This literature review is on the topic of Private Investigator: Controversies & Opportunities of Plural Policing. This review will focus on several critical themes comparing and contrasting different author’s views on the issue, Identify key authors, findings & highlighting gaps in research.
The most influential idea is the concept of a Nodal Government of security developed by Shearing (Wood & Shearing 2007, Johnston & Shearing 2003). This theory presented as an alternative approach to the one-minded, dominant state-centred model of policing and what they call government security. This presented an analysis of policing and security as a complex of nodes within a number of relationships with various forms of dependencies. In other words different department, agencies and private organization will work together and co-operate. Shearer proposed that the nodal governance has two elements. Firstly, privatization of western welfare state provisions have increased the space for citizens which allows them to control the services provided. Secondly, it is based on the values of neoliberalism where policies, I.e. privatization and free trade will also reduce government spending allowing for example ‘the lower classes’ can purchase power and budgeted ownership. Furthermore, he argued that the main benefits will be the local governance who will develop mechanism for governing security that develops from their own knowledge & experiences rather than depending on imported & generalization expertise. This makes because local government would have a better understanding with better knowledge to combat potential problems in their area rather than a one centred state who may not understand or take time to develop the knowledge of the local state.
However and important factor Crawford (2003) argued was that security organization cannot be equated with the state and that they may have a negative impact more so than positive. This is important because in the eyes of the public they would rather have a professional body like the police who, are properly trained, experience, well equipped and available to the public at all times compared to security who are not. He furthered argued that the police always have the best interests of the public compared to private who are only interested in businesses opportunities and profits. Although, this theory does not fully explain any possible corruption that is evident in real life. One criticism on Crawford 2003 argument would be that, although he is right, he shows no evidence regarding corruption within the police, this could potentially be a biased view. It is known that although the police were built on the foundations of the public best interest, it is known that some do not and may abuse power.
Controversially Terpstra (2017) demonstrated that in Austria, there are no special legislation for the regulation of private security and showed that anybody can apply to be a security officer drawing to similar conclusions with Crawford (2003). The study of Fuchs (2005) confirmed that in Austria, there was no legal set of quality standards for private security. Private Security personnel can be permitted to a firearm with no experience, qualifications or proper training. These finding clearly backed up Crawford’s argument because it’s very risky to distribute policing powers across a wide range of private organization. One exemplary case study Terpstra (2017) showed was the Schattendorf incident resulted the deaths of protesters demonstrated the inability of private organization to handle such matters, this was due to their lack of training and inexperience. On the other hand, there is a gap in research here as these authors have provided biased views. New research needs to show successful & effectiveness and with private security in Austria and more countries. What we do know is that Austria has very weak laws with private security and new updated research must show if things have changed in terms of vetting, training and a proper selection process.
Similar to Austria, the study of Bonnet (2015) showed significant rise of private security in France, however his research was done in 2012 and there have been no new research regarding the rise, we can only hypothesized that the trend has increased. Bonnet et al showed that France had weak legislation covering private security. Controversially Kondje 2011 stated Under French law anybody with a clean record can start a private security business, this was further backed up by Ocqueteau (2013) showing that there was leniency regarding “criminal records” as some private organization had some form of previous history, this is a slippery slope as some may abuse power backing up Crawford and Terpstra views. What we do know is that researchers are concerned over the ability of private security positively contributing to policing. Bauvet 2010 diary study saw that private policing similar to Terpstra study, had poor training and were very low-skilled. This was again confirmed with further in the study Brajeux, Delbecque & Mathieu 2013 showing problems that private security lacked proper training, policing techniques with training skills. The key problem with this explanation is that he only viewed a few organizations giving no real case study, and only in one country, a better research would show a variety of countries and security organization.
The rise of private security have been the subject of intense debate. Bonnett, Maillard & Roche 2015 demonstrated crime and property are important driving factors of the rise of private security. He hypothesized that anti-social behaviour comes from a lower-class background which does not require a heavy handed approach by the police. However his methodology is targeted towards on class and not several, the key problem with this explanation is that it may apply to one place but not another. A Qualitative research as well as secondary date would have been more accurate over different areas and class. Bonnett 2006 showed that the heavy-handed approach by the police during a riot help shape the way for private security, they learnt that this approach perceived by management as a threat to business, as customers would associate this with disorder, consequently leading private security acting as mediators. This contradicts Terpstra Schattendorf incident however you can argue again that privates inability lead to death where as police did not. This is certainly true in the case of Terpstra & Stockholm 2015 comparative study showed it was unintended consequences which lead to pluralisation which is evident in Bonnett et al.
Bonnett 2006 is different from Cook 2010 in as number of respects. Bonnett noted that both private and police rely on two different styles of policing. Although private security maintain law and order they are more interested in protecting private property allowing businesses to focus on making profit, they are reluctant in helping policing matters. However Cook 2010 observed that private security are ready to provide their services to police in the public space in terms of residential patrols whereas an example by Noaks 2000 showed that there is little solid growth for private business to helping the police in resident patrols. Noaks also noted that it was also the public police who had a reserved attitude towards private which is contradicting Shearings nodal government theory. The main weakness with this theory is that it’s out of date and there have been no new research to support this.
England & Wales introduce Policing & Community Support Officer (PCSO) a second tier of policing with limited power who are considered civilians. Some Researchers have suggested that PSCOs are more effective than private security. The effectiveness of the PCSOs technique has been exemplified in a report by study of Cooper et al 2006 and Paskell 2007 observing how PSCOs handled petty crimes and anti-social behaviour, PCSOs differs from Private Security in a number of important ways, PCSOs are properly trained, they are vetted better and they have been given the appropriate equipment and does not abuse power as they have none. In Contrast to Bauvet 2010 and Brajeux et al 2013, PCSOs can work alongside police which are then given further appropriate training as well as experience giving them a higher success rate. One major drawback is that again, this could just show one successful organization or a good day where PCSOs do well, a better methodology would be to observe over a longer time period as situations can change, and see how well they can adapt to challenges. On the other hand perhaps the advantages of this method is that PCSOs unlike private security, they work a lot with the public and public patrolling. They will meet more of the locals and have a better knowledge of the people along with the area, as a result of this resident are more willingly to talk to PSCOs than police officers.
Research were typically conducted using quantitative, secondary data or case research. This is a subjective problem as it can be interpret wrongly, collected wrongly and out of date as seen in Kondje 2011. To have a better understand one must not only focus on why pluralisation happens, but the effectiveness and the successfulness, but also of both points of views. For example approaches such as field survey, focus group research especially on private investigator as there was little or no research on this. We must also have a better understand from both perspective. What is essential is that much effort is needed to integrate the current under equipped private sectors into a multi-agency working together. Front-line workers must have a better practical value of community confidence and intelligence.