Patrick Shand lost life in an apprehension that involved store employees and mall security in a shopping centre located in Toronto where Patrick had gone to accomplish some errands. The coroner conducted an inquest, and it determined that Shand died out of an accident that involved restraint asphyxia.' It proved that the main driving force in his death was drug abuse. In this inquest, the jury came up with twenty-two recommendations, which have implications on both in-house and security providers under contracts. Some of the recommendations based themselves on the following fields:
Amendment to the private investigators and security guards
The need for urgent change
Training program curriculum
License classification system
Training programs and persons with disabilities
License identification and renewal
Method of training delivery
These are only ten of the twenty-two recommendations. They were the most influential and well connected to Shand's case. These recommendations have had a great impact as some of them had inclusions in the Private Security and Investigate Services Act (PSISA). PSISA provides parameters to the security of industrial sectors, which means that all security guards must have a clue or complete information of what it entails. It has regulations and prohibitions that connected to codes of conduct.
There are three Shand inquests recommendations included in PSISA. One of them is Recommendation #1 which is on an amendment of the private investigators and security guards. These recommendations need all private security guards to be licensed, and they should be well connected to the people under whom they are working. This recommendation was made to ensure that all individuals who posed as security guards are legit and have all the necessary requirements. This recommendation got an incorporation in PSISA where it needed all security guards to carry their licenses with them wherever they go. They are also supposed to show them to the public whenever they are asked to do so. These guidelines apply to all personal guards and security staff.
This recommendation came from Shands Inquest at a time when insecurity had heightened. People had started to pose as security guards to take part in illegal actions. For instance, some of them presented themselves as security guards to be able to have access to drug business and people who engaged in unlawful behaviors. In the process, they also took part in the acts hence making efforts to reduce insecurity even harder. In Patrick Shand Inquest, the act was passed in 1966, but it was restated and used in PSISA in 2005.
The other recommendation that appears in Shand Inquest Verdict and still in PSISA is Recommendation #8. This commendation states that "Licenses should identify the classification of the security practitioner and what paraphernalia he or she is authorized to use." Some of the equipment security personnel can use handcuffs and expandable batons. In addition to this, it also needs licenses to be renewed after every year. In PSISA, it has been given a clearly outlined that for a security guard to hold any armor of defense equipment, they should ensure that they are licensed and have all that is needed to keep such arms.
Recommendation #3 in Patrick Shand Inquest states that all security practitioners should complete training requirements needed to be eligible for any licensing that is entitled to them. The rationale for this recommendation is to ensure that all security guards get provisions of necessary skills and knowledge. This directive targets the areas that involve interactions with the public. This training aims at providing them with skills needed to protect themselves and the public too. Without it, the public will be at high risks of insecurity as the practitioners will not be able to protect them.
This recommendation has a reflection in PSISA acts under the Training and Testing Regulation. It goes to all security personnel and private investigators who are required to fulfil all the mandatory requirements concerning training and testing. No officer should be licensed if he or she has not undergone training. The training offered is based on honesty, integrity, complying with federal laws, treating people equally, avoiding using profanity, avoiding using excessive force and not working under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
PSISA made a great approach when in incorporating details and information from Patrick Shand inquest. It has made them easy to understand by providing a classification that entails licensing requirements, general rules, and standards of practice, regulations, codes of conduct, uniforms, eligibility to hold a warrant, public complaints, and penalties for contravening the Act. Each of the subsections has laws and policies that have been well analyzed and proved to be ready for use by the public and private security practitioners.
PSISA chose to pick on some of the recommendations from Patrick Shand inquest as they appeared to be crucial for governing the public and providing the necessary security. The three chosen recommendations were the most important in that they touched on critical sections of security. For one, it picked on issues that should do with licensing. In this recommendation, all security officers and personnel should have completed the required training and testing. Every worker in any other form of employment needs some training regardless of the fact that education in that field is passed. Training makes one familiar with the area of work and all that is required to perfect all skills. Security guards who have are not trained tend to be sluggish in their job, and they are less productive when it comes to service delivery.
The other importance is in holding of license as a way of showing proof as a security guard. A license makes it easier for the public to believe that one is a security guard. Guards get licenses after completing all the requirements. Some of the requirements include undergoing training, being of the right age which is 18 years and above, having a clean criminal record from the Clean Criminal Record Regulation and legally entitled to work in the in the country at hand. All these are what one needs to fully qualify as a security guard. Anyone who poses as security should show the license and badge for assurance.
In conclusion, both Patrick Shand Inquest and PSISA are initiatives devised to reduce cases of insecurity. They are implemented under the stipulated laws and in the areas where they are supposed to work. The regulations and recommendations in them are applicable and are necessary for all fields that need the security of any form. The two have led to a reduction of insecurity as they allow individuals to get bodyguards hence limiting the rates at which people take part in a crime.
Patrick Shand Inquest. Policing and Security Management Services Inc. June 2004
Private Security and Investigating Services Act Ontario: Community Safety and Correctional Services. 2007
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal:
- Why Marijuana Use Should Be Legalized? - Controversial Essay
- Jury Selection Process
- Prison Condition in Latin America
- Argumentative Essay Sample on Management of Intellectual Property
- Assignment Sample on Forensic Science
- Application Letter for the Position of Forensic Criminologist
- U.S Gun Control: Should the U.S Adopt Stronger Gun Control Laws?