However, in order to establish a private facility the consent of state legislature is required. Once a state makes the decision for allowing establishment of a private for-profit prison then corporations are asked to participate in bidding by submitting their proposals. The highest bidder offering better services is awarded the contract. Many states attach certain conditions such as maintenance and provision of educational and rehabilitation services before actually awarding the contract. After awarding the contract government exercises the right of monitoring and accountability by means of thorough inspections, interviews, observations, hearings, and meetings. For example, in the state of Florida there is a legal requirement that such prison facilities can be inspected at least once annually. Some argue that annual and semi-annual inspections are not enough and full-time government monitoring is required but this too may have issues of costs and corruption. To counter this some private firms have taken the point-of-view of accreditation by American Correctional Association (ACA). Still, a fool proof formula for monitoring and checking is not there and cases of human rights related issues have also surfaced over the years concerning treatment of prisoners in private facilities.

Other Considerations

Those who advocate and go against private involvement in prison handlings make different arguments in its favor. Many say that past trend and analysis have shown that government has been largely inefficient in this area. So, people look for better inefficiency in the private sector but the absence of market forces pose a problem. one group of American researchers concluded "From a purely economic perspective, there are so many elements of the profit mechanism missing from correctional industries that its implementation is at worst unfeasible, at best elusive" (Gandy & Hurl, 1987). Different studies conducted show that there is not a market...

Majority of analysts hold the view that if economy and efficiency are considerations then private sector does not offer any major benefits rather state prisons, as a more politically viable option should try to work on improving its own efficiency by different means.
Proponents of private industry bring forth a very strong point of rehabilitation of inmates. Privately run prisons not just provide better chances of rehabilitation but inmates from such prisons have better chances of securing a job after release as well. The morale of inmates gets a boost in case of private-run prisons as they can foresee a chance of employment in the private sector. However, at times the prospect of landing a job depends on skilled learnt during stay at prison and very few state and private run prison offer marketable skills to their inmates. Also, a proper study or research conducted to show better chances of employment is not available. The main purpose considered for privatization is to involve inmates in productive and industrious work rather than just holding them in a cell away from the society.

Conclusion

One of the main causes of allowing private facilities was cost saving but no significant achievement has been made in this regard. A 2001 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that "rather than the projected 20% savings, the average saving from privatization was only about 1%, and most of that was achieved though lower labor costs" (Campbell, Coyle & Neufeld, 2003). Though private facilities have been lauded for better services and efficiency at many a times, the issues of costs and many human rights violations have marred the overall prospect of private prisons.

Bibliography

Campbell, A., Coyle, A., & Neufeld, R. (2003). Capitalist Punishment: Prison Privatization & Human Rights. Clarity Press. Atlanta.

Gandy, J. & Hurl, L. (1987). Private Sector Involvement in Prison Industries: Options and Issues. Canadian Journal of Criminology.…