Security is an important facet of the society. The maintenance of security has traditionally been viewed as the responsibility of the State. This means that most of the security firms and personnel within the State have been traditionally been controlled by the government. However, in recent times security threats have changed the conceptualization of security. In the traditional setting, security threats were viewed as being enemy countries and therefore security concerns were seen as a state versus state issue (Nemeth, 1995, p.27) The State was hence given the social contract to protect its own population from security threats that were posed by enemy states. However over time, the same population that the state was seeking to protect has become the source of insecurity. This means that governments have been faced with the task of addressing both state and non-state security threats. In addition, due to the increasing insecurity with the state structure, there has been continued securitization of issues that were initially not considered as being traditional security threats. For example, after 9/11 in the United States, the US government saw a dire need to create the department of Homeland Security to be in a position of promote security within the immigration sector which was viewed by policy entrepreneurs as being an avenue that non-state actors were able to cause insecurity both to the state and other non-state actors. Considering the change in the conceptualization of security, there has been a need for the increase of security agents so as to make sure most of the sensitive areas are protected from activities that would put the security of the general population at stake (Dempsey, 2010, p.34). This increased demand for security demand has caused the role of maintenance of security to also be extended to private entities that perform the same function that is done by the public structures that have been put in place by the various territorial governments. One thing that is important to note is that unlike state controlled security enforcers, private security firms operate based on the profit that they are able to obtain through the extension of their services to the population with the State. Based that the level of profit that is generated by these private firms determines the quality of work that these firms avail to the general public, it is essential to note that private security elements pose the risk of the negligence of liability and their responsibility if the profit targets that they project to generate are not achieved. This paper intends to look at the how the use of private security elements can be associated with negligence in security liability and also the legal issues that are associated with the performance of private security firms in their security work.
First of all, it is essential to note that unlike public security elements, private security entities are driven by profit. This means that the quality of the services that they offer depend on the profits that they generate from the governments that pay them to be able to conduct their activities (Carmola, 2011, p.67). In addition, the business environments that different governments are able to provide for various private security firms determine whether these private elements are going to be in a position to conduct their activities appropriately. Considering that security is a necessity that the citizenry cannot be able to live without, the failure of governments and other sponsors to amicably address the financial needs of security firms creates a situation whereby the failure of a given authority to address the needs of a private security entity puts the security of the population at risk. This means that a non-motivated private security firm might be characterized by the provision of low quality service which can put the security of the population at stake.
Second, it is fundamental to realize that private security firms have limited government control in terms of their internal operations. The presence of limited government control on private security at times might cause a risk of having private security firms that can a source of insecurity. This is because private security firms unlike state-controlled security firms might lack some of the benefits that employees obtain from their jobs after their departure. In addition, employees with these private security firms might not be assured of their job security. This means that these employees can be fired from their jobs based on what the private administrators deem to be essential at a given time. The employees might also be receiving a lower earning for their services because most private business entities tend to minimize their production costs so as to be able to maximize their net profits. This means that the negligence of private firms pertaining to how they handle their employees during and after their services within these firms might cause these employees to become security threats because they have the necessary security skills that can make it difficult to track them. In addition, the granting of private firms the mandate to offer security services poses the legal issue of whether these firms can stick to their original objectives or whether they can also use the authority vested in them to sponsor illegal state and non-state security threats that can increase insecurity within the State.
In conclusion, it is important to note that because private security entities conduct their operations with the aim of obtaining financial gains. The failure of profits as an incentive can lead to negligence in the part of these firms which can put the security of a given security firm at stake based to the provision of low quality services by these institutions. In addition, the granting of private elements the capacity to conduct security services can be a source of insecurity because individuals working in these institutions might not be enjoying the same benefits working in public security firms might be enjoying. This would include allowances and job security. This poses the likelihood of these employees being involved in illegal activities to generate more income because they already receive the necessary skills to do so.
References
Carmola, K. (2011). Private Security Contractors and New Wars. New York: Taylor
& Francis Group.
Dempsey, J. S. (2010). Introduction to Private Security. Boston, MA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning.
Nemeth, C. P. (1995). Private security and the law. New York: Anderson Pub.
