Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Privatization of Prison
Privatization
Privatization of the prisons stands out as an objective by the government to change or extend its obligation in running prisons. Change in this operation calls for state policy changes where the government contracts private operators in elements relating to construction, design and security of prisons. In some states, some private companies undertake full ownership of the prisons inviting the government to evaluate the facility and offer to contract them to provide services in prison administration for a fee. The private prison operators set up the facility as a factor to fetch economic gain through the provision of the services (Brakel, 2002).
To be considered as a private company providing services in prison management, willing operators compete for the contract through submission of tender. The states evaluate the facilities and capability of the willing companies and offer contracts specifying the terms of service and the length of the contract (Brakel, 2002).
The phenomenon of prison privatization traces its roots back in 80s. The aspect of prison privatization enhances development of innovative measures that are free from red-tape incapacities. It is arguable that privatization of prison results to reformation of public sector by setting performance standards. The state is also in a position to monitor private operators and require changes (Cunningham, 2003). This is something the state cannot do if it is the one operating the prison. The aspect of completion comes in as an added economic advantage where private operators set up prisons and try to outdo others in order to get tenders from the state (Cunningham, 2003).
Arguments against prison privatization
At the onset, critiques questioned how privatization would set in innovations and increase efficiency without compromising on security standards. The complexity in administration of prisons is considered as one of the challenge private companies would face. Critics question the competence of private company owners to manage and run prison facilities (Bowman, Simon, & Paul, 2009). This is the case...
The big concern in this is having ideal measures to manage custodial matters in prison (Durham, 1994).
One of the prominent arguments against privatization of prison is that it is immoral to allow profit-earning ventures in inflicting punishment on others. It is the observation by those against privatization of prison that imprisonment and management of prison is an important state function that should not be delegated to private companies. Fundamentally, privatization of prisons may increase inefficiency with the private operators undertaking cost-cutting measures (Thomas, Charles W., Dianne Bolinger, & Badalamenti, 1999).
Some private companies may compromise the inmates' welfare while others may choose to create reasons to increase inmate's stay in their prisons. Additionally, private companies running prisons may be in position to form lobby groups that will advocate for higher imprisonment policy reform (Lanza-Kaduce, Lonn, Karen F. Parker, & Thomas, 2001).
The cost cutting measures likely to result from the objective of maximize profit may lead to lower quality standards in the prisons. Cost reduction in some cases results to lower quality where some cost are avoided to maximize gains. Labor unions have also expressed concerns that some private organizations running private prison will compromise the employees wages and pay them lower wages where they intend to maximize their profits. This may compromise the safety requirement within prisons and the moral among the employee to care for the prisoners (Durham, 1994).
It is argued that the privatization of prisons will not open up avenues for reforms in the public sector. This argument stands out since it will offer the state distraction from undertaking their needed service to the public and concentrate in monitoring the contracted private prison companies. The state will lose focus on the necessary matter such as proving alternative to imprisonment. The privatization of prisons and the services will not help the government in providing the necessary alternative as correcting to wrong doers. Communication breakdown may result when information on prisons and the prisoners is being passed to the…
References
Bowman, G.W., Simon, H., & Paul, S. (2009). Privatizing the United States Justice System: Police, Adjudication, and Corrections Services from the Private Sector. . Jefferson, NC:: McFarland & Company, Inc.
Brakel, S.J. (2002). Prison Management, Private Enterprise Style: The Inmates' Evaluation. New England Journal of Criminal and Civil Confinement, 14(175), 175-244.
Committee, W.S.J.L.A. a. R. (1996). Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. Legislative Budget Committee, State of Washington Department of Corrections. Privatization Feasibility Study, Report 96-2. Olympia, WA: Legislative Budget Committee., 96-2
Cunningham, D. (2003). Public Strategies for Private Prisons. Paper presented at the Private Prison Workshop held January 29 -- 30, 1999, at the Institute on Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota Law School.
Furthermore, even the goal of preventing recidivism (and crime rates in general) conflict with the profit motive of any industry whose demand is measured by the numbers of criminals convicted and sentenced to terms of incarceration. Conclusion: Prison privatization has increased in the last few decades in the U.S. Its proponents believe that privatizing prisons will reduce the financial strain on government authorities in connection with maintaining correctional services. Critics are
Privatization of prisons has become an important consideration for the governments of all the developed countries including the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. The one major reason for this consideration is that the prisons are becoming overcrowded and therefore their management by the state is becoming difficult. Moreover, the involvement of the private sector also has the potential to decrease the economic burden that the management and running of
Prisons An analysis of the purposes for prisons in the U.S. justice system. The corrections system in America has historically fluctuated between being dedicated to incapacitation, rehabilitation, and to being punitive in nature. They can serve all three of these functions at the same time. Current trends in criminal justice remain focused on punitive justice that fosters prison environments lacking rehabilitative services, but recent scholarship and public policy have indicated a slight
Prison Industrial Complex as Another Form of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing US sentencing policies are still lean which has led to the federal government to incarcerate so many people. There are too many criminals committing too many crimes, and this explains why we have too many prisoners. Currently, the government's prison is holding 200,000-armed robbers, 150,000 sex offenders and 100 murderers (Davis, 2008). These people are enough to make fill a city.
Prisons For all intents and purposes the modern history of penology -- which is to say, the science and the theory of imprisonment and the state apparatus of the penitentiary -- begins with the late 18th century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In Bentham's day (corresponding roughly to the time of the American and French Revolutions) there was no idea of a penitentiary per se: there was instead His Majesty's Penal Colony
This gave the immediate need to contract the prison facilities. Literature review Extant literature has been dedicated to the topic of privatization of the rather publicly run correctional facilities in America. These literatures have been mixed and contain mixed views of proponent for privatization and its opponents alike. The literatures therefore have expressed favors of the system as well as critical of it. There also exists another category expressing pure criticism.