Victimology Awareness: Does It Help the Security Manager - Assignment Example

Victimology Awareness: Does It Help the Security Manager? Introduction Security management is becoming increasingly complex as methodologies and modalities change with increasing pressures and tactics of criminals. While many companies and individuals have turned to technology as security management, professionals in the field must have broad perspectives on both perpetrators and victims in order to fulfill their tasks. Study of victimology is valuable and critical for effective planning of protocol as well as forming a good security team. Just as there are profiles of criminals, there are also profiles of potential victims. Knowledge of both creates a balance and an advantage for security managers and their teams. Awareness of victimology adds a different dimension to the fundamental task of providing security as well as the ability to observe circumstances from several different perspectives. Results of one survey conducted between 1992 and 1996 (National Victim Assistance Acadamy, 2002) show that the top five victims of violent crimes are: 1. Police Officers 2. Corrections Officers 3. Taxi Drivers 4. Private Security Guards 5. Bartenders Study of such statistics and research will aid security managers in strategic placement and function of personnel, officers and security protocols. Victimology The study of victimology as a separate subject than criminology began in the 1970’s (van Dijk, 1997) as violent crimes increased and a need to understand how victims were targeted also increased. The need for security has exponentially increased in this current decade, and with the use of innovative technology, better communications and a wider spectrum of training, security management has become a sophisticated and complex profession even in the simplest settings. While victimology is still in its pioneering stages and the very definition of the word “victim” varies from place to place, studies in victimology have spawned a new and growing industry ranging from personal security devices to large security companies employed by corporations and governments. Due to the still vague and broad definition of what constitutes a victim, this essay will focus on the value of victimology in the role of prevention as a strategy of security management, using the list of the top five work-related victims of violent crimes listed in the introduction. Police Officers Anecdotal evidence has shown that police officers are often as wary of their fellow officers and superiors in their department as they are of the criminal element. Although the police are the security force, they run the highest risk of being occupational victims. Let us examine the study of victimology in the case of police officers as victims within their own department, since protocols of law enforcement security are thoroughly explored already, but not much is said in regard to the protection of officers from each other. Traditional background checks emphasize illegal activity or irresponsible acts. The background check does not assess the true character or personality of any applicant; large corporations often take more security measures in hiring executives and management than the government sector tends to. This could be due to a variety of factors, the most likely of which would be lack of funding or resources at the government level due to budget cuts. Police officers as victims of interdepartmental crime are just as human as anyone else, and security management personnel in law enforcement would do well to exercise preventive measures in accepting trainees in areas that are prone to police corruption. Psychological assessments in these areas should be more rigorous in assessing both potential officers prone to corruption and those who display personality vulnerabilities, which would likely make them victims. Without quality leadership in management, no organization can thrive and police departments are no different. Awareness of victimology in relation to interdepartmental corruption can assist the security manager in prevention of such corruption crimes by heightening awareness of victim behavior and its nuances. The team would better be able to assess officers engaged in corruption as well as the officers who might be victims of such corruption by way of threats to their jobs, families, or other aspects of their well-being should they be tempted to “blow the whistle.” Corrections Officers As laws change, budgets are cut and prisoners become more aggressive while incarcerated (all current trends), corrections officers have a very high rate of occupational injury or death. This is one area where more is expected with less resources, and the quality of officer training is cut when the budget is (Kottke, 2005). It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the dynamics of victimology in the field of corrections, and much has been done by security management to enhance the safety of corrections officers in terms of remote monitoring of high-risk prisoners in state prisons or federal penitentiaries. Unfortunately, many system upgrades have been implemented due to decrease in personnel than a sincere wish to improve the training and safety of the corrections officers. Still, overcrowding is a reality of current prisons and while rural jails and detention facilities don’t have the percentage of attacks on corrections officers, the occupation is still riddled with victims (both officers and prisoners). Despite the rather rosy picture painted by recruiters with an irresponsible “oh by the way, it could get dangerous sometimes” disclaimer advertising corrections training (CollegeGrad.com), minimal training is required to become a corrections officer as opposed to a police officer. This is an area where no ideal solution can be offered to enhance the situation of being a corrections officer unless the setting is rural (even then, victimology comes in useful in case the released inmate wishes to retaliate against the system and targets the corrections officer). In reality, of all law enforcement positions, the one of corrections is likely to remain vague and dismal. Corrections officers have a high stress environment, not the least of which is a critical incident, and the shift work stress along with overall depression rates and effects on family members (Smith, Mark, undated). In this area, even management can do little to improve the lot of corrections officers; it seems people in this line of work are on their own in terms of assistance for their occupational ills. Taxi Drivers (Mass Transit): Security management in transit occupations faces a real challenge when it comes to individual vehicles. Unfortunately, workers such as taxi drivers face the most frequent exposure to crime due to their inability to turn down fares and still maintain a quota for the taxi company. Moreover, security management for taxi companies is complex due to the nature due to the nature of the job of driving a taxi. Under enormous pressure from outside entities, taxi companies are employing minimal security measure to enhance their drivers’ safety (OSHA, 2000). Since taxi drivers have as much as if not more exposure to criminal behavior than police offers do and since they are unarmed, drivers are perfect victims for robberies and carjackings. Victimology study is minimal here to assess and address the problem; what has been called for is pro-active prevention also called “opportunity blocking” (Eck, John). In a report to the U.S. Congress called Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t and What’s Promising, John Eck elegantly reported that simple measures taken to block an opportunity for a criminal to act was, in some circumstances, successful in crime prevention. Eck described “place crimes,” mass transit among them. Since not much attention had previously been given to place crimes, Eck first defined what a “place” is, then presented his findings in altering certain places (residences, parks, buses, commercial jets, airports, etc.) where common crimes occur as a deterrent to criminal behavior. In the case of taxi drivers, OSHA could only recommend safety measures such as GPS systems, in-car surveillance cameras and 911 priority for a driver in trouble. These measures will not prevent crimes, yet they may block opportunities or act as deterrents. The problem has consistently been that taxi companies do not want to spend the money on security equipment. More thoughtful offerings in terms of preventive measure in taxis using victimology as a basis for security management come from the Taxi Driver Security Conference (1996). The result of this work has been the implementation of decals on taxis and other service vehicles stating that drivers carry a restricted amount of cash. Since people known to carry cash as part of their work are prime targets for crime, cashless fare systems have been suggested. What grabs the attention at the end of this particular speech presented by John R. Stone, Ph.D, is the typical dilemma of who should help taxi drivers and if they do help, will they also share liability? It is somewhat disconcerting that liability rather than ethics is the driving force behind some security management systems. Private Security Guards At the lowest rung of the law enforcement ladder are private security guards. While not having the proportion of workplace incidents occur as their corrections brethren, private security guards still increasingly score high on the victim list of occupational crime. The likeliest victims of violence in the security guard industry are those employed at public events or bars, the danger increasing with rises in drug trafficking and abuse along with alcohol consumption and its potentially explosive results in public places. What is very interesting is the rise in status of security guards in these “post-9/11” days; on September 11, 2001, private security guards were the first responders in that horrific incident, since they were on site, employed by private companies. Since that fateful day, private security guards are now (along with just about everyone else in law enforcement) an extension of Homeland Security. Where before 9/11, private security guards were similar to corrections officers in having minimal training prior to service (security guards often have no formal training before beginning their jobs; they are provided with orientation and basic first aid training). Public perception has changed in the last four years, though; security guards are seen as a form of police officer, which they are not. Private security guards typically receive low wages and minimal benefits; combined with minimal training, security guards are generally displaced workers from other fields or temporary workers for an event. This is the reason given to excuse any more training than is necessary for security guards, since “their job is not to endanger themselves” (Kaysen, 2005, quoting Linus Armstrong). The difficulty in increasing security for security guards who work in high-risk areas is that they are unarmed and generally the target of violence because they are simply doing what they’ve been hired to do: protect the owner’s assets and the people in it by being alert and being present. When explosive situations occur, as in the case of drug/alcohol abuse at an event or in a bar, the security guard is the most likely victim, regardless of personality profile. The only recourse the guard has is to use his or her resources to defuse the situation and attempt to restore order. This applies to “bouncers,” now more attractively called “floor men” and security guards for special events. In assigning unarmed security guards to such events, the security manager (assuming it is a large company) would be well advised to have studied enough victimology to know which personnel to assign to the task; not every guard as an individual is suited for situations that could go out of control quickly and pose a very real danger. In this case, victimology informs the supervisor how to take preventive action before the event by assigning the stronger, calmer personalities to the event. Bartenders Just as we looked at “floor men” for bars and nightclubs, we must also look at the people on the front line of potentially explosive events in the workplace, which would be bartenders. Depending upon the establishment, the bartender may have the right to act as the proprietor in being the first one to request an unruly patron or group to leave the premises. Once the request is made, in most states, the patrons are legally shifted from the role of patron to that of trespasser. The bartender, without the benefit of an on-site security guard, should be equipped with everything necessary to ensure his or her safety and the safety of the patrons. Bartenders usually do not receive any kind of security training other than understanding the state’s law regarding liquor licensing. Since alcohol consumption can result in unruly and even dangerous behavior, the manager of the premises would be well advised to provide the means for the bartender to gain the necessary assistance immediately in the event of a critical incident Ideally, bartenders would be screened for coping skills and solutions to unpredictable behaviors as well as being informed of their legal rights. Granted, this is simply information, but information can work wonders in a critical incident, being a tool to draw upon when necessary. A bartender can step out of the victimology profile by knowing where the high crime rate establishments are and simply not work there. Because of changing liability issues and rising costs of service industries, bartenders will be the least likely to receive any kind of training in the event of a critical incident. The security management for most bartenders goes no further than the owner and/or manager of the establishment itself. Conclusion Since the study of victimology must necessarily define exactly what a victim is, the available resources are many and varied with a broad spectrum that is collectively vague. Most presentations regarding victimology are actually criminology from the perspective of the victim, or the psychological studies of victims with their plethora of post traumatic stress problems. In the United States, it is relatively easy to be a victim if one is creative enough; simply spill hot coffee on yourself at McDonald’s and you are a victim. The criminal justice system is flooded with such frivolous lawsuits and media attention-grabbers that everyday jobs that pose a real and present danger are often overlooked in research. They appear as incidents in the local newspaper or local television news and the severity of the problem is undermined due to more interesting news on a larger scale. In an increasingly complex system of law and order, it becomes more difficult to implement security measures that will fit many needs. It is impossible to guarantee security in any circumstance. Yet a knowledge of victimology (as young and immature as this science is) will do the security manager good in terms of prevention; not only is prevention good practice, it is also a money saver in terms of time lost due to physical or psychological injury. The evolution of victimology has swung from one extreme to the other in terms of its focus; this is largely due to the broadening definition of what a “victim” is. In the eyes of the law, a victim is someone (or their property) who has been harmed in some way by someone else. No matter what kind of psychological jargon or spin would fit well, victimization can be avoided by exercising prevention as well as lack of opportunity on the part of a perpetrator. In the recent national disasters of 9/11 and hurricane Katrina, we are dealing with all levels of victims; it is likely that every kind of victim could be defined in those two events. In both cases, law enforcement personnel as well as first responders and security personnel were victims along with civilians. Victimologists and security managers alike would do well to examine the dynamics of the Katrina aftermath by clarifying what was assumed and what was overlooked (prime victim factors). In the much-publicized events following Katrina in New Orleans, the victims were, in the beginning, everyone (from the hurricane itself). Next, people were harmed by miscommunications and assumptions, largely due to the unexpected catastrophic proportions of the storm and the unprecedented damage it left. In this case, lack of preparedness exacerbated the loss of control that officials had over the city as it fell into anarchy. Now the police officers themselves were victims and were in a situation for which they had not been trained, nor did they have the resources to contain the violence. In the bigger picture, it can safely be stated that victimization in the United States is exponentially higher than two decades ago, largely due to the changing legal definitions of what a victim is. The biggest security risk of any organization is its weakest link, and usually that lies in the inability to exercise common sense or self-preservation due to liability issues put in place by forces higher than law enforcement. Many victims are not victims of intentional crimes and this poses a real threat to already strained resources. Due to the ever-changing definition of “victim” depending upon the skill of the lawyers involved and the motivation of the victim, security management is a field in continual flux. This is a potential casualty, since no clear interpretation can be delineated from many cases. It is rational to expect that the law is clearly defined and that right and wrong are fairly obvious, yet those days are long gone due to the advent of downsizing, overstretched resources resulting in lack of comprehensive training for all but special forces such as S.W.A.T. teams and riot police, where the real enemies and the real victims are clearly defined. Why should security management be concerned about victimology? Liability aside, the first concern for security management should be the safety and well-being of its personnel and the people the personnel serve. In a changing society with continually shifting boundaries, keeping abreast of victimology aids the security management team in implementing prevention more effectively. Prevention and deterrence together save lives, jobs, and ultimately, money. As job descriptions broaden and personnel are engaged in activities that require more training, less focus should be on liability fears and more on the quality of work performance. Even more important is determining the style and fit of personnel to the task. A good example of what not to do in this regard lies in the shooting of a Brazilian man in London shortly after the mass transit bombings on July 7, 2005. In the days following that incident, a junior officer on duty in a tube station shot and killed an innocent man in a hair-trigger response. Perhaps placing a junior officer who obviously had a case of nerves in such a high profile place so soon after a terrorist attack was not the best choice. Who was the victim? References CollegeGrad.com, Career Information: Correctional Officers, |Online|, CollegeGrad.com. Available at: http://www.collegegrad.com/careers/servi20.shtml [20 September 2005] Eck, John. (n.d.), Preventing Crime At Places: Why Places are Important, |Online|, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising: A Report To The United States Congress, Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Available at: http://www.ncjrs.org/works/chapter7.htm [20 September, 2005] Kaysen, Rohnda. (2005), Do Security Guards Provide Enough Security? |Online|, Downtown Express. Available at: http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_118/dosecurityguards.html [22 September, 2005] Kottke, Colleen. (2005), Corrections Officers Face Threats: Violent Inmates Are Stepping Up Attacks, |Online| The Northwestern. Available at: http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/local/stories/local_22463210.shtml [22 September 2005] National Victim Assistance Academy (2002), Workplace Violence, |Online|, Section 22, Chapter 5, Office For Victims Of Crime. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa2002/chapter22_5.html [21 September 2005] Smith, Mark. (n.d.), Corrections Corner: Issues Specific to Corrections Officers, |Online|, Heavy Badge. Available at: http://www.heavybadge.com/correct.htm [22 September 2005] Stone, John R., Ph.D. (1996), Taxi Driver Security, |Online|, presented as a speech before the Montreal Urban Community Taxi Bureau, 6 Dec 1996. Available at: http://taxi-world.home.att.net/stone.htm [21 September 2005] U.S. Department of Labor. (2000), OSHA RECOMMENDS PROTECTIVE MEASURES TO HELP PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST TAXI DRIVERS, |Online|, OSHA Press Release. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=528 [22 September 2005] van Dijk, Jan J.M. (1997), Introducing Victimology, |Online|, Caring for Crime Victims - selected proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Victimology. Available at: www.victimology.nl/onlpub/other/vandijk.pdf {21 September 2005] Read More