- by Nolan Pack
The tension between public and private policing has been theme throughout the course. Last week, we discussed the legal foundations of the practice of private policing; namely, the legal concept of citizen arrests, which has been extended to corporations. While proponents of private policing argue that it’s more efficient (compared to the higher cost of public police officers), there are several critical concerns to consider. First, no Miranda rights are extended in private interrogations, and other hard-fought constitutional rights relating to the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments don’t apply to private policing. Essentially, because of a lack of case law/precedent, private police operate in a legal grey area. Further, there is a lack of accountability in hiring and training private security officers, and there may be little recourse for issues of misconduct. Finally, private policing makes protection a commodity, meaning that those with more money are able to receive greater protection.
An excellent example of this subject, which we covered in the March 11 lecture, is the privatization of policing for wealthier neighborhoods right next door in Oakland. The two articles I reference in this post (links below) discuss the growing phenomenon of wealthier neighborhoods pooling resources to hire private security firms to patrol their neighborhoods. Residents of these neighborhoods, who have apparently experienced increased exposure to robberies/burglaries, feel that the response of the Oakland Police Department has been inadequate. Neither article describes any particular effort to engage the issue on a municipal level, so (based on the reporting by NPR and the Christian Science Monitor), it would seem that residents of the more affluent neighborhoods have taken the ineffectiveness of Oakland PD as a foregone conclusion.
Both articles cite dwindling revenue sources for cities as a primary cause of layoffs at local police departments. This may be presumptuous of me, but I’m fascinated by the idea that wealthier residents seem to have completely bypassed the idea of reinvesting in public law enforcement that would (in theory) serve the whole city, and have instead opted to “tax” themselves with voluntary fees to create a security force that’s unaccountable to the broader community and serves only those with enough money to spare.
The Christian Science Monitor also cites Detroit and Atlanta as places that, like Oakland, have wealthy neighborhoods that have turned to private policing. All three cities feature large proportions of people of color in their populations, struggle with poverty, and have more affluent pockets that can afford to hire private police.
The CSM article points out that some Oakland residents from other neighborhoods disagree with this approach, and that even some residents within the more affluent neighborhoods don’t feel represented by this decision. Dissenters agree that private security is “not a substitute for police” (Christian Science Monitor), highlighting skepticism toward the privatization of policing. In any case, the implications for equity are clear: wealthier residents who can afford added protection will have safer homes and neighborhoods, while the rest of the city continues to feel the impact of decreased investment in public services like police.
Christian Science Monitor
As cities lay off police, frustrated neighborhoods turn to private cops
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0405/As-cities-lay-off-police-frustrated-neighborhoods-turn-to-private-cops/(page)/2
NPR
With Robberies Up, Oakland Residents Turn To Private Cops
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/15/245213687/with-robberies-up-oakland-residents-turn-to-private-cops
Wealthier folks opting to buy security to provide for a select few instead of fixing public law enforcement should be no fascination. I agree that it make sense to fix something for the greater good and thus be in harmony or some form of equilibrium with everyone else. However I believe that the rich folks have nothing in common with the whole city in terms of interests. It seems to be much easier to look out for oneself than to fix something than might consider the specific interest such as burglary and theft prevention. The power differential and interest of the wealthy will push for private policing especially when public policing is not efficient.
ReplyDeleteWe must also remember that the right to self defense and ownership applies to the wealthy as it does to the poor.
Nolan, you bring many great points. Private security acts as a commodity, why is much need protection privatized? The public sector very much needs all the resources possible and more, especially in the area of social work.
ReplyDeleteThe privatization has made safety and the idea of safety for the privilege. Those who are wealthy enough to life in San Francisco can pay a premium for a gate and a building doorman who acts as security, screening those who don't belong and pushing the homeless out of their porches.
When i lived in San Diego, i live in a gated community. This class made me realize the differently levels of police. The police who patrolled the neighborhood, was actually private, meant to make drivers slow down in an area of children playing on the streets. It also watched out of vandalisms from young teenagers.
However, the community outside was crime ridden. How is this right? Is there a better way to skew the dynamic of private and public with the merging on private on public? In this way, we lose our rights to Miranda.
Tina Truong
I enjoyed reading about your points on private policing. Coming from San Francisco and having explored a majority of it, I see the same problem you bring up in your post. There are many areas that hire private police to patrol the areas, specifically the pacific heights and presidio terrace area. Rarely do local police ever patrol those areas and all I see are neighborhood sponsored patrol units. In presidio terrace, the hired police have guard towers equipped with sniper rifles and high-powered fire arms as well as patrol units within a gated community. I feel they are held highly unaccountable because the patrol cars in pacific heights will pull over, interrogate and tell you to leave even if you are just on your way home or enjoying the view of the houses. Especially in the pacific heights area, I feel the need for private police isn't necessary if they just reinvested in public law enforcement as you suggested for other areas.
ReplyDelete-Dylan Tong
The bottom line for me is whether I will be safer in a community guarded by private police or in one patrolled by public police. Without regard to the fact that private police are virtually always found in affluent communities, and affluent communities are generally safer than less than affluent communities, I think my answer would be “private police!” Although the argument is made that private police do not have the same accountability as do public police, I think the reverse is true. Private police are directly accountable to the company they work for, and the company is directly accountable to those who hired them. Accountability-wise, private police have a direct line of accountability to those they serve while the accountability of public police may consist of a long chain of command from the officer on duty to his immediate superior, to his superior’s superior, and on up the ladder leading eventually to the elected officials. Misconduct by a private policeman can be dealt with directly and immediately by the company. Private police companies stay in business by pleasing their customers, and it would be bad business not to deal with misconduct swiftly and decidedly. So, given the choice where personal security is in question, I would favor the private police.
ReplyDeleteJESSE RYCKMAN
Nolan, You, like Christine in her blog, take up a crucial, contemporary issue that is a central feature of the course -- the tremendous expansion of private policing and the public-private blur. You demonstrate that wealthier sectors of communities strapped by insufficient tax revenues turn to hiring their own policing agents rather than step forward with a willingness to support an increase in the tax base. This is a well-anchored blog entry that extends our classroom thinking.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about how it would seem to make more sense for the wealthy to invest in public law enforcement which would serve the entire city rather than private policing which would only serve the wealthy. I feel it may relate to what we discussed in lecture Tuesday where we question the legitimacy and effectiveness of law enforcement (especially in Oakland) that drove them to this decision. Why invest in public law enforcement if you don't feel that they'll be effective? I can relate, my home in Oakland has been burglarized and it took three days for the police to arrive, stayed only 20 minutes, took no evidence (we found a handkerchief with the burglars blood!) and their conclusion was that we needed to protect our home better (the burglars broke through two doors to enter). If the law enforcement offered by the city is not effective, I can understand the allure of paying for private police that would be more effective. It's just unfortunate that only the wealthy can afford the luxury of safety and not the city as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAs we have extensively discussed in class, the blur between private public policing leads to very grey boundaries of constitutionality like the case that Briyanna brings up in her article as well about the UCSD private policing the community that is not affiliated with the campus. In Banished we talked about how the marginalized homeless populations were losing the rights to the city in terms of simply being able to sleep in parks or stand around financial and commerce districts because of park exclusion orders and SOPA and SODA orders that were all made with pressure from the business and anti-crime community in Seattle. Here we see the right to live in certain neighborhoods is brought under increased policing in order to keep certain undersirables who don't seem to belong with the character of the neighborhood. If this trend towards private policing continues without any democratic transparency for procedure and establishment, both wealthy suburban and urban areas will completely displace a population from entering a neighborhood. The gated communities will be further sealed off from the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteShiwei Chen
I think that private policing will always be regarded as a commodity in areas where wealthier people are able to afford private security. I know people that live in the San Diego area where neighborhoods are gated, private security guards patrol the area, and each vehicle is checked into a log book. If a portion of the population can afford this type of private security, what is the use of public law enforcement? Should public law enforcement not even bother to patrol the wealthier neighborhoods in cities? However, looking at the perspective of people who purchase private security, it is worth it because it offers better protection. In addition, private security only provides security to those who afford it and not to the whole city. It is a privilege to afford such security, but if you were able to afford it wouldn't you have private security?
ReplyDeleteJordan Ho
Thomas Smith
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand the issue of private police not being as strongly bound to the rights in the Constitution as a standard police officer, it doesn’t exactly address the problem the wealthier members in these communities are facing, which is that they feel like the police departments aren’t doing a good enough job of apprehending criminals. If the private security firms are able to protect the communities better than the standard police, it’s really not that insensible for them to devote more money to the private firms. However, there definitely needs to be some sort of reform to address the lax set of standards for conduct these security firms follow. Those rights have become a part of our legal system to prevent inequality and corruption, and belonging to a private company shouldn’t make anyone above the law.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs other responses have addressed, I don't believe the decision of these wealthy neighborhoods to be consciously malicious. It is unlikely there is great understanding of the accountability of officers and the Constitutionality of their actions when they are contracted--more so, these people are relieved to have found a way to have their security needs met as they feel the public police force is failing them. While it would be idyllic to have them invest so wholly in the public force that the force can satisfy the needs of all citizens equally, the reality of such is unlikely and so, since these people have different values regarding security they are therefore willing to pay more to have their needs met. This is not to say that people in wealthier neighborhoods are not concerned about the apprehension of the perpetrator responsible for the assault that occurred 30 blocks down, but they want to ensure that their neighborhoods will be adequately policed according to their security concerns, as well. If that means hiring a private police force to make sure that cars stop speeding through residential neighborhoods so that the public force can focus on serious criminals, this seems a worthwhile trade-off.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't believe this to a be the best option, or a particularly viable one in the long run, I can understand the perspective of those who choose to do so.
Ayesha Ali
I feel that your article also brought up another important point Professor Musheno have discussed in class, that is, whenever public policing is deemed ineffective, private policing will be hired to fill in the gap between what the citizens demand and the actual service that they are getting.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, Chief Figueroa mentioned that the Oakland PD intensively focuses on violent crimes like gang shootings. Their top priorities are to save lives and increase safety, which undeniably should take precedence over less serious crimes such as robbery and burglary. In addition, the Chief also mentioned that they are particularly concerned about the 1/3 part of the city (i.e. Oakland’s “killing corridor”) in which more than 60% of all violent crimes takes place. Thus, these statements seems to suggests that the Oakland PD may be less responsive to the needs of wealthier areas and the crimes that occurs there.
Of course the needs and concerns of the wealthy are trivial when compared to the life-threatening situations found in poorer neighborhoods. Having said that, I do not feel that their hiring of private policing is morally wrong. It can be argued that such action actually allows public law enforcement to divert their resources and strategic policing to more serious crimes.
I do agree with you that a better response would be for wealthier neighborhoods to invest more in public law enforcements to serve the whole city. A potential solution to the problem can be modeled after the cooperation between Bernal heights district and Alameda public housing. Yet, a significant barrier to achieving this is the question of how to foster and develop a strong sense of community between those who live up in the Hills and those in poorer areas in Oakland.
- Jessica N. Siah