Arguments for and against prison privatization

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 where interested parties with absolute no prior experience undertake to run prison f or a profit venture. 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 different private and public entities (Committee, 1996; Thomas et al., 1999).

Arguments for prison privatization

Economic ventures undertaken by the private sector have a key feature of being efficient compared to state run ventures. The argument for privatization of prison owing to the potential efficiency to result follows from this argument. It is observable that private organizations have the advantage of being more rigorous and flexible in making vital decisions relating to the operation of the prison. The aspect of privatization and economic efficiency follows from the fact that private operators will face competition. This on its own is an incentive to provide state services reflective of money value. The efficiency that lack is state operation owing to bureaucratic red tapes is absent in private organizations (Committee, 1996; Thomas et al., 1999). This guarantees that the private sectors operating prison facility will take immediate necessary action. Deployment of workforce and the capital will be more efficient making available cost cutting measures and maximum utilization of the facility. Use of advanced security measure that minimize the cost of operating the prison facility as well as reducing staff workload and overtime will result from the privatization.

Public sector reforms will be realized following privatization and the gains obtained thereof. Public sector will emulate the observed efficiency in the privatized prisons thus deploy measure to reflect the some changes. Exposure of public sector to competition will introduce good work practices that enhance changes in policy and government efficiency in provision of public services. The delegation of prison facility management to private sector lessens the workload to the government. This presents an avenue for the government to allocate its time and resources to other development ventures (Thomas et al., 1999).