ABSTRACT
User-pays policing will be more prominent in those jurisdictions where public services in general are more commercialized. The limits of “user pays” policing have also yet to be determined; the kind of decentralization of contract policing envisaged by H. Bayley and Shearing, where local communities have security vouchers that they are able to spend as they wish, may not be totally unrealistic. The distinction between public interest and private interest has become blurred. Promoters of public events of a profit-making nature are often required to engage police to maintain order. In addition to the normative considerations, one might also ask how the three modes of public/private interface coexist in practice. A police service that enjoys a degree of private sponsorship must ensure that its services are delivered in the public interest, and there is no actual or apparent conflict of interest. The term “user pays policing” has entered the vernacular to refer to discourage circumstances.
