In her taxonomy, Joh (2005) describes private policing as law enforcement activities offered through agencies owned and controlled by private individuals. That said, unlike their public counterparts, private police officers concentrate on property loss, preventive techniques, private justice, and safeguarding personal interests. As such, these entities mainly operate as parallel entities, each focusing on their individual duties in law enforcement. This taxonomy is both useful and an excellent beginning in the categorization of various forms of private policing as explained below.
On the one hand, some of the existing classifications include publicly contracted, protective, intelligence, and corporate security agencies. Such emergent groupings would further relate to the need and scope of duty linked to various private policing services. For instance, one would question the extent to which private security agencies have garnered sufficient confidence from members of the public and the government to provide security services. In the US, we could look at how far private prisons can go in the protection and respect of individual prisoner rights as mandated by the constitution (Joh, 2005).
Contrarily, in further response to Joh (2005)’s perspective, Gottesdiener (2014) introduces a similar outlook of Brown’s Threat Management Company and public policing in the City of Detroit. From this analysis, one would see the clear parallels drawn between private and public security agencies. Indeed, unlike their federal counterparts, Mr. Brown’s organization, Threat Management Company, has been efficient in its policing services to Detroit’s affluent neighborhoods to combat blue and white collar crime. Their presence in this community is an example of the many forms of private police agencies available for contractual purposes. Therefore, they could easily fall under either publicly contracted or intelligence gathering private policing, depending on the contractor.
There exist three main types of accuracies that present themselves in Joh (2005)’s taxonomy on private policing. First, some agencies may work together in the provision of additional services to meet the security needs of areas that fall under their jurisdictions. Joh (2005) asserts that federal law directs institutions of higher learning to report various forms of crime that occur on their respective campuses.
Such times exist when organizational objectives are either multidimensional or at conflict. Given this instance, organizations often use their internal security agencies for investigation and conflict resolution. They may, however, turn to their public peers when dealing with crimes that do not fall under their jurisdiction. From this text, it is accurate to note that private policing would be helpful for investigation purposes in readiness for prosecution.
Also, it is correct that private agencies can have better material resources than their public counterparts. Joh (2005) notes that companies can only meet their security objectives if they have access to adequate resources for successful task completion. That said, and as seen in most cases, private police officers to have better material resources and technologies than their public counterparts. Such endowments allow them to create more efficient networks for carrying out their duties. However, Joh (2005) fails to recognize the fact that some police departments have been exceptionally active with their community policing strategies. NYPD, for instance, relies on such approaches to creating efficient personal networks required to preventive policing.
Finally, it would be accurate to state that unlike private police officers, public security agencies have additional legal powers to deal with security issues. This ability further implies that while private security agencies have limited goals, depending on the contractor, their public counterparts take on a more robust approach in their legal jurisdiction. Joh (2005) accurately observes that most private police agencies lack the legal mandate to search, arrest, interrogate, and detain suspects. The reason here is that governments and city officials prioritize the protection of the public as opposed to private interest. This approach means that they have the ability to make arrests and investigate suspects for further legal measures.
Joh (2005)’s model offers little or no account on the idea that there is a rise in the utilization of technologies to “police the police” in both private and public agencies. Her taxonomy, therefore, could benefit in applying the extent to while live Facebook social media streams, as well as dashboard and body cams, have been used to monitor police officers. For instance, on September 25, 2016, CNN’s Valencia, Hanna, and Almasy reported on the video footage, which Charlotte PD released following the dramatic shooting of Keith Lamont Scott. In this clip, the two officers surround and shoot a seemingly unarmed Lamont (Valencia, Hanna, & Almasy, 2016). The footage, captured by a dashboard camera is an example of how technologies have become commonplace in policing.
This move is increasingly popular in controversial policing cases that involve vulnerable population, as see in Lamont’s shooting. Contrarily, she could further look at the extent to which police officers regard such equipment as intrusive to their employment rights. She needs to consider the fact that security officers have the ability to develop and maintain an accountable approach during service delivery (Joh, 2005).
Digitals technologies such as GPS and RFIDs have successfully destabilized the territorial enclosure of traditional policing. Joh (2005) suggests that traditional policing sees value in knowing the places and individuals that fall under their jurisdictions. Such processes offer officers a detailed, yet geographically limited understanding, of the security issues affecting these neighborhoods. The idea here is that policing resources that acknowledge and follow the rules of territorial enclosures provide organized means of security maintenance.
However, there is a significant territorial destabilization when it comes to the use of GPS and RFID reader technologies. Ideally, such technologies overlook territorial elements, instead of following crime for enhanced accountability and efficiency. That said, it follows that GPS and RFIDs have the ability to track security elements considered outside traditional areas. In essence, they have an active role of practicing problem-related policing. Here, they emphasize the utilization of tracking and analytics to tackle crime. Finally, policing strategies are now moving towards hot spot policing through the identification and reduction of the offense in targeted geographical areas based on crime concentration.
For instance, using GPS technologies, security agencies from both fronts have the ability to locate and determining the fastest routes to crimes. They would record locations during investigations, before mapping them to determine areas that require additional law enforcement strategies. GPS technologies are also useful for the identification of emerging crime trends, as seen in the war against domestic and international terrorism. This capability remains vital in the development of plans for staffing and assignment requirements (Police Executive Research Forum, 2014).
Yes. I support the idea that policing has moved from the mere categorization of private versus public policing to finding effective means of combating crime. The primary drive to this new approach has been the need to move from post-crime to pre-crime policing. Now, pre-crime policing follows the predictive security approach that uses mathematical and analytical strategies to identify and solve a crime. The model includes crime prediction, offender prediction, perpetrator identification, and victim prediction methodologies.
Pre-crime policing includes both private and public police officers in security issues. According to Zedner (2007), it ensures that both offer a revolutionary approach to the safety as a way of stopping crime in its incubation stages. Pre-crime initiatives, however, do not predict future crimes. Instead, they focus on locations and individuals at risk of the offense. In the US, the most common pre-crime strategies have emphasized on elements aimed at developing significant relationships between police officers and their communities (Zedner, 2007).
The RAND’s Perry, McInnis, Price, Smith, and Hollywood (2013) assert the interest in pre-crime policing considers the need for efficient and proactive policing. The preference follows the idea that predictive policing has a significant reaction to criminal activities. Pre-crime strategies can predict the likelihood of crime commission, individuals responsible for crimes, and the victims.
That said, various cities within the US have moved from the private versus public debates and concentrated on pre-crime policing. For instance, the LAPD found that predictive policing was twice as much accurate as private and public policing strategies. Also, the Santa Cruz PD implemented pre-crime strategies, a move that led to a 19 percent reduction in burglaries.
Yes. I agree with Zedner (2007)’s view that predictive policing is superior to traditional policing concerning security enhancement. Perry et al. (2013) describe predictive policing as an application of quantitative statistics in the identification and mitigation of potential crime. The applications identify targeted approaches deemed efficient for intervention and crime prevention through past crime analysis. That said, predictive policing moves both private and public police officers towards proactive policing given limited resources.
The objective here is to establish effective steps through which they can mitigate crime as well as manage critical investigation efforts. However, police departments that use this technique acknowledge the fact that they need to have accurate data for tangible outcomes. Such information acts as an effective reference guide for security agencies interested in using evidence-based assessments. This historical data, therefore, is at the center of identifying predictive policing as a proactive security measure. This information has been vital in finding some of the ways through with security agencies can rely on predictive policing to solve crime (Zedner, 2013).
That said, predictive policing is far more compelling and enjoyable at safety than conventional policing based on four elements, discussed as follows. First, unlike traditional policing, predictive policing involves methods ideal for crime prediction. These methods concentrate on locations and times deemed most risky for crime commission.
Second, pre-crime policing also considers potential offenders. Here, the approaches identify people considered at risk of crime commission. Third, predictive policing idealizes perpetrator identification. Given this capability, predictive policing creates profiles for accurate offender matching with past crimes. Finally, predictive policing has been efficient in forecasting crime victims. This ability focus on groups, organizations, and people at most risk of becoming victims of a said crime (Perry, et al., 2013).
Joh (2004)’s take of Brooklyn’s BID suggests that surveillance technologies have been essential in policing. This move agrees with Zedner (2007)’s perspective on predictive policing. Essentially, as Joh (2004) suggests, policing is increasingly depending on surveillance to record and manage information on crime. This element concentrates on the extent to which individuals can commit and fall victim to a crime, in that order. The continuous gathering of information offers a vital role in the reduction of crime.
That said, it is essential to point out that Zedner has been critical in addressing the need for pre-crime prevention. For instance, Zedner (2007) accurately points out that pre-crime is exceptionally useful in arriving at the appropriate solution to crime. Here, cops are now concerned about the speed considered to prevent crime as opposed to arresting perpetrators in post-crime conditions. In essence, predictive policing has been a successful venture for cities aimed at practicing pre-crime rather than post-crime strategies.
However, predictive policing would not work in cities that partially use surveillance as seen in Detroit City. Insight on Gottesdiener (2014) suggests that predictive policing is only useful in areas that cover and recognize their importance. Brown’s policing department only uses predictive policing to take care of the security requirements that affect his clients. However, the agency leaves other parts of Detroit vulnerable to both blue and white collar criminal activities. Given this element, one can conclude that predictive policing through surveillance is only effective through a uniform application.
Gottesdiener, L. (2014). This Is the Part of Detroit That Most People Are Not Aware Of. Retrieved from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/how-bad-are-things-detroit-even-police-protection-getting-privatized
Joh, E. (2004). The Paradox of Private Policing. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95 (1), 49-132.
Joh, E. (2005). Conceptualizing the Private Police. Utah Law Review, 2, 573-618.
Perry, W., Mclnnis, B., Price, C., Smith, S., & Hollywood, J. (2013). Predictive Policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.
Police Executive Research Forum. (2014). Future Trends in Policing. Washington. DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Valencia, N., Hanna, J., & Almasy, S. (2016, Sep 25). Charlotte shooting: Police release video and photo evidence. Retrieved from CNN News : http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/24/us/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-shooting-video/
Zedner, L. (2007). Pre-Crime and Post-Criminology. Journal of Theoratical Criminology, 11 (2), 261-281.