Skip to main content

Vanishing Boundaries of Control: Implications for Security and Sovereignty of the Changing Nature and Global Expansion of Neoliberal Criminal Justice Provision

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Private Sector and Criminal Justice

Abstract

This chapter offers a political-economic analysis of the changing nature and global expansion of the private sector criminal justice industry since the advent of neoliberalism under Reagan and Thatcher. Focusing on current private-public ‘partnerships’ or ‘collaborations’ in policing, prisons and post-release corrections under market fundamentalism, it analyses the for-profit privatisation claims of efficiency and effectiveness and weighs them against the costs of diminished popular sovereignty. The chapter contends that the boundary between the private and public spheres of surveillance and control has nearly vanished under neoliberal governance, with private sector companies engaged in sovereign functions and public institutions functioning as extensions of the market. The resulting merger of power structures makes accountability problematic. The chapter argues that the market failures of oligopoly and oligopsony—especially in the artificial markets of incarceration and national security surveillance—encourage companies to appeal to non-market factors to obtain more lucrative contracts, facilitating the manipulation of fear and desire for more security-related products through advertising. The analysis concludes that corporatised security fails to serve the public interest on savings and security while seriously threatening civil liberties and democratic governance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Throughout this chapter, we use ‘State’ in the upper case to indicate individual US state governments; lower case ‘state’ is used to indicate a means of rule in a given or sovereign territory, such as a nation state, which has as a chief attribute, to paraphrase Max Weber, the authority and ability to exercise a monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force. A state is more than a government, and private security can be (and often is) a state apparatus.

  2. 2.

    Private policing has customarily been considered either delegated authority, as in deputisation (‘inside’), or ‘outside’ of the state, exercising mere civilian powers (e.g. ‘citizen’s arrest’). Any other private use of force is usurpation, a ‘dispersal’ of power, an ‘erosion’ of the state or ‘hollowing out’ of the state, among other conceptualisations of recent developments (Shearing and Stenning 1981; Shearing 1992).

  3. 3.

    Lochner v. New York (1905). Following laissez-faire economic doctrine of ‘liberty of contract,’ the Supreme Court ruled that employers and workers were free to form contracts without government restrictions. The Court invalidated state laws protecting the right of workers to join unions, States to establish minimum-wage laws and maximum working hours, on the premise that capital and individual workers met as equals in the market. The New Deal era Supreme Court abandoned Lochner jurisprudence in the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.

  4. 4.

    The William J. Burns International Detective Agency is now part of Securitas Security Services USA.

  5. 5.

    With the help of the law firm of Florida’s Senator George A. Smathers, Wackenhut found a legal loophole to circumvent the 1893 Pinkerton Act prohibiting detective agency employees from obtaining private security contracts with the federal government by creating a wholly owned subsidiary that did not employ ‘detectives,’ merely ‘guards,’ a semantic trick.

  6. 6.

    Allan Pinkerton was the pioneer of conspiracy culture marketing, through his agency’s many books associating industrial conflict with socialism, communism and anarchism.

  7. 7.

    As part of a trend of companies in the military-industrial complex to branch out to the security-industrial complex, Lockheed Martin became a private security provider in its own right.

  8. 8.

    A brief history: Beginning in the late 1970s, the Department of Justice, through its research division, the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NIJ), commissioned a series of studies of the private security industry. The NIJ turned to a prominent policy think tank, the RAND Corporation, to assess the extent of private policing and examine its nature and role. The RAND report (Kakalik and Wildhorn 1971a, b) was strongly favourable to the private security industry, whose services were seen as complimentary or supplemental to public policing, serving as ‘junior partners.’ The RAND study was followed by the Hallcrest Reports of 1985 and 1990 (Cunningham and Taylor 1985), which identified a ‘vacuum’ of policing in the face of the growing fear and reality of crime.

  9. 9.

    As James O’Connor, in Fiscal Crisis of the State (1973: 7; 150–53), observed, privatisation turns social expenses of production—services required to maintain social harmony (many of which used to be assumed by corporations as welfare capitalism or the Pinkertons)—into social investments that increase the rate of profit; government ‘expenditures’ become GDP.

  10. 10.

    There are even those who have felt compelled by business ethics, conscientious objection and fear to close their businesses rather than surrender data. The founder of one encrypted email service company, that of Lavabit, purged all accounts and closed down operations out of fear of the results of an impending federal government search by secret court order that he was issued pursuant to the Snowden case (Snowden was a subscriber). A second company has also closed operations (Sengupta 2013).

  11. 11.

    Mr. Bratton has spun the revolving door between government service and corporate security as frequently as anyone, and his dizzying career provides a chronicle of the extent of corporate-government entanglement brought by frequent circulation of personnel between the sectors. Joining the Boston Police Department in 1970, Mr. Bratton quickly climbed to Executive Superintendent by 1980. After a stint with the Boston transit police, he then served as chief of the New York City Transit Police from 1990 to 1992. Then, in 1993, Bratton returned to Boston to become Police Commissioner, but returned to New York at the end of 1994 to serve as the chief of the New York Police Department (NYPD). Resigning that job in 1996, he joined Kroll Associates private security consultancy, whose president served at the time as the federal monitor of the troubled Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Impressing the LA Police Commission with his recommendations, Bratton was soon appointed LAPD police chief (2002–2009)—under the watchful eye of his former boss and friend at Kroll. In 2009, Bratton returned to Kroll (later purchased by Altegrity). His assignment sent him back to New York where, in December 2013, he was reappointed New York City police commissioner (Goodman 2013).

  12. 12.

    Apparently, the US government is getting a little fed up with outrageous charges for contract surveillance. On 3 March 2014, US federal prosecutors sued Sprint Corporation alleging overcharging by 58 per cent for electronic surveillance and investigative wiretap expenses, costing federal law agencies over $21 million in approximately three years (Lifsher 2014).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Weiss, R.P. (2018). Vanishing Boundaries of Control: Implications for Security and Sovereignty of the Changing Nature and Global Expansion of Neoliberal Criminal Justice Provision. In: Hucklesby, A., Lister, S. (eds) The Private Sector and Criminal Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37064-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37064-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-37063-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-37064-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics