Police and Private Police Industrial Security

In the industrial circle today the terms police and private police are widely used. While the term police refer to the regular law enforcement authorities, private police generally refers to the industrial security services engaged by entrepreneurs. Difference between the two is quite prominent. While the former is the agency that implements law; the latter is the one that works within the ambits of law to prevent trespass, sabotage, and pilferage in the industrial unit.

Such private police working for industrial security however are subject to the overall supervision of the regular police. Accountable for their actions before the law enforcement agencies, these agencies act as the in house security performing police actions within the organization.

While the two services are different because of the fact that uniformed personnel perform policing much more frequently than the in house people or private police. However there are some circumstances where the functioning of the two coincides pretty perfectly. In such case their respective actions become similar.

Growth of private police upholding industrial security as an industry is basically a phenomenon that grew in the twentieth century. However, individual concepts of such policing were prevalent long back in history. Countries and especially the commercial world where competition and rivalry is intense, provides ideal platform for evolution of the private policing for protection of security in industrial units. In some countries like England private policing not only preceded the public police but also necessitated the introduction of regular public police.

Like England, in many countries, state controlled agencies for law enforcement emerged out of such private organizations that were basically established for maintenance of public orders. One of the objectives of private police organizations was also to promote and protect private interests. However, public police was concerned with public interest that encompassed common zones in the society.

In sharp contrast to what happened in UK, private policing was an offshoot of public policing in United States. New York was first city to have in place public police services.

It all started with wealthy merchants hiring security guards to protect their properties and interests. Gradually however it grew into a full-fledged industry providing industrial security to large, medium, and small enterprises.

Increased Government Regulations Applied on Commercial Bail

The government is beginning to tighten its legislation on commercial bail bonds.

The bail bonds industry began at the end of the 19 century as a means to privatize the criminal justice system. Initially allowed by the government to help alleviate the burden of tax payer’s dollars this system has grown since it was established. A bail bondsman is beneficial to local government because they handle paperwork processing that is time intensive and are also responsible for the detention of their clients in the event that they fail to appear in court. Without bondsmen this process would take a vast majority of civil servants’ time and warrant detainment time would be drastically increased from the time a fugitive flees.

Without bondsmen police officers, sheriffs and marshals would be forced to take on cases of failure to appear in court warrants which is often a common occurrence in the court systems. Despite all the benefits there are obviously some downsides to attempting to privatize an industry that operates in a similar manner as law enforcement. State governments have already begun to pass laws and regulations to limit or completely eliminate bail bonds companies to operate. We have already begun to see laws like this in California where the court houses offer bail to the defendant from the local government with an option to process this through a bondsman.

Some states however intend to do away with the industry as a whole. States such as Wisconsin, Illinois, Oregon and Kentucky have passed legislation to outlaw the bail bonds industry all together. The drawback to this type of legislation is that it drastically slows down the criminal justice process by allocating responsibilities on limited resources (man power) for a duty that was previously handled by a private industry. This becomes a nightmare for fugitive tracking within the local level of law enforcement and federal law enforcement would not intervene unless the particular case is severe by nature.

Statistically, the rate of failure to appear warrants is lower for a defendant that has been released on commercial bail, followed by a defendant released on their own accord and lastly the government bond process. The bond process provided by local government is not inadequate, but the knowledge that a bounty hunter will not be actively pursuing and following up with a defendant about their court dates appears to be the major increase in these statistics.

The current system in place mandates a strict percentage that a bondsman will take from a bond set forth to secure a defendant’s release. In a state like California this percentage is 10%. It is illegal for a bail bonds company to take more than 10% of the bond value provided to the court their processing fee to reduce the number of illegitimate bail bonds companies in operation.

Overall the bail bonds system currently in place in this nation, although sometimes clouded with mystery and negative behavior by select abusers, provides an essential service to assist not only the justice system but the general public as well. Working with individuals to process the necessary legal paperwork and alleviating public servant hours hunting bail jumpers are the benefits that commercial bail provides for the public.