Young people’s conceptions of trust and confidence in the crime control system: Differences between public and private policing
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895817700695 |
| Published date | 01 April 2018 |
| Date | 01 April 2018 |
| Author | Elsa Saarikkomäki |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2018, Vol. 18(2) 156 –172
Young people’s conceptions
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
of trust and confidence in
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817700695
DOI: 10.1177/1748895817700695
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
the crime control system:
Differences between public
and private policing
Elsa Saarikkomäki
University of Helsinki, Finland
Abstract
Private security increasingly participates in policing, thus changing the field of policing. However,
there is a lack of research on how private security is perceived by citizens, and particularly by
young people. This article reports on a novel approach to studying procedural justice and trust; it
compares young people’s perceptions of public and private policing. Relying on focus group data
from Finland, the findings indicated that young people have more trust and confidence in the police
than in private security guards. Their perceptions were based on face-to-face encounters (to
measure ‘trust’) and on general assumptions (to measure ‘confidence’). Young people perceived
the police as more educated, professional, legitimate and respectful than security guards. They
also felt that security guards sometimes exceed their legal rights and act unfairly. However, the
findings also suggest that security guards have some legitimacy. The study suggests that issues
around trust in policing are more complex than prior research indicates and that private security
cannot replace police tasks without it affecting perceptions of trust in policing.
Keywords
Focus groups, police, private security guards, procedural justice, trust, youth
Introduction
There has been a rapidly growing interest in studying trust and confidence in the police and
criminal justice system (e.g. Bradford and Myhill, 2015; Bradford et al., 2008; Murphy,
Corresponding author:
Elsa Saarikkomäki, Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy, Department of Social Research, University of
Helsinki, Unioninkatu 40, 00014, Finland.
Email: elsa.saarikkomaki@alumni.helsinki.fi
Saarikkomäki
157
2015). According to a procedural justice approach, perceptions of fair treatment by the
police are essential in order to establish trust in the crime control system, and to make people
feel that they are a respected part of society (Jackson et al., 2012; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003;
Tyler, 1990). However, there is a lack of research on young people’s perceptions of trust in
policing and on new public–private policing contexts. A fresh approach to procedural justice
research is needed because recent societal changes have potentially affected young people’s
relations with policing agents. First, the rapid rise of private security in many western coun-
tries has blurred the boundaries between public and private crime control (e.g. Bayley and
Shearing, 1996; Jones and Newburn, 2002; White and Gill, 2013). Second, (young) people
increasingly spend time in quasi-public shopping mall spaces, which are typically inten-
sively policed (Von Hirsch and Shearing, 2000; Wakefield, 2003). Third, scholars suggest
that policing of young people has intensified in many European countries (Crawford, 2009;
Goldson, 2010; Harrikari, 2013; Saarikkomäki and Kivivuori, 2016).
Current research has indicated that young people find the police useful and effective,
although personal experiences are often negative (e.g. Crawford, 2009; Dirikx et al.,
2012). However, research on encounters between young people and security guards is
scarce. Prior research suggests that encounters are common, that young people are fre-
quently asked to move on by security guards and these requests often make young people
feel unwelcome in city spaces (Fine et al., 2003; Matthews et al., 2000; Saarikkomäki,
2016; Saarikkomäki and Kivivuori, 2016).
This study compares young people’s views of the police and private security guards.
Beyond producing comparative information, the study also produces information on how
trust is constituted between young people and policing agents. It analyses interviews
with young people who have encountered police officers and/or security guards in inter-
vention situations (nine focus group interviews with 31 young people, conducted in
Helsinki, capital of Finland). I mainly refer to policing agent initiated situations that have
taken place when young people have been spending their free time, such as, ‘hanging
out’ in shopping malls or public city spaces, or drinking alcohol. While conducting the
interviews, I noticed that young people often compared public and private policing
agents, and thus I analysed these perceptions more closely. The current research answers
two important questions: how do young people’s perceptions of the police and private
security guards differ? What do these different perceptions tell us about how trust and
confidence in control agents is established?
The Public–Private Policing Context
Similar to many other western countries, Finland has experienced increasing privatiza-
tion of crime control as policing has become a mix of public and private agents (e.g.
Bayley and Shearing, 1996; Reiner, 2010; Santonen and Paasonen, 2017; White and Gill,
2013). The police are typically defined as policing agents employed by the state, with
mandates of crime control, road traffic control and order maintenance (Reiner, 2010: 1).
In this study, I refer to private security guards as policing agents used by the private or
public sectors, employed by a private company, guarding private, quasi-public and pub-
lic places, with a public mandate of order maintenance or a private mandate of securing
private property. Although I define security guards as policing agents, they are different
158
Criminology & Criminal Justice 18(2)
from the police. First, the police are agents of the state criminal justice system while
security guards are typically employed by a private company (that can be multinational).
Second, private security agents work in an area defined by a client, while police are typi-
cally responsible for patrolling larger jurisdictions. Third, in Finland the legal rights of
security guards are more limited than those of the police (Button, 2002: 122–125;
Santonen and Paasonen, 2017).1 However, in shopping malls they have extensive powers
to remove people (see also Von Hirsch and Shearing, 2000). In Finland, the state regu-
lates the legal rights and private agents are obliged to report to the police apprehension
of individuals. Finally, education and training requirements differ between the police and
security agents. Security guards who work in stores and on public transport have a mini-
mum of 40 hours of basic training in Finland (for crowd controllers 110 hours). The
police are educated at the police university college (three-year degree programmes) and
its entrance exam is demanding.
Even though the private security field is fundamentally private, it is not completely
distant from the state if they operate together with the police and if they fulfil a public
mandate, and as they are using legal rights issued by the state. However, Shearing (2004)
points out that using the legal rights does not mean that they always operate under state
direction; private security has emerged because corporations have decided to hire them.
White (2012) argues that private security should be understood as having considerable
impact and power while, at the same time, it still remains shaped by the legacy of the
state monopoly in crime control, in which the police are prioritized.
Because the police tend to have more legitimacy, the private sector needs to pay spe-
cial attention to fostering and maintaining their legitimacy (Thumala et al., 2011; White,
2012). Legitimacy means that people consider that the authorities have the right to exer-
cise power, and they are obliged to obey policing orders (Bradford et al., 2008; Tyler,
2006). Professionalization has become crucial in legitimating policing work (Reiner,
2010; Thumala et al., 2011). Mopasa and Stenning (2001) found that public and private
policing agents use similar legitimation ‘tools’: institutional tools (symbolic power of the
institution they represent), legal tools (legal rights), physical tools (uniform, batons) and
personal tools (physical strength, demeanour). Thumala and colleagues (2011) used
security magazines and interviews to study how the private security field justifies the
selling of security. The findings suggested that the industry gains legitimacy and profes-
sionalism by providing training and education, regulation through licensing, uniforms
that resemble police uniforms and co-operation with the police (see also White, 2012). In
an aim to gain trust and legitimacy, the private sector attempts to downplay their connec-
tion to market-based affiliations (Thumala et al., 2011). Although there is research on the
conceptualization of the complex public–private policing field, there is a lack of empiri-
cal research on the field of private policing. For example, it is unknown how people view
private security compared to public policing, and whether the private security field has
succeeded in creating trust and legitimizing their status as policing agents.
Procedural Justice, Trust and Confidence
Luhmann (2000) proposed that the formulation of trust can be distinguished as trust
towards people you...
To continue reading
Request your trial