Should US cities move to a privatized police force?

[taliv]

In the past I have been involved in community oriented policiing when I was an LEO. There is a lot more accountability when this program in in effect. Police Officers are assigned to the same area everyday of the week. They get to know the residents and criminals. If this program is properly administered, it can be very effective.

+1 (well, i haven't been personally involved, but my understanding is private policing is very effective)

 

[WvaBill]

Local city here has done that. Three man department. There is about two miles or less of two lane roads and they are pulling cars over at the rate of two per hour on weekdays. They do not stop on weekends and nights, but I have heard them pulling vehicles at 1230 pm on Sundays and up until 10 pm.

Of course, they only started this high enforcement rate after the council announced a $200,000 budget shortfall.

On edit...they are city employees

 

[R.H. Lee]

And if you think traffic enforcement is driven by revenue generation now, just wait until you privatize it. Corporate America has already demonstrated that there are no considerations more important the the bottom line.

 

[Firethorn]

our experience with privatizing the railroads is that they retreat into "that's commercially sensitive information, Mister Voter, we ain't gonna tell it to you".

Mister Voter: Wrong answer.

If the contract is renewable at short terms, they have no incentive to invest in anything that won't pay dividends in the short-term, like investigative computer tools that take years and billions to develop and can't talk to the neighbouring department which bought a different one, and maybe don't work even then.

You get enough private companies involved, they might just come up with a commercial product for it, rather than various agencies all having private solutions developed.

If you keep fining them, they say, "we can't make a profit out of this contract, we're not interested in renewing it". And neither is anyone else, at the price the citizens are prepared to pay.

They're paying for bureaucratic solutions now. I dont' see how this could end up costing them more money.

Or they call the city one day and say, "we have no money left, either pay us a shedload of extra money or you won't have a functioning service on Monday morning, and it will be your elected ass, Mister Mayor, that will be on the line as far as the voters are concerned".

How is this different when the police union illegally strikes?

You wave the contract in their face and sue them for every penny the corporation and the main shareholders have. Spin it right and you'll have people mad at the contractor, not the Mayor.

You pay them on a monthly or quarterly basis. You definitly don't give them a years budget up front. You don't hire a fly by night 'company', you hire one with multiple accounts and experience in the field. If you're going to be hiring a new company, at least hire one with previous security experience.

If I got that I'd answer "No" and see about calling up some volunteers who could be paid with the unpaid budget from the defaulting contractor to cover the important stuff for the time it takes to find another company. Heck, maybe call that SRC company that Lawdog posted the ad for. Sure, I'll pay a premium, but I'd at least have officers capable of responding to traffic accients, robberies, and other violent disturbances(minor matters can be put on hold for a bit). Advertising that the temps are more heavily armed and trained than the old guys should keep any explosions of violence from happening.

Oh, and I'd be following biere's solution as much as I could. The police department would mostly be the 'clean-up' unit.

And if you think traffic enforcement is driven by revenue generation now, just wait until you privatize it. Corporate America has already demonstrated that there are no considerations more important the the bottom line.

Who says the contracter gets the money from the fines? What's wrong with him getting a bounty from each, as long as there's some control to prevent corruption like writing fake tickets? Besides, if they get too overbearing, people stop speeding and such and revenue goes back down unless you have a steady stream of people ignorant of the enforcement level passing through. Then you have locals pissed off at the cops, voting no to their contract renewal, or the local traffic board raises the speed limits. If they have a highway passing through or something so they have a steady stream of 'outsiders', well, it's already an old tradition to pay for the public police force with ticket revenues. Even if it doesn't supposably go into the same 'pot', the ability to transfer funding from the school to the police because $200k from fines is going to the school makes it almost impossible to say that fines don't fund the police.

 

[R.H. Lee]

All that's a non starter, Firethorn. You won't have any official acknowledgement of traffic enforcement for the purpose of revenue generation. Public safety has been, is, and will continue to be the stated purpose.

 

[CAnnoneer]

+1 R.H. Lee, Old Dog

Privatizing police is one of the worst ideas one can come up with. The historical parallels are chilling. The same goes for privatizing the military: Praetorians in Rome, Condotieri in Renaissance Italy, mercenaries in the Thirty Years War.

If you do not believe it, have a look at modern privatized prisons. They treat the inmates more harshly on purpose, to get them to commit more crimes among themselves, so that the prison can charge .gov more money.

If you like sci-fi movies, check out "Fortress" as an extreme extrapolation of the unholy union of fascists, statists, and corporatists.

Corporate accountability? Enron, anyone?

 

[jsalcedo]

Corporate accountability? Enron, anyone?

They paid dearly, so did the stockholders.

The government does worse than Enron each day.

 

[Firethorn]

Privatizing police is one of the worst ideas one can come up with. The historical parallels are chilling. The same goes for privatizing the military: Praetorians in Rome, Condotieri in Renaissance Italy, mercenaries in the Thirty Years War.

Weren't most of these foreign mercenaries?

If you do not believe it, have a look at modern privatized prisons. They treat the inmates more harshly on purpose, to get them to commit more crimes among themselves, so that the prison can charge .gov more money.

Then whoever wrote the contract messed up. There should be terms in the contract where behavior such as this is a contract violation. I'm not saying that there won't be problems. I'm saying that there would be an extra level of accountability.

Corporate accountability? Enron, anyone?

Ayup, a corrupt company getting what's coming to them? Yes, that's a horrible problem. Like jsalcedo said, the government does the same and worse on a regular basis and doesn't get so much as a slap on the wrist.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Corporate America has already demonstrated that there are no considerations more important the the bottom line

I suppose the whole idea of the capitalist West producing a higher standard of living then the Eastern block was all propaganda. How is it that private industry was able to be more efficient? Nah, all bunk.

 

[TallPine]

The answer is no, yes, and 42

First one has to determine "what is the purpose of police?"

Is it "law enforcement" or "security" ....?

Law enforcement is ticketing/arresting people who violate the king's edicts (or the tyrannical edict of 51% of those who bother voting).

Security is keeping your person, your family, and your possessions safe from those who might harm or steal.

Law enforcement by itself doesn't provide security, nor have courts even stated that it is required to do so.

Security is a negative value - that no harm is being done to you and yours, while law enforcement is a positive value - punishing lawbreakers. Aside from rabid busybodies, I expect most of us are concerned about security rather than law enforcement. The ideal security provider essentially does "nothing" because nothing bad is happening (of course they are visible and available if something does happen).

Some private entities (like banks, malls, large business sites) provide their own security or hire another firm to provide security. The rest of us have to rely on the non-security provided by taxpayer funded law enforcement, plus whatever means of self-defense the law allows us in our jurisdiction.

My experience is that services like garbage collection are cheaper and more reliable when performed by competing private companies rather than the city or county. Why should not security be the same?????

So my answer is:
NO to private policing contracted by local governments, and

YES to security being provided to private property by private firms hired by the property owner (or by the property owner him(her)self).

Edit: I don't believe private security services are going to be very interested in breaking down doors of folks who might have unapproved property in their possession.

 

[biere]

I decided the police are not the problem.

Fix the legal and judicial system and you might just find the police cost problem fixes itself.

I have zero clue on how you deal with the judicial and legal and prison system, but that is my current thinking.

As far as short term contracts and companies in competition I don't think you would see that initially.

Overall, shrink government and clean up the legal and judicial system, I read about judges ruling from the bench and am mad right now, and I bet a lot of what people are calling problems will simply show themselves to be symptoms of far worse problems.

This is like putting more oil in the lawn mower so you don't burn up the engine, but not noticing that the block is cracked and tearing itself apart while leaking oil out while running. You can play with keeping the oil level at the right height but at some point you might have a connecting rod show you what a 12 horsepower toss equals.

 

[jsalcedo]

I expect most of us are concerned about security rather than law enforcement. The ideal security provider essentially does "nothing" because nothing bad is happening (of course they are visible and available if something does happen).

Thats the beauty of it. If nothing is happening and crime goes down you can slowly scale back your "security" until the fit is right.

Cmon guys, right now cops go to a crime scene and fill out reports.

80% of the money crime is white collar, the police don't even see this type of crime until it is discovered and reported by auditors.

Lets put our money to more effective use.

 

[LAK]

Firethorn

Weren't most of these foreign mercenaries?

And what is the cheapest labor in this country these days? Is it not illegal .. uh "undocumented" persons from foreign countries? And is not the current trend to make it easier and easier for these people to work here - rather than the opposite?

Are the "standards" not being lowered in contexts so as to accomodate these people?

Your lengthy comments on this subject are scarey; because they are well presented, but completely ignore what is common knowledge. Expanding corporate-government is sheer folly. It's poisonous to begin with on any scale.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Lupinus]

I still like my idea on the previous page.

Militia type volunteer police force. All citizens responsible to keep an eye out with ones that can volunteer time on call to actively patrol and respond to calls, similar to how a volunteer fire department works just with crime instead of fire. And a smaller full time paid force to handle detective type work and the like.

But handled by a corp. I just don't like and don't trust period. The guards in Rome as a prime example once they figured out they could kill the emperor and replace him with a better paying one and the flock just took it.

Citizens in power not the goverment and its agents that is what the country was founded on, that is what we have lost, and it is what we should return to.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Private Police Forces are a bad idea, and completely un-needed in places where shall-issue carry is the law of the land. Another issue is that you'd have these "Specials" run around hassling carriers left and right, especially in states where open and concealed carry is legal in their "neighborhoods".

 

[CAnnoneer]

Weren't most of these foreign mercenaries?

Nope. They were primarily indigenous.

Then whoever wrote the contract messed up. There should be terms in the contract where behavior such as this is a contract violation. I'm not saying that there won't be problems. I'm saying that there would be an extra level of accountability.

That's the whole point. You can never make a contract temper-proof and loophole-proof. Besides, kickbacks and political favors may easily ensure the presence of loopholes. And, who will watch the watchers? Another .gov agency that panders for budget? Another corporation? It's a mess.

Ayup, a corrupt company getting what's coming to them? Yes, that's a horrible problem. Like jsalcedo said, the government does the same and worse on a regular basis and doesn't get so much as a slap on the wrist.

Most of the Enronists actually left the crime scene with 250M+ each and claimed no knowledge of the full picture and thus no wrongdoing. They scapegoated the CEO, but every objective observer would be convinced they were all guilty as hell. Who are they kidding?