Does private vigilance mean vigilantes?

Recent discussions on a range of issues – including the rights of the householder to protect his or her family and possessions, in addition to the wider role of private security and public participation in ‘policing matters’ – overlook one vital matter. The whole of western law enforcement philosophy – indeed the core of the concept of modern policing – is based on the idea that the populace gives up its rights to self-protection when others are employed to undertake that function.

When the Saxon system of Frankpledge – wherein a group of ten villagers were held mutually accountable for each others’ good behaviour – was superseded by, first, the constable and subsequently the Justice of the Peace, this was in response to a system which no longer commanded the respect of the populace and was deemed ineffective.

The entire modern criminal justice system is founded on a single principle. That of the willingness of the population to be policed. There is a contract between subject and State whereby a citizen agrees to give up his or her ‘natural rights’ in return for protection by the State. If it is true that this contract is no longer valid (and this is what critics of the present system appear to be acknowledging) then it is time for a further change.

Young policemen and women learn quickly – more quickly than lawyers or politicians – that law and justice are very different concepts. It is only when the people as a whole realise this that they start to try and reclaim the rights abrogated by the State.

Vigilance is not vigilantism

When businesses feel they have to spend large sums of money on electronic protection systems and security personnel, if schools and churches are no longer places of safety and hospitals are pushed into hiring uniformed officers to protect staff and patients, they too are expressing most eloquently what they think of the ‘contract’ as it stands.

Vigilance and self-protection is not vigilantism. Neither does this necessarily pose the threat that some police officers and politicians seem to fear. The desire to protect home and hearth is fundamental. This is an instinct that needs to be channelled, not proscribed. The alternative is most certainly not more Police Community Support Officers – or ‘Police Lite’, as they have been unkindly but appositely described – although part-time ‘community constables’ may be worth trying as a concept in rural areas.

It is also worth considering how we arrived at the present situation whereby one of the responses to street crime and burglary is the development of the gated community. Here, security officers are engaged collectively by the residents of a neighbourhood or street.

In my own opinion, we have reached the present crisis of confidence because we were told by the police service that we should leave matters well alone. We were instructed in no uncertain terms not to ‘have a go’ when faced with a mugger in the street. We were told not to resist. Rather, we should hand over our wallets and watches.

We were also told that if we happened to be on an aircraft that was hijacked then we should not resist, and not even make eye contact with the hijackers. One suggests that it was fortunate for the occupants of the US Congress and Senate that the doomed passengers on flight UA 93 ignored such ‘good advice’ on September 11 2001.

A change in attitude

Gated communities are the visible expression of a lack of confidence in the modern policing model, which has largely been brought about by the diversion of senior police officers from preventing crime and catching criminals to acting as part of the nation’s social welfare system

Two-tier policing has already arrived in the UK. Indeed, some might make a case for the fact that the use of private security officers in public places means that we actually have three-tier policing. In what is now being called the extended police family, it is up to us all to persuade our police colleagues that making the best use of all available resources will require a change in their attitudes and priorities.

We should not have to accept the situation where very senior police officers express public opposition to gated communities because ‘these are invidious for social cohesion’. Gated communities are the visible expression of a lack of confidence in the modern policing model, which has largely been brought about by the constant diversion of senior police officers – or ‘managers’, as we must now call them – from preventing crime and catching criminals to acting as part of the nation’s social welfare system.

Given that we have been told by the police service for over 40 years now that we are responsible for the protection of our homes, it is strangely ironic that when people try to do just that it’s the police service that will be first to complain about this ‘dangerous idea’.

One of the attitude changes which the police service in the UK must accept if it is to survive in anything like its present form is that it has to make a swift return to its roots. To rediscover the precepts of Sir Richard Mayne, and proactively pursue law breakers rather than try to change society at large.

While not proposing a revival of the Statute of Edgar (AD 959-979), it would be worth considering whether the present debates on what sort of measures one can take to protect oneself from burglars should not include consideration of restricting the legal rights of an offender when on the premises of another. This would also obviate the sort of situation which arose recently when a teenager was awarded more than £560,000 in damages after falling through the roof of a warehouse on which he was trespassing.

The press account of this example of ‘justice in action’ notes – in passing – that the boy’s mother and her co-habitant are currently serving three years for running a heroin and crack cocaine business from their house…

Position of influence

Those of us who work in security are well placed to influence not only our employers but also the Government and the Civil Service. We should recognise that change is needed and use all of our experience, expertise and credibility to ensure that whatever methods are adopted do not further erode the rights of peaceful enjoyment of property. To my mind, this is absolutely crucial.

Society at large – and particularly security practitioners – should also remember that legitimate expressions of concern for the rights of the property owner and householder ought not to be dismissed with cries of vigilantism.