Apply Joh’s Taxonomy to Private Policing
Joh (2005) presents the private security entity as a new perspective in policing. The author describes private policing as a lawful, organized, and profit-oriented HR service aimed at controlling crime, protecting private property, and maintaining order. This definition, however, excludes persons and groups outside state jurisdictions that take part in some form of crime prevention, such as vigilantes.
The central part of my agreement to Joh (2005)’s taxonomy concerns private policing as a client-associated initiative. Here, private policing agencies have a high likelihood of adapting to the character and policies set by their clients. Therefore, they define deviancy based on the customer’s objectives rather than the society’s description of morality.
That said, it becomes part of their contractual mandate to protect various forms of private spaces such as individual homes, gated developments, shopping malls, industrial and industrial campuses. Given the above discussion, I support Joh (2005)’s framework on private policing and assert that it is a good fit to policing mechanisms. The reason is that it is an appropriate fit for meeting the government’s deficit in meeting security demands from an already overwhelmed public security agency (Joh, 2005).
Are there areas not covered by her taxonomy?
There are no areas that Joh (2005) leaves untouched in her taxonomy. Instead, she does an excellent job explaining the five traits of private policing, such as individual loss prioritization, preventive policing, client centeredness, private property control, and private justice system. From this segment, one learns of the complicated boundary that exists between private and public policing. Nonetheless, the move shows a slight distinction in jurisdictions between public policing and private policing, in public and private spaces, in that order.
For instance, Joh (2005) has substantially noted the connection between the rise of private policing and the increasing need to protect private spaces. Mainly, the increase in both domestic and international insecurity in western nations, with particular mention of terrorism, helps drive the need for an efficient security detail. Private policing, therefore, moves in as a broadly effective alternative that will assist in driving safety-related initiatives. Thus, private properties such as malls, commercial campuses, and private residencies, further fronting a change in private policing’s takeover of contemporary lifestyles (Joh, 2005).
Private v. Public Policing
Joh (2005) notes that the appropriate analytic view of private policing should see it as an evidence-based and diverse issue, one that is neither an opponent of public policing nor its twin (p. 573). In this sense, I would argue that both entities have an almost similar role to play in policing. However, my exclusive take on the idea is Joh’s assertion that private policing develops from the individuals’ need to meet their security demands (Joh, 2005).
Thus, government agencies would most likely purchase private policing, while private policing is mostly independent of direct public management. For instance, states would contract private prisons to offer law enforcement services. However, the prisons are wholly under private management, making the government vitally dependent on private policing (Joh, 2005).
refer
References
Joh, E. (2005). Conceptualizing the Private Police. Utah Law Review, 2, 573-618.
