does vary across jurisdictions). Those found guilty by the courts are then subjected to punishments.

It is clear that there are many bodies engaged in these processes. Some citizens form vigilante groups to patrol streets and often apprehend offenders to initiate their own ‘justice’ or hand suspects over to the authorities (prevention, surveillance, investigation, sanctions). Many private security firms patrol areas dealing with incidents (keeping the peace, prevention, surveillance), conduct investigations (investigation) and pass on some of the offenders they find to the police for investigation with the hope of criminal prosecution and sanction (sanctions). There are also other public bodies – which would not be regarded as the police – engaged in these processes. In the United Kingdom the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), for instance, undertakes inspections of the workplace, investigates accidents and pursues criminal prosecutions in some cases (prevention, surveillance, investigation, sanctions). Policing can also be carried out by technology with little or no human intervention. Closed-circuit television (CCTV) is a good example where the presence of such cameras may deter deviant behaviour (prevention). Its recordings can also be used for investigating and prosecuting criminals. Speed cameras on roads detect speeding drivers and produce packages ready for prosecutions to be initiated (prevention, surveillance and sanctions). Many online retailers use automated systems which detect high-risk transactions. The data associated with such transactions (name, credit card number, address, telephone number, IP address etc) may then be marked as high-risk and shared with other retailers, resulting in greater difficulties in purchasing online when those attributes are used (prevention, surveillance, investigation and sanctions).

The definition of policing when deconstructed and applied to bodies and technologies begins to reveal significantly more than the state police and private security. There are other state bodies that investigate and initiate sanctions – including criminal – against those who breach regulations and laws in their sphere of activities – as the example of the HSE in the UK illustrates. There are non-state bodies that have evolved to police specific areas too. A good example is the policing of crimes against animals in many countries. In Australia, for example, the Royal Society for the Prevention Against Cruelty to Anima...