Author : Vojtech Vohanka
INSIGHT
SIRS
Do you agree with Button’s claim that ‘the growing pluralisation or fragmentation of policing has challenged the public police’s claim to be the primary policing force’? (Button, 2002: 24) It is crucial that a distinction is made between the terms because various institutions other than the police are involved in the operation of policing. ‘Police’ refers to a specific body, while ‘policing’ refers to a social process of which the creator and other circumstances are a component. Reiner argues that by nature, policing represents those actions taken to maintain social order and that these actions are planned to accomplish these goals.
As society embraces increasing plurality in the provision of public services, it seems pertinent to ask whether the public police can still be considered ‘the primary policing force’ (Button, 2002). In recent times, we have seen the privatization and break-up of many nationalized industries and public bodies and this ‘fragmentation’ has also extended to law enforcement. I have divided the paper into four parts. The first part will provide definitions of what police, policing and the public police are and explain those terms in more depth. In addition, this section will clarify the meaning of ‘fragmentation’ and ‘pluralisation of policing’, as well as providing a broad overview of contemporary and ongoing changes in policing structure. The second part will focus on the pluralisation of policing as a trend, and the power and accountability of pluralised policing. Furthermore, this section will make reference to theoretical and practical studies of the fragmentation ‘phenomenon’. The third part will examine the public-private relationship in policing, partnerships of the police and policing with a wide range of organizations and status of the public police. Hence, this analysis will also contain two case studies representing mutual connections between various policing bodies and the five categories of collaboration between them. The final part will concentrate on the differences between public police and other policing bodies. In conclusion, the essay will bring together the main areas covered and give a final comment on the validity of Button’s statement.
Bottoms and Wiles (1994 as cited in Wakefield, 2003) recommended that in order to define policing, it is necessary to take account of recent changes and ongoing developments resulting from social change, and the feeling of insecurity that accompanies such change. From Button’s (2002) point of view, the police are the force engaged by the government who guard the streets, issue fines and penalties, ensure public safety and take charge of other welfare related work. By contrast, policing is basically a role of society, which helps to maintain a specific social order and is performed by different organisations and operatives. Flanagan (2008, as cited in Crawford, 2008) also notes that nowadays, the police are known as a group of various institutions with policing operations. Hence, policing is currently executed in cooperation with many local authorities. Furthermore, policing can be a project of experts hired by local or central state authorities with unique policing roles. Increasingly, photographic equipment and CCTV cameras can conduct policing. For this reason, I am able to recognize four fundamental factors of policing. The first is of a designed activity or a determined consideration. The second includes the responsible use of force or right to give orders by a person or institution. The third is targeted to standard of implementation, the encouragement of command or promises of security. The fourth concerns regulation now or hereafter (Crawford, 2008).
‘The police are a civil force responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and a civil maintenance of public order’ (Department of Criminology, 2012), in other words the state has a duty to provide security and protect citizens. Accordingly, the police administer patrols, investigate crimes, arrest criminals for offences against the law and refer them to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for legal actions in the case of adequate evidence. Those convicted by the courts are then exposed to sanctions (Button, 2002).
In reality, the private security industry now widely recruits more staff than the public police in the majority of all developed countries. Button argues that the pluralisation of policing is already greater than previously thought. In addition, it emphasizes that many public sector institutions are even now involved in policing functions. For this reason, fragmentation is not a recently discovered fact as previously discussed; moreover this process is likely to continue and become more prevalent in the future. There is certainly enough evidence of policing in the UK to bear out the importance of its fragmentation.
According to Reiner, policing is a function of law enforcement that takes place in all social settings where there is the possibility of violence, public disturbance or any contravention of the law that requires close observation to identify existing or anticipated risks (Department of Criminology, 2012). Reiner (1994 as cited in Button, 2002) also stated that in a relative manner, the expression ‘police’ is quite simple to specify in comparison with ‘policing’.
2
A further evaluation would demonstrate that fragmentation has been especially increasing in the last decade; it does not claim to be a current drift. Additionally, this fragmentation is due to the government scaling down its role in policing. This has led to increasing privatisation where national resources are on sale (Button, 2002).
understood in diverse ways as the generous consolidation of civil society and the state. Shearing and Stenning (1983 as cited in Wakefield, 2003: 44) provides another view: the police and private security companies are seen as participants inside a pluralist structure in which organisations work together and with the state ‘as separate and relatively autonomous agencies’.
The pluralist perspective emphasizes the fragmentation of authority: it is commercial firms and local communities instead of new state-centred federations that undertake the periods of rule. There is a fragmentation of power to a variety of small groups. There exists a critical transfer of control from the centre to incorporated bodies behind these innovations (Button, 2002). A significant factor in the pluralisation of policing has been the political trend towards combining social justice and economic growth, which has led to a greater connection between the nation, marketplace and ‘third sector’ of society. The impetus for this change comes both from inside and outside the country (Crawford, 2008). According to Flanagan (2008 as cited in Crawford, 2008), when security personnel are educated particularly to fulfil ‘policing’, they can be more efficient than a member of a police force coached in widespread abilities. This raises the question of whether it is appropriate to use public funds to employ police officers to perform duties that can be done better by others.
In order to support those opinions, I would like to include the following two case studies. Firstly, Jones and Newburn (1998 as cited in Wakefield, 2003) examined the partnerships among the different policing organizations working within the London Borough of Wandsworth. They discovered that the closest and best working relationships were between the Metropolitan Police, Parks Police and British Transport Police. They also determined that private security companies and other categories of policing were playing an increasing role in policing the borough in terms of the number of functions they performed. The majority of their actions were in some degree covered by the Metropolitan Police. Secondly, Johnston (2003 as cited in Wakefield, 2003) studied the working relationships among Community Wardens and the police. The plan was the outcome of a public-private co-operation between a local authority, the private security firm that provided the staff and the police who granted the wardens training. The wardens were tasked with informing the police of any relevant data on areas of high crime and anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood.
Bayley (1983 as cited in Jones, 2008) observed that the issue of pluralized policing raises a number of concerns and difficulties. Firstly, with regard to transparency, the increasing diversity of suppliers and policing authorities may obscure the work of the police, making them less accountable to the public. Secondly, with reference to effectivity, the complicated mixture of similar businesses and actions increases the risk of duplication and inefficiency, thus emphasizing the need for cooperation and productive interaction between policing bodies. Thirdly, with respect to fairness, pluralised provision may result in uneven distribution of policing, leading to inadequate services in some areas. Lastly, it is harder to bring fragmented policing provision in line with one governing system.
As stated by Button (2002), however the public police continue to be the pre-eminent policing body in this climate of diversity, distinguished by the fact that they are entirely funded by the taxpayer and therefore truly ‘public’. The 1993 white paper on police reform recognized four wide objectives for the police: to battle and stop crime, to support the law, to punish someone for a crime and to defend, assist and support the neighbourhood. The public police possibly continue to hold exclusive control in utilizing weapons (Button, 2002). Loader and Walker (2007 as cited in Crawford, 2008) recorded that in a qualitative manner, the public police stays separate from other categories of policing especially in its representative authority, duty assignment and regulative status. Authority is necessary in order for the police to carry out its duties. However, the amount of authority may be subject to change depending on the type of policing required (Sanders, Young 2008). Finally, there has been an exchange of approaches and influence between the public police force and private and municipal bodies (Crawford, 2008).
Lakalik and Wildhorn (1977 as cited in Wakefield, 2003) indicated that the public-private relationship in policing has been analysed using several methods. The first can be characterized as the junior partner model, an alliance in accordance with the two divisions working in cooperation and the commercial sector assisting to strengthen the function of the police. Cunningham and Taylor (1985 as cited in Wakefield, 2003) introduced the second perspective: one big police force model in which policing is considered to be an incorporated and merged structure,
3
Many central government bodies are financed from revenue enhancement and they hire staff who possess unique authorities, but who are not law officers. They consist of organizations participating in state defence, taxation, spending, municipal and regulatory institutions. The security services (MI5) and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) are involved in actions to preserve and protect the interests of the state. The Inland Revenue is engaged in income protection. Numerous central government bodies are employed in fact-finding and social control roles to secure commodities or services provided for the benefit of all members of a society. Regulatory bodies try to determine and implement criteria in the commercial and municipal spheres (Button, 2002).
Furthermore, innumerable policing bodies have been formed to secure the incomes of specific commercial production and retail. For example, the Federation Against Software Theft (FAST) is an agency financed by the computer manufacturers. FAST detectives cooperate with TSOs and the police. By contrast, the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) is an inspecting association financed by the British and American film and media industry (Button, 2002). In conclusion, in certain sectors, Britain seems to have given up administration of security and policing to businesses and voluntary bodies. At the same time, it occasionally tries to reassert its authority and strengthen its position via police development, direction and certification programmes. However, in my view it is not enough to think of municipal and commercial policing as separate entities; because of their cooperation and mutual involvement, it is becoming harder to distinguish between them. As a conceptual framework, I would suggest that as well as noting differences, we should also be aware of areas where they are moving in similar directions. However, the incoming form of policing will rely on the manner of the public police conforming to a set of circumstances where there is no longer a monopoly. The pluralisation of policing raises important questions about the connection between authenticity, control and influence of the state. Closer cooperation in the transfer of security should be encouraged in order to maximize the benefits to the public (Crawford, 2008).
In the UK, municipal policing supplies assistance to the community, state organizations and retains officials with unique authorities. Various municipalities recruit particular policing experts such as Neighbourhood Wardens, parks policing, market policing associations and private security firms. In addition, those municipalities deal with processes linked to keeping society safe. For instance, Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) control issues linked to health hazards and noise pollution. Trading Standards Officers (TSOs) are assigned to the inspection of confusing labelling on products, counterfeit goods, correctness of weights and standards (Button, 2002). There are also policing bodies that engage personnel and have nearly the same authority as police officers. For example, the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) is accountable for the preservation of order, enforcement of the laws, physical security of defence constitutions and Crown Property. The British Transport Police (BTP) performs its services on the railways and the London Underground. It takes action on criminal offences, unfortunately it has been greatly affected by privatization. Hence, the future of BTP is in doubt due to its high running costs and increasing competition from the private sector. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary (UKAEAC) fulfils policing functions, which involve safekeeping of the nuclear power stations and securing of shipped nuclear materials (Button, 2002).
Author : Vojtech Vohanka
Some commercial institutions have developed to defend society and creatures from harm. By way of illustration, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is a charity which operates as a public police force: individuals can make claims of animal cruelty or neglect to the foundation, which will inspect them. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is also a charity, which aims to protect and support children.
4
References : Department of Criminology (2012) Module 1, Unit 1: Introduction to Security & Risk, Leicester: Department of Criminology, University of Leicester. Department of Criminology (2012) Module 1, Unit 3: Plural Policing, Leicester: Department of Criminology, University of Leicester. Button, M. (2002) Private Policing, Cullompton: Willan Publishing Wakefield, A. (2003) Selling Security: The Private Policing of Public Space [e-book], Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Available through: University of Leicester Library, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester (accessed 19th October 2012) Crawford, A. (2008) ‘Plural Policing in the UK: policing beyond the police’ in T. Newburn Handbook of Policing (2nd edition) [e-book], Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Available through: University of Leicester Library, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester (accessed 19th October 2012) Jones, T. (2008) ‘The accountability of policing’ in T. Newburn Handbook of Policing (2nd edition) [e-book], Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Available through: University of Leicester Library, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester (accessed 19th October 2012) Sanders, A., Young R. (2008) ‘Police powers’ in T. Newburn Handbook of Policing (2nd edition) [e-book], Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Available through: University of Leicester Library, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/leicester (accessed 19th October 2012)
5