The main purpose of prisons is retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. Depriving the wrong doers their freedom is a means of making them pay for their debt. However, while considering the main functions of the prisons, the rights of the inmates should be mainstreamed as well. The conditions within the facility in which the four functions are realized should also be in good condition. Running the correctional system in the United States is a duty that is requires economic input and having realized the economic burden the system put on the government prompted the outsourcing of services from the private sector.
The issue of privatization is an emotive one as it questions the efficacy of private prisons based on the quality of life of the inmates, the physical facility, the staff-inmate interaction, as well as the institutional climate. The fact that the correctional system is linked to the justice system puts into question the economic motivation of private facilities vis-à-vis the likely compromise that this would play on the justice. Private prisons are seen as for-profit systems whose motivation is the profit and as such may not completely serve the purpose of prisons. Likewise, it is apparent that the conditions in the private institutions are as poor as the state-run prisons if not worse. For instance, the institutions still have insufficient number of beds to cater for the large number of inmates and staff-to-inmate ration is still very high.
In a nutshell, private prisons experience the same problems as the state-run institutions and the conditions may be worse. Therefore, privatization of prisons in the United States should be banned.
Privatization of Prisons in the United States
Introduction
To many people, correction in legal terms is some form of euphemism. Correction is taken in rather distaste and represents the loss of freedom. Within the legal circles, however, it represents rehabilitation and hope where people can work on and learn from their mistakes before returning to the society as productive and responsible citizens (Rafter, 2017). The correctional system serves the four main functions of rehabilitation, retribution, incapacitation, and deterrence (Reiman & Leighton, 2016). In many countries throughout the world, the correctional systems have been funded by the governments. However, with the increased number of inmates there has been a need to cut the costs in whatever way. Besides, the crowding in the prisons have made the conditions to be rather inhumane for the inmates due to the insufficiency of resources (Reiman & Leighton, 2016). The United States Department of Justice recently announced a move aimed at the privatization of the correctional system. The aims include cutting the costs of running the system and improving the conditions (Shleifer, 1998). However, while the reasons given by the government may be justifiable, privatization would imply that the justice system would be owned by individuals and profit-making entity. The implication is a system that would be compromised for the benefit of the owners.
Literature Review
Prisons are an integral and significant part of the criminal justice system in every country around the world. When used appropriately, they play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that offenders are brought to book (White, 2001). At best, prisons and jails should offer human experiences and opportunities to the inmates to help in the rehabilitation as one of its main functions (Price & Riccucci, 2005). Prisons are also meant to be retributive at the same time and as such, as the inmate pays for their crime they should be given humane living conditions (Ugelvik & Dullum, 2011). However, the high incarceration rights especially in the United States have put a strain in the government’s ability to achieve these goals in recent years.
Killingbeck (2005) highlights the fact that privatization is a process that should illuminate techniques, strategies, discourse, and the complexities of commercial correction. This assertion indicates that the efficacy of the facilities should be considered on more than the superficial meaning of the aspect of privatization (in regards to the economic consideration) but also in regards to the quality of life, physical plant, staff-inmate interaction, and the institutional climate (Killiingbeck, 2005). In this regard, consideration of the question whether prisons should be privatized or not should be informed by more than the economic and profitability aspect but also all the aspects that constitute the concept of correction (Perrone and Pratt, 2003). The determination of the whole concept in prisons offers an answer to the problem of public provision vs. privatization.
In an advanced capitalist economy, the aspect of public-private partnerships is a highly topical one. The subject of privatization of prisons is one that elicits mixed reaction bearing in mind that the institution is closely related to the justice system (Friedman and Parenti, 2013). This is informed by the fact that private institutions tend to be more economically driven and as such privatization is seen to be the route towards compromising the justice system. According to Harr & Hess (2009), “critics fear the quality of inmate care is compromised when private facilities focus on generating profit” providing the main reasons against privatization. However, the focus on depicting the private sector as being more efficient and cost-effective is attributed as fallacious by (Priest & John, 2006) calling for an examination of the political context of privatization and not only the economic aspect.
Several factors are attributed to the privatization (especially after the re-emergence of privatization in the 1980s). Besides, the common reason of the cost that is often quoted by proponents of the privatization such as Hart (2003), others attribute privatization to political factors and culture of the state. In the United States, for instance, the party controlling the legislature is likely to come up with bills that may have long-term implications on the running of the state. Those against privatization also base on costs to support their arguments including Lambert et al. (2005) that seek to show that the focus of private facilities will be on reducing the costs of running the prison systems as a private enterprise. According to Lambert et al. (2005), the impact would be the lack of adequate budgetary allocation for trained personnel and equipment to promote the welfare of the incarcerated.
Discussion
Privatization of prisons is likely to serve the opposite of its rehabilitation purpose. According to Logan (1990), the privatization of prisons brings into play the economic profitability of the institution thus putting into jeopardy the intentions of the prison. Logan states that the absurdity of privatizing prisons to reduce the cost of running by the government has for a long time brought into the forefront conversation of economic motivations. The implication of this is that there are fewer resources put into place by private institutions to provide rehabilitative and correctional services so as to save on the costs of running the institution. According to Eisen (2017) a research into the living conditions of inmates in private prisons revealed that there was crowding in private facilities. The crowding was prompted by the lack of enough bed capacity to cater for the over five thousand inmates per year intake in the private facilities. The poor conditions imply that the prisoners are returned to the society while still poorly equipped and not rehabilitated enough to lead a law abiding life (Perron & Pratt, 2003).
When the Trump administration announced the intention to cut down on privatization of the prisons in the United States, the Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates wrote a report confirming the poor performance of private institutions in retribution and rehabilitation. In the memo, Yates pointed out that private prisons offer less correctional facilities than those run by federal Bureau of Prisons. Yates states that the economic motivations in the facilities led to a cut back on the costs of staff training and as such there was a higher inmate to staff ratio. Simon and Waal (2009) assert that in the attempt to save the costs of running, officers at private facilities are often paid less than the rest. The implication is that private prisons tend to have higher turnover rates among the staff thus increasing the security and safety risks of both the inmates and the staff. The correction system involves more than just the prisons but also the programs and personnel that encompass the entire meaning of correction (Volskay, 2011). Private facilities do not focus on equipping the facility, hiring qualified personnel and instituting programs for complete rehabilitation and retribution of the alleged offenders (Lambert et al., 2005).
There are arguments for privatization including by Mumford et al. (2016) asserting that private facilities tend to provide an alternative to the overcrowded conditions of prison facilities run by the federal bureau of prisons. The most outstanding reason for the privatization of the prisons is that it saves the government the costs that would go into running the facilities. It is apparent that soliciting for private running of prisons is a powerful tool in lowering the operational costs and delivering additional beds to address the issue of severe overcrowding that is witnessed in state prisons (Tshweu, 2000). The implication of reducing overcrowding is that there are more resources available for the remaining inmates. It is prudent to note that Kish and Lipton (2013) posit that the private prisons are likely to give better living conditions for the inmates due to the reduced number of inmates. Indeed the private prisons are lauded for the ability to monitor the inmates more closely and avert insecurities and contrabands. Besides, reports indicate that there are fewer inmate deaths in private prisons than public prisons (Letschert 2011). These benefits of private prisons are achieved at a much lower cost than in state owned institutions.
Conclusion
While there are definite advantages of the privatization of prisons, the advantages are more. These are especially attributed to the fact that private institutions are often associated with profit making. Overcrowding is a majorconcern in the prison system. Private prisons experience the same problems as the state-run prisons. Therefore, privatization is not an optimal solution and the state would be better off investing on building more facilities to cater for the increased number of inmates. Privatization complicates faces hurdles on economic efficiency and achievement of social justice hence not the correct solution.
References
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Eisen, L.-B. (2018). Inside private prisons: An American dilemma in the age of mass incarceration.
Friedman, A., &Parenti, C. (2013). Capitalist punishment: Prison privatization and human rights. SCB Distributors.
Harr, J. S., & Hess, K. M. (2009). Careers in Criminal Justice and Related Fields: From Internship to Promotion. Cengage Learning.
Hart, O. (2003). Incomplete contracts and public ownership: Remarks, and an application to public‐private partnerships. The Economic Journal, 113(486).
Kish, R. J., & Lipton, A. F. (2013). Do private prisons really offer savings compared with their public counterparts?. Economic Affairs, 33(1), 93-107.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Paoline, E. A., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18(4), 33-50.
Letschert, R., &Hagoort, M. (2001). Privatization of Prisons. Tilburg Foreign L. Rev., 9, 279.
Logan, C. H. (1990). Private prisons: Cons and pros. New York [u.a.: Oxford Univ. Press.
Mumford, M., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Nunn, R. (2016). The economics of private prisons. London: The Hamilton Project.
Perrone, D., & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Comparing the quality of confinement and cost-effectiveness of public versus private prisons: What we know, why we do not know more, and where to go from here. The Prison Journal, 83(3), 301-322.
Price, B. E., &Riccucci, N. M. (2005). Exploring the determinants of decisions to privatize state prisons. The American Review of Public Administration, 35(3), 223-235.
Priest, D. M., & John, E. P. S. (Eds.). (2006). Privatization and public universities. Indiana University Press.
Reiman, J., & Leighton, P. (2016). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. Routledge.
Selman-Killingbeck, D. (2005). A Sociological History of Prison Privatization in the Contemporary United States.
Shleifer, A. (1998). State versus private ownership. Journal of economic perspectives, 12(4), 133-150.
Simon, R. J., & Waal, C. . (2011). Prisons the world over. Lanham: Lexington Books.
This is the Real reason Private Prisons should be Outlawed. Accessed 30/03/2018. http://time.com/4461791/private-prisons-department-of-justice/
Tshweu, P. S. (2000). Privatization of prisons (Doctoral dissertation).
Ugelvik, T., & Dullum, J. (Eds.). (2011). Nordic Prison Practice and Policy-Exceptional Or Not?: Nordic Prison Policy and Practice. London: Routledge.
Volskay, T. (2011). Privatization of Prisons.
White, A. A. (2001). Rule of law and the limits of sovereignty: the private prison in jurisprudential perspective. Am. Crim. L. Rev., 38, 111.
