This paper reviews Nils Christie's Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style, examining how the United States criminal justice system has become intertwined with private business interests. The paper explores the explosive growth of U.S. incarceration rates, the profit motives driving prison privatization, and documented abuses within privately run facilities. It also analyzes racial disparities in sentencing — particularly the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans under drug laws — and critiques "three strikes" and "tough on crime" policies. The paper concludes by surveying reform alternatives, including conditional sentencing, community service, and community policing strategies that have demonstrated success in reducing crime without relying on mass imprisonment.
The paper demonstrates effective use of a primary source as a critical lens. Rather than simply summarizing Christie's book, the writer uses it as a framework to evaluate independent evidence (Supreme Court rulings, prison abuse cases, Finnish sentencing policy) and to articulate a personal critical stance. This approach — anchoring analysis in one authoritative source while ranging outward — is a strong model for critical book-review essays at the undergraduate level.
The paper opens by introducing Christie's central thesis about the criminalization-as-industry model, then develops the economic argument with incarceration statistics and corporate profit data. It pivots to the privatization debate, presenting both sides before identifying documented failures. A focused section on racial disparities — supported by drug-offense data and survey research — leads into a critique of tough-on-crime legislation. The paper closes with reform proposals drawn from international models (Finland) and domestic criminology research (Kelling and Corbett).
In his book Crime Control as Industry: Towards Gulags, Western Style, Nils Christie argues that it has become difficult to determine who the worst criminals really are — the men and women behind bars, or the individuals who run the penal industry. The book details how the United States relies on the criminal justice system to enrich business interests by following the model of corporate America. The disciplinary system is supposedly designed to control so-called dangerous populations that challenge the prevailing social order. Yet increasingly, the criminal network is used more to build economic growth for private concerns than to enhance public safety and well-being. This entrepreneurial penal complex will continue to expand exponentially unless stopped by an American public that remains largely uninformed about what is occurring in the area of crime prevention.
Relying on his expertise as an economist, Christie explains why private companies are becoming involved in the running of prisons. As with any individual or group that invests in an enterprise, the desire is to make a profit — and the bigger, the better. Given the way the penal system works today, these investors have an essentially unlimited supply of raw materials: the prisoners themselves.
How much pain should be delivered within a society to those who are labeled as socially deviant? Christie asks. How much punishment should one country mete out before risking becoming a Western Gulag? The answer lies in the individuals who make up the society. "A suitable amount of pain is not a question of utility of crime control, of what works. It is a question of standards based on values. It is a cultural question."
Christie explains that there are two ways of approaching this cultural problem. The first is to create penal theories based on unquestionable lines of authority — the church, for example, claims the highest of all authorities: God. However, Christie warns that the non-utilitarian of this type is merely a spokesman for God, just as the utilitarian is for the state. One does not have to look far back in history — only to Hitler or Stalin — to see how the cultural perspective can be seized by the state. The other alternative is to view the foundations of justice and law as enduring, but requiring each generation to continually recreate their concrete formulations. Justice does not consist of paint-by-number principles designed using the methods of law or social science; rather, it is based on common knowledge converted into legal principles by each generation. In short, the measure of a civilization is the way it delivers pain to its wrongdoers, and the amount of punishment is a mirror of the values that reign in a culture. Each person must ask: "Is this in accordance with my own set of values to live in a state which represents me in this way?"
On December 31, 2002, there were 2,033,331 people in United States prisons and jails — a rise of 3.7% in a single year, more than twice the growth rate of the previous twelve months. The average annual increase since 1995 had been 3.6%. Based on population, the United States places more people in prison cells than any other country in the industrialized world, with the possible exception of Russia and China. Employment figures are equally striking: the prison system employs more people than any Fortune 500 company, with the possible exception of General Motors, according to USA Today figures that were already more than six years old at the time of Christie's writing.
Profit is the primary motive regardless of whether a private firm is an outsourcer for the government — building prisons, supplying equipment, or providing services — or is the organization actually running the institutions. Naturally, rehabilitating inmates, lowering the crime rate, reducing incarceration time, or decreasing the number of prisoners does not rank as a high priority, since each of these individuals represents monetary gain. A number of criminologists, researchers, and social scientists agree with Christie's conclusions. Over fifteen essays in the book Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment discuss the results of recent "three strikes" and "get tough on crime" campaigns that dominated the late 1980s and 1990s. They document the negative effects on society: loss of public assistance by drug offenders even after completing incarceration, large numbers of women imprisoned for minor offenses, a gross disproportion of people of color behind bars, employment discrimination after release, hardship for children of imprisoned parents, and alarming rates of chronic disease combined with serious deficiencies in inmate health and safety.
Incidents such as the murders and stabbings of numerous inmates at a private prison in Youngstown, Ohio, in 1998 drew widespread attention. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a major report criticizing operational shortcomings that contributed to the disaster, including staffing deficiencies, poor security procedures, and the misclassification of prisoners. Litigation stemming from these problems resulted in a landmark settlement involving both monetary damages and a complete restructuring of the prison's policies regarding staffing, classification, medical care, and monitoring of prison conditions. Similarly, a class action lawsuit filed in Dallas alleged that girls held at a Wackenhut facility were "degraded, humiliated, assaulted, harassed, and emotionally abused," and that the facility was deficient in medical care, counseling, and vocational training. Two Wackenhut employees pleaded guilty to criminal charges of sexual assault, and the company settled the lawsuit.
Not surprisingly, much of the literature in favor of prison privatization is authored by individuals within the penal or political industries — those who have the most to lose from change. The National Center for Policy Analysis, a Republican think tank, cites a 1996 report from Pennsylvania that highlights the primary claimed benefit of privatization: cost savings. The report estimated that transitioning fifteen new prisons from public to private ownership would reduce costs by $551 million over twenty years, save an additional $33.77 million annually in operating expenses, and — if the existing system were also privatized — yield a further $76 million in annual operating savings. The Reason Public Policy Institute cites additional arguments in favor of privatization, including access to state-of-the-art technology, reduced overcrowding, greater accountability for inmate protection, higher standards than government facilities, and better capacity to adapt to industry changes.
The Ohio and Texas incidents are beginning to make an impact on government. In some states, public officials are responding with tighter requirements in requests for proposals and contracts, stronger capacity to monitor contract compliance, fines levied by withholding payment, and contract terminations where services are found deficient. It remains too early to tell exactly how the industry will respond to these pressures. Much will depend on how firmly the government pursues accountability in the private corrections sector.
Most states do require private prisons to achieve accreditation by the American Correctional Association, but critics argue that ACA standards are inadequate or difficult to enforce. Even in states requiring visits by independent boards, documented abuses persist — substandard diets, the beating of prisoners, inadequate protection from violence, and denial of medical treatment.
Meanwhile, individuals in the "crime business" are doing quite well financially. For example, a Texas businessman purchased California's largest private prison company, Eclectic Communications, Inc., with the backing of Wall Street investment houses Dillon, Reed & Co. and Charterhouse. Eclectic Communications managed to receive prison contracts worth over $50 million in revenues since 1988. Similarly, Lehman Brothers, together with Paine Webber, teamed with the nation's largest private prison operator, Corrections Corporation of America, to form C.C.A. Prison Realty Trust in early 1997, a vehicle specifically designed for buying existing prisons. The company's Initial Public Offering raised $388.5 million.
This raises an important question: how can these private prisons be effectively policed? The government's record on enforcing regulations is well known. And if more public money is needed to monitor private prisons, that only increases costs — undermining the very rationale for privatization in the first place. It is an oxymoron.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.