Differences and Similarities between Public Policing and Private Security
Law enforcement officers in the public sector have the duty of ensuring that society is as crime-free as possible. Their training is from taxpayers’ money. Public police officers are expected to serve all people, irrespective of their location, culture, religious affiliations, race, and nationality, as long as they fall within their jurisdiction (ASIS International, 2014). On the other hand, private security is made up of guards who are hired by citizens, organizations, and businesses to offer protection to apartment buildings, workplaces, malls, gated communities, and in some instances, to break strikes. Their funding does not emanate from public coffers. Hence, they are not accountable to society.
For this reason, they cannot bear the blame for not responding to an incident of a crime if the affected entities have not subscribed to their services. Rather, they are accountable to their employer and/or anyone who pays them for their services.
This situation limits their role in society as a whole to specific cases. Private security guards are not allowed to make arrests. Their function mainly revolves around deterring criminal activities through their presence. Therefore, they are required to report cases that need arrests to the police department. On their part, public police officers have the authority to arrest criminals and/or book them for further questioning and imminent prosecution where necessary.
However, it is crucial to note that private security and public policing share similar goals. Private and public security officers have a duty of offering protection to certain entities. While private security officers focus their efforts on specific entities that have subscribed to their services, public officers also offer the same kind of protection, although on a wider scale where they incorporate more persons and entities, irrespective of whether they have subscribed to them or not. In addition, they require one to undergo some form of training before he or she is allowed to offer the services (ASIS International, 2014). Law enforcement officers are trained in police academies while private guards receive their training mainly from the various private security firms that are available in the market.
Variation of Leadership between Private Security and Public Policing Roles
Leadership in the private security sector and public policing varies significantly. In the private sector, people who are tasked with leading a security firm’s activities are selected through various processes that are predetermined by the relevant firms. Such processes are set as standard procedures in their recruitment policies. They may or may not be experts in security affairs. It is upon the management of the boards of the various firms to choose the kind of formula to use in determining the leadership of the respective firms. The management departments of the respective private security companies determine the roles and positions of their officers.
These staff people are expected to maintain their functions within the requirements of their respective company policies. Any issues that fall outside these specific requirements are considered not being part of their job description.
On the other hand, leadership in the public sector varies from what is seen in the private sector. Leaders who run the activities of the public police departments draw their powers from the provisions of laws that determine the extent of their operations. The law requires that such persons should have the necessary qualification in areas that relate to criminology. Staff members who are bestowed with the duty of selecting new officers in this sector demand a certain degree of experience from the recruits in terms of handling crime-related activities, preferably from the public sector. Their roles are broad since they cover a wide range of aspects and entities.
They are expected to handle all matters relating to criminal activities within their jurisdiction. Their roles seem to cover even the responsibilities of leaders in the private security business. They are accountable to society. As such, they have to respond to issues that are raised by the public concerning their security. This observation is unlike the case in the private sector where leaders are only answerable to their clients who have subscribed and paid for their services. This disparity saves them from any responsibilities concerning crime-related activities that happen in their backyard since such incidents are not covered by any of their contractual agreements. Such leaders have the role of educating their employees on their duties and responsibilities.
How the Criminal Justice System relates with Public Policing and Private Security Roles
The roles of both public policing and private security fall within the functions of the criminal justice system. As such, their roles are linked to the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system requires both private security and public policing to perform its mandates in ensuring a near crime-free society. It is composed of a given set of processes and agencies that have been put in place by the government to assist in controlling crime and/or imposing penalties on persons or entities that tend to violate laws.
One of the roles of both public policing and private security that relates to the criminal justice system is the deterrence of criminal activities. The criminal justice system requires security apparatus to avail any evidence that may help prosecute perpetrators of crime to the authorities. Such security gadgets usually gather evidence regarding various criminal activities that have been witnessed and/or solve in society. Leaders of this security machinery usually analyze such evidence to provide their expert opinion concerning the admissibility of such substantiation in court. Hence, they serve to fulfill the role of law courts in determining the tolerability of such cases.
Another point to consider while analyzing the relationship between the criminal justice system and the roles of the private and public security apparatus are the similarity that characterizes them. The security equipment helps in implanting the goals of the government and other private entities in improving security, a function that is also performed by the criminal justice system. However, it is worth noting that public policing also falls within the criminal justice system as one of its sections while private security is an independent entity that serves to complement the activities of public policing and the criminal justice system in general.
Essential Policies
For private security to deliver its mandates, several essential policies must guide their operations to ensure that their activities achieve the intended objectives while at the same time taking into account the requirements of the law (American Planning Association, 2005). One of the guiding principles is the comprehension of the basic duties of a security guard. The duties revolve around the protection of assets, citizens, and information.
A security guard should prevent, detect, and react appropriately to crimes that are being committed against the entity of his or her client. The guard should also offer direction and leadership during emergencies whilst assisting the emergency personnel whenever necessary. Although some contexts may call for physical intervention, a vast majority of their duties require them to observe, record, deter, and/or report any criminal deeds.
The second guiding principle for private security involves access control policies. Such policies seem to vary from one firm to the next. It may be a requirement for guards to monitor and keep a record of every person who enters or exits a given site. Further, other policies may cover issues of crowd control and relevant procedures that have to be adhered to while controlling such crowds among others.
Other essential policies relate to the role played by public policing. The first one is the ‘acceptable use policy’, which stipulates the kind of activities that are allowable on the company’s premises or while using the company’s resources. The second policy is the privacy policy. The third one, which concerns passwords, is known as the secret code rule that aims at promoting better password security. Another policy in the public policing role is the destruction and disposal policy.
Other policies include the incident response policy, storage, and retention policy, management change policy, human resource policy, and firewall and classification policy among others. The existence of these policies helps to ensure that police officers cover all aspects of their jobs without leaving room for complaints from the public (American Planning Association, 2005).
Importance of a Comprehensive Security Plan and its Components
A comprehensive security plan helps a company to analyze the threats that it faces to come up with the best ways of approaching them. A firm that has a comprehensive security plan is usually in a better position to devise strategies and plans that can aid in minimizing the probability of occurrence of threats whilst availing suitable ways of dealing with them. The presence of a comprehensive security plan clearly outlines persons who are responsible for the maintenance of security to ensure that they perform their duties diligently knowing very well that they will be held responsible for their actions.
This plan helps to improve the security situation of a company or any other entity for which the plan is meant. Further, the plan helps in the identification of security policies that support its goals and objectives. A comprehensive security framework enables an entity to identify security control frameworks that apply to a company’s specific needs.
A security plan has several basic components. The first is the scope of the plan that gives a clear description of what the project intends to cover. The second part of the plan is an assessment of the security to explore the status quo concerning security. The assessment should reveal what one needs to defend since this strategy will assist in determining any threats that the entity needs to defend, and hence the third component of the security plan.
For each identified threat, the next step is the determination of the risk with a specific focus on the likelihood of the threats occurring and their impact on the organization or entity of concern. Another component of the security plan is a prioritization of risks. Identification of actions that need to be taken should be done in addition to when such actions are to be taken. This step is followed by the assignment of responsibilities to different individuals to perform the various tasks. A regular update of the plan is also an essential component of a security plan.
Reference List
American Planning Association. (2005). Policy Guide on Security. Web.
ASIS International. (2014). Executive Protection-November 2014. Web.