Here’s something to chew on.
Remember Arizona’s immigration law? It was the one that apparently gave state law enforcement officials the ability to profile. It was the hot news item for a long time and you still see a story pop up here and there. I always thought I had a good handle on where I stood, but today I happened to think about it and started looking at it a little differently.
Those against the law typically argued that law enforcement officials would be instructed to profile people for immigration status. The implication would be that they would be checking anyone of Hispanic heritage a lot more than any other ethnicity, which violates the idea that government is required to see everyone equally under the law. Those in favor of the law said that it would only be enforcing federal law already on the books and that profiling is the only way to catch those breaking the law.
Here’s the thing: I think both arguments are correct.
People who commit crimes usually fit a certain profile. An 80 year old woman usually doesn’t fit the description of a bank robber, so it’s probably not worth checking them out too much if a bank’s been broken into. It’s perfectly reasonable to pay closer attention to the groups of people who usually commit certain crimes. And yes, illegal Mexican immigrants are usually Mexicans.
But justice is supposed to be blind and everyone is supposed to have equal protection under the law. Is it right for the government officials to seek out Mexicans near the border to question them on their immigration or citizenship status? Is it right for any other group to be singled out that way? If the government is truly supposed to treat everyone equally, I would say no, it’s not right.
So what are we supposed to do? This isn’t just about immigration—you can apply this to many, many realms of law enforcement. We know how to catch crooks, but the way we know how to should be illegal. Do we break the law of the land for security or do we follow the law and have people break the law with impunity? It’s a bit of a catch-22.
Or is it? So many times we frame our thoughts around what the government can do to fix a problem, but here’s a case where it really doesn’t work. So why not open up the available solutions?
Could private defense agencies, i.e. private police forces, be the answer? They would not have to be connected to any government body; their services would be purchased by individuals or groups of individuals. They would be free from the restrictions that a “just” government would have to impose upon itself.
Think about it. Would it work better? Would it turn out worse? Give it an honest chance to try to see how private police forces would work. Would several organizations designed to protect their customers’ rights result in chaos and violence or would they achieve a higher degree of order and peace than our current system does? Why do you think that?
What would their jurisdiction be? Would they patrol streets? If 3 houses on a block pay a certain police force, but the patrolling officer sees a criminal breaking into the fourth house, would they stop and arrest? If they did, does the owner of the fourth house owe them money? Who gives them the authority to arrest someone? Do they arrest anyone? Would having it privatized create bias toward their customers?
The jurisdiction would be to be the protector of whomever their clients are. If enough people want them to patrol the streets, I’m sure they would. As it stands with a government police force, outside of traffic law, any citizen can perform the duties of a police officer. If you see someone mugging someone, you would have the right to step in to stop it. You don’t need a badge from the government to protect your rights.
That’s a really great question. One solution I can think of would be that there would be a middleman party, almost like an insurance agency, that would direct whatever police agency is closest to the crime scene to respond. You would be making membership payments to this middleman party and they would pay for the services of the police force they use, much like various forms of insurance work presently.
Their authority to arrest someone is the same authority you would have to arrest someone, which is to use the amount of force necessary to stop aggressive behavior against you.
As far as the privatization creating bias towards their customers, that may be a good thing. If we were to get into a car accident, I would sure hope that my car insurance company would be biased in my favor!
Everyone in business takes care of their best clients…In many criminal cases the officer’s testimony could be very important. What if the man who mugged you was an important client of the arresting officer?
The constitution protects us against the government, would a private police force have a right to search and seizure? If not, why should I stop for a private citizen? If I rob a convenience store, I can run from a citizen. If I run from a police officer I can be charged with resisting arrest.
If I see flashing lights in my rear view mirror, why should I stop? Remember the Aimee Willard case? She was pulled over by someone impresonating a cop then murdered (If I remember correctly) Do you think having several different police departments in a particular area could lead to more of this, especially with out-of-towners not knowing the area and local townships?
What do we do about the police force in lower income communities where we probably need the best police force and strongest presence? Will they be subsidized by people who live in lower crime areas?
There would still be a court system. If these agencies operate in a free market, it would be in their best interest to run their businesses honestly. If they settle disputes dishonestly, then they’ll lose credibility. There could also be private accreditation organizations to police the police agencies. And right now there’s a government monopoly on the police and court systems. What happens when someone with a lot of political power is involved in a case?
There probably wouldn’t be the right to search and seizure. That would likely have to be solved in a court case.
You likely wouldn’t stop for a private citizen in the same way you’re probably not going to stop for a cop.
Most local municipalities have their own police forces as it is, so I don’t see private police forces as much of a difference with the potential for police impersonation. If I am new to a town, I don’t know the local government police either. And sworn police officers commit crimes too. There will be crimes like this committed whether or not the police are private or publicly funded.
Places with a lot of crime already have a lot of police presence, but there’s still a lot of crime. Maybe a smaller police presence would encourage people to either try to move out or actually really try to find the roots of their community’s problems and then fix them.
So if I murder someone, in your private police force world, that private police force can lock me up until my hearing? and anyone can start a police force and do the same thing with no jurisdiction? So if my neighbor steals my kid’s basketball, I can arrest that kid? Maybe I can lock him in my basement until I take him to a trial? What about noise violations? If my neighbor has a party and his music is extrememly loud. I knock on his door and ask him to turn it down, he doesn’t, can I fine him? Can I lock him up? There are laws on the books against excessive noise. What about underage drinking? Can I lock up a drunk 16 year old in my closet until I can get him to a court?
What I was saying with stopping for a cop and not a private citizen is that, if I run a red light and I see a cop’s lights, I stop. I am not going to risk running from the law. If a private citizen, i.e. a private cop or mall cop or a good citizen, tried to pull me over so they can get me for a red light, there is no way I’d stop.
Of course there are times today where cops turn a blind eye for certain people, or a cop pulls over a friend or good looking female and the cop lets him or her off. But why would any private business lock up their customers? They would litterally be making sure their paying customers won’t pay when their customer breaks the law.
Also, do you realy think pockets of the country should be crawling with crime? Do you really think less cops in a high crime area would result in less crime? What happens is mob rule. Look at the origins of the Sicilian Mafia. That started as essentially a private police force because of an unfair judicial system and the government ignoring the people of Sicily and southern Italy. Guess what, the mafia did not peacefully take someone to jail when they didn’t pay for something at the store. They obtained their power, control, and credibility through force.
I’m going to answer these questions from a government-free point of view…
Yes if you’re being aggressive against someone. No if they’re simply charging you with the crime.
Sure, you can start a police force, but good luck getting insurance and a third party accreditation for it. If you violate someone’s rights, you’re probably going to get taken to court to get restitution. You’ll need insurance for that.
There are a few ways of dealing with this. If you can argue that the noise generated from his property is a pollutant on your property, then you would have a case in court to make him stop or else pay some sort of restitution. If that doesn’t work, you and whoever else is on your side with the issue can essentially shun him (i.e. boycott) until he changes his ways.
What if your neighbor puts up a sign in his yard telling people things about you that you wish weren’t public knowledge?
If it’s not happening on your property, you don’t have much say in the matter. If it occurs on your property, you have the right to make it stop happening.
Previously, I did specify that I wasn’t talking about traffic law, but I’ll go here anyway. If the roads are privately owned, the owner has the right to make rules about how his property is used. If you violate these rules and don’t stop for the police, they would probably not allow you future access to the road. If you tried to use the road anyway, you would be trespassing.
You raise a great point here. You wouldn’t necessarily go to prison for breaking someone’s rules. The justice system of today is a little messed up because if you commit a crime against me, then I pay for you to sit in a prison cell. So people who violate the rules in a society without government would be required to pay some sort of restitution mediated by a court. But prison might be a good solution for a business as it would prevent you from stealing from them. They’d rather have you not purchase anything as opposed to make them run a deficit as a result of your theft of their property.
I’m not up on my Mafia history, so I can’t comment directly.
I don’t know if less cops in a certain area would result in less crime. I also don’t know if private police forces would result in the presence of less cops in bad areas.
I will however say this: the government has its monopoly of power, control, and credibility through force as well. You hope that they wouldn’t use this power for corruption, but what’s to stop them if they decided to? It sounds like since the Mafia was competing with the government, which was terrible and decided to do nothing about it, the people felt they had no other course of action. It’s a bad environment to begin with for liberty to flourish.
Do you think a private police force would work better if local municipalities hired the force instead of individuals? Maybe then the private police companies would work hard to provide the best possible service at the lowest price? They would be given authority from the local government to arrest those who break their laws. If they’re doing an awful job, the people of the town would fire them.
What motivations do our current local police officers have to do a good job?
Private police forces hired by municipalities would certainly be better than our current system, but individuals purchasing it would be the best. What if someone decides they don’t want a police force? What if someone decides they don’t like a certain force that the local government hires? It’s like any other product or service.
If some competition is good, why not allow for more?
I’ve worked in law enforcement and I’m a staunch constitutional conservative. I’ve debated the issue of privatizing police with other cops. Originially I thought that private police would be a good thing as it would lead to companies competing to improve crime-fighting techniques, train personnel, and lower costs. But after some consideration, I think that police work must remain the responsibility of the government for the following reasons:
1. The Constitution burdens the executive branch with enforcing laws.
2. I think most people acknowledge the need for some government services and are content to pay taxes to fund them. Police work is one of these services. But privatizing the industry would add another layer between the people and the service. This could result in even greater hostility between citizenry and police.
3. On a related note, the public has a means to complain about poor police work (ie- Internal Affairs). However, when people are unsatisfied with police, there will be complications in redressing grievances. Do they complain to local government? Or the private company itself?
4. Cronyism: How would the private agency be selected? I can see politicians receiving major campaign contributions from private police companies. The politicians would justify these bribes with the argument that they are “tough on crime.”
5. Uniformity. Laws vary between states. But there are also different practices between neighboring agencies. As such, I am afraid that privatizing police would lead to a call for nationalized laws. The Constitutionalist inside me screams that this is dangerous for the republic that should seek to localize issues instead of federalize them.
This is just my two cents on the issue. I would also like to add that I am in favor of privatizing the prison system. Costs are rampant and conditions are terrible. Furthermore, not all jailer are certified law enforcement officials. I think private jails is worth considering to combat these problems.
Thanks for the comment!
You bring up some good points and I think I’m going to write a more general article about private police forces that will touch on the points you bring up but I will briefly respond to each point here.
1. Sure, that is true, but it is about federal law. Law can be localized to a single piece of property.
2. Actually, I’m one of the few people who don’t see the need for government, but that’s another story. It depends on how the system would work, though, with privatization. If individuals bought their own protection, then they would be free to choose whichever agency they believed would be best for them, just like any other product or service one would purchase. This is what I am proposing. A municipality purchasing private police services would still result in a lot of the things we don’t like about public police.
3. Again, I’m taking the stance that individuals should be able to purchase their own police services if they choose to. They would be able to complain about their service to the company or choose to hire another agency.
4. This is a great point and why I don’t think municipalities should buy police services. In this situation, the police are working for the municipality, not the individual.
5. Can you go into more detail on this? Even if police services were privatized for municipalities, they would just follow the local ordinances.