The Politics of Private Policing: No Force and No Legitimacy?

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to question the degree and the nature of legitimacy and force held by private security, and how this can affect the role private actors are playing in the field of policing and in the governance of security.

Methodology/approach

We draw mainly on existing academic literature on private policing, as well as our own qualitative research conducted in Canada.

Findings

If private security personnel have undeniably less legitimacy and force than their public counterpart, two nuances should be brought: (1) there is a tendency toward a shrinking of the gap between both sectors; and (2) these shortcomings do not represent such a problem, considering that, first, private security actors are usually given specific legal powers (e.g., the landlord’s), and, second, they do not rely on legitimacy as much as the police do in order to do their job. That being said, as private security officers and companies are likely to become increasingly involved in traditional police functions (most notably patrolling the public space), their lack of legitimacy and legal powers could significantly impede their actions in the future.

Originality/value

This chapter brings nuances to the supposed lack of force and legitimacy that plague the private security industry. It also sheds light on some of the inner rationales that characterize the dynamics within public and private policing.

Citation

Mulone, M. (2016), "The Politics of Private Policing: No Force and No Legitimacy?", The Politics of Policing: Between Force and Legitimacy (Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, Vol. 21), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 277-293. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1521-613620160000021015