Running Head: THE FUNCTIONS AND PURPOSES OF PRIVATE SECURITY 1

The Functions and Purposes of Private Security

Full Name

Name of University

November 2, 2017
 THE FUNCTION AND PURPOSES OF PRIVATE SECURITY 2

In examining the role of James Dunbar and of the Virtual Security Force of which he

is the Operations Director, the private and for-profit nature of this entity is absolutely

critical in reflecting how it interacts with other stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

Indeed, and while the case presents all of the Virtual Security Forces’ officers as holding

special police commissions on the property of their clients, the fact remains that Dunbar

and the Virtual Security Force answer first and primarily to their client – the Virtual

Commercial Merchants Association. As such, their primary role in the case pertains to

protecting the property of the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association, and involves the

interdiction of criminal activity taking place on this property. While incidental interdiction

of the Very Bad Bike Club may occur in this context, both Dunbar and Virtual Security Force

must respond principally to the priorities of the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association

and additionally bring moral hazard into this law enforcement environment because of the

for-profit orientation of such a private security business.

At the baseline, the work of Jones & Newburn (2006) describes private security as

the augmentation of government-provided law enforcement services to as to protect

physical plant, private or organizational possessions, intellectual property, and persons.

With Jones & Newburn (2006) arguing that private security firms engage in activities

running the gamut from patrolling, to access control, to monitoring and all the way to close

personal protection, this thus brings about a context in which the activities of private

security firms produce a context of plural policing in which both traditional law

enforcement and these private security provides are largely engaged in overlapping tasks.

With this case being one in which the Virtual Security Force has arrest powers on all

property owned by the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association, this presents a context
 THE FUNCTION AND PURPOSES OF PRIVATE SECURITY 3

in which the plural policing presented in the case is very significant, and creates a

redundant division of labor between the Virtual Police Department and the Virtual Security

Force. This said, and with Jones & Newburn (2006) making it clear that the principal-agent

relationship is one in which a private security company will prioritize the targets put forth

by their employers, this case is one in which the Virtual Security Force is not likely to focus

upon the Very Bad Bike Gang unless the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association

mandates it to do so in a meaningful way. Rather, and based on the tasks that Jones &

Newburn (2006) associate with private security companies, the Virtual Security Force is

more likely to engage in anti-shoplifting, anti-loitering, anti-drug-dealing, and anti-public

disorder activities which are likely to only incidentally involve the activities of the Very Bad

Biker Club.

In this context however, Garland (2003) argues that private security corporations

are replete with moral hazard. With Garland (2003) defining moral hazard as a

phenomenon in which the security company does not face an incentive to maintain

objective law and order but rather that which has been mandated by its client, this

inevitably produces a situation in which private security companies cannot be counted on

to protect the public good objectively. Rather, and while incidental civil protection will

occur in areas where a private security mandate exists, Garland (2003) proposes that

private security companies define security in line with the whims and objectives of their

for-profit client. Applied to the current case, it is thus unrealistic to expect the Virtual

Security Force to fully align its priorities with those of the Virtual Police Department.

Rather, maintaining the priorities of the Virtual Commercial Merchants Association will be
 THE FUNCTION AND PURPOSES OF PRIVATE SECURITY 4

the principal goal of the Force even though the Very Bad Bike Club engages in activities

within its areas of operations.

In this regard, Gill (2015) argues that public law enforcement agencies at all levels

have also historically been reticent to cooperate with private security forces. With Gill

(2015) arguing that this reflects skepticism about private security competence, a distaste

for work that overlaps with core law enforcement functions as well as a perception that

working with private security companies will decrease the degree to which cases can

effectively be prosecuted, this points to a situation in which neither the Virtual Police

Department nor the Office of the District Attorney are likely to be enthusiastic to cooperate

with the Virtual Security Force. As such, and with Gill (2015) making it clear that this

history of poor cooperation goes back decades, both questions of moral hazard and

professionalism detract from the likelihood that the private security company will be either

willing to play a role in the fight against the Very Bad Biker Gang or provided with the

intelligence necessary to do so.

In the end then, the private security forces led by Mr. Dunbar cannot be counted on

to be a reliable team player in the fight against the Very Bad Bike Club unless they are

mandated to participate fully in the investigation by the Virtual Commercial Merchants

Association. Even if this occurs however, it is impossible to determine the degree to which

law enforcement and the court system will welcome the involvement of this private

security force. Additionally, and with Mr. Dunbar seeking to obtain larger contracts in the

future, the prioritization of client priorities is likely to detract from the degree to which the

Virtual Security Force will feature in this large-scale investigation.

 THE FUNCTION AND PURPOSES OF PRIVATE SECURITY 5

References

Garland, D. (2003). The rise of risk Risk and morality (pp. 48-86). New York, NY: Routledge.

Gill, M. . (2015). Senior police officers' perspectives on private security: sceptics,

pragmatists and embracers. Policing and Society, 25(3), 276-293.

Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2006). Plural policing: A comparative perspective. Washington, D.C.

: Psychology Press.