Abstract
Introduction
According to Thomas (2005), the crime rate in 2003 was almost the same as it was in 1973, but the number of people in prisons grew sevenfold. This is a real public policy puzzle because if the number of offenders did not change over the period, it would be appropriate to question the cause of the number of inmates to rise from 300,000 to nearly 2.3 million. The increase media attention in the late 1980s and early 1990s of high profile cases, and law and order demagoguery by politicians all played a part, of course. Nevertheless, the main factor contributing to increase number of inmates remains overlooked. It is the quite emergence of an influential prison-industrial complex. Just the same way organized big businesses formed a military-industrial complex during the Cold War to find a market for their expensive weapon systems, so do private correctional corporations and guard unions exploited the war on crime today to siphon more than $63 billion out of public coffers annually (Thomas, 2005). Correctional facilities such as Correctional Medical Services and Prison Health Services that manage correctional infirmaries generate $2 billion in revenue each year. Since some lawmakers have questioned the legal ethical and cost implication of private prisons, it is worth considering the advantages and disadvantages of both systems to come up with a valid conclusion on the best choice of prison system in the U.S.
Literature review
Private prison refers a facility for confining an individual physically through a third party contract by a local, state or federal government agency (Reese, 2006). Typically, private prisons enter into contractual arrangements with government agencies that hand over inmates and make monthly payments for each inmate confined in the facility. There is an increasing trend towards privatization of public facilities by private businesses, in addition construction and operation of supplementary prisons by private prison firms (Wood, 1998). The history of privatization dates back to the period following the American Revolution when the government started charging private businesses with the responsibility of confining and taking care of inmates (Potter, 2012). Without the ability to transport offenders out of the protectorate, Great Britain started placing prisoners on private established within English ports (Clear & Frost, 2002). The second face began with the Reconstruction Period (1865-1876) in the South, following the end of the Civil War (Potter, 2012). During this period, businessmen and farmers needed to find replacements for labor force once the slave trade was abolished. This prompted the government to issue convict leases to private businesses to complement their labor force (Clear & Frost, 2002).
The number of prisons in the United States has increased over the past few years. According to Noble (2006), privately owned prisons in Arizona holds 20% of the inmates’ population and the number keeps growing. There has been a similar increase in construction of private prisons in response to inmate population that has tripled between 1987 and 2007. It is therefore appropriate to as if this U.S. citizens should welcome this development.
Discussion
The dominant argument in support of private prisons is that they will save the taxpayer money because for-profit owners have the incentive to seek efficiencies that government institutions lack. Proponents attribute the increase in number of private prisons to providing relief to public correctional facilities. A research conducted by Reason Foundation-Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation found that in states like California, where it costs public correctional facilities more than $47,000 per years in upkeep per prisoner annually, private prisons have the potential to save the taxpayer more than $120 million a year (Noble, 2006). However, according to the Arizona Republic, the reality of the issue is that private prisons in Grand Canyon State cost far more on a per-prisoner basis compared to public prisons. Some experts assert that organizations in private prison business reap high profits by charging government for rather more than their initial underestimates while subsist on meager allowances that may make prisons less secure.
It is an issue of ethical concern anytime the private sector is trusted with the duty of enforcing the law. According to Los Angeles Times, the largest private prison company, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) realized revenue of $1.7 billion (2006). With such large amount at stake, private prisons always strive to make more by ensuring they secure contracts for inmates with the federal or state governments. From an economic perspective, private firms that compete for and rely on government contracts such prisons operations and weapons manufacturers to maximize their profits. These contractors can go the extent of providing less value for money than the state-run alternative to get more profit. Furthermore, contractors have the incentive to remain relevant.
Private prisons are business ventures that like other businesses must maximize profits, and the only means of maximizing profits is through cost reduction. This considerable reduction on operation cost allows the firms to charge federal and state prisons an even lower rare per prisoner, meaning that poorest quality services are more profitable. The most appropriate way to cut costs is to cut rehabilitation programs, particularly those that promote education. Another method commonly used by private prisons is to contract the poorest quality health-care providers. Provision of poor quality facility will most probably result into low chances of rehabilitation. Failure to rehabilitate prisoners poses the risk of prisoners remaining or returning after leaving prisons. From this perspective, a low chance of rehabilitation is desired by private prisoners to increase the profitability of their business operations.
Negative implications of private prisons
The public wants criminals placed in prisons because it makes them feel safer, while state representatives want job security, so they claim to support the desired “tough on crime” philosophy of their constituents (Reese, 2006). State representatives, who gain reputation because of their strong position against crime, are championed by their constituents, which make it easier for them to gain re-election. Additionally, they are posed gain more by contracting with private prisons as they accomplish the American aspiration and save money.
Opponents to private prison system have questioned its legitimacy. According to Thomas (2005), when private prison assumes the responsibility of administering rehabilitation and punishment, it undermines the innate liability of community discretion at the expense of liberty interest of prisoners. Profit-seeking entities charged with the responsibility of taking care of inmates create a moral and legal question. As such, the daily decisions regarding correction and punishment by prison officials are essentially flexible and do not depend on the aspirations of the official without contravening the rights of the prisoner. In addition, employees of private prisons usually have stake in these companies through shares, and consequently this motive to gain profit can compromise the quality of their decision, such as proposing longer sentences and low quality care.
The benefits of contracting private prisons are hardly noticed. State and federal governments’ penal system have used private prisons as a means of reducing overcrowding and lower cost in public prisons. Nonetheless, the resulting benefits are hard to notice while falling short in meeting social and humanitarian problems found in the private prisons. Some experts contend that for profit prisons bring about the problem of congestion in prisons. Private prisons receive millions of dollars in the form of government subsidies. These include infrastructure assistance, tax abatements, and capital bonds. This raises the ethical issue of source of funds for constructing and operating private prisons. When considering the cost associated with private correctional facilities, policymakers fail to factor in unexpected cost and long-term indirect costs of operating private prisons. Such indirect costs include compliance of enforcement and monitoring procedures, recidivism, and legal challenges (Thomas, 2005). According to Thomas (2005), there is no significant difference in recidivism rates for adult females, adult males and juveniles. However, many private institutions have not introduced programs to reduce recidivism.
The market model makes private prisons seek for profit. This results into cost cutting, which compromises the quality of care. Owing to the fact that private prisons are profit-seeking organizations, they strive to lower costs. These cost reduction mechanisms bear the potential of safety risk and poor service delivery. Additionally, employees in private prison receive less pay in addition to high turnover among private correctional officers. The average salary of a private prisoner employee is $18,000 while a private prison officer earns $23,000 (Potter, 2012). This forces private prisons to reduce training hours or offer overtime.
Positive implications of private prisons
Private prisons provide the government with the means of obtaining cheaper and faster bed capacity (Potter, 2012). Proponents argue that private prisons provide the necessary supplement to public prisons in the crisis of overcrowding. Private prisons allows the government to speed up the construction of the much needed bed space because the legislators do not have to authorize bonds.
Unlike private prisons, public prisons are accountable and held responsible for their actions. The problem with private prisons is that they are for-profit making, which comes at the expense of sending petty offenders behind bars. This also comes at the expense of denied justice with unscrupulous judiciary sending offenders to prisons for kickbacks to justify the means.
Supporters of private prisons contend that efficiency of operation and cost savings place private correctional facilities at an advantage over public prisons and support the idea of privatization, but some research has cast doubts on the validity of these arguments. Evidence suggests that private prisons are not efficient in operations and cost effective than public prisons (Potter, 2012). A research conducted in 24 different correctional facilities on cost-effectiveness revealed that there is no significant difference in cost-effectiveness between public prisons and private prisons. A study funded by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the cost-effectiveness promised by private prisons has not materialized. Some research has also suggested that private prisons cost more than public prisons because they are profit-seeking organizations. A study conducted by U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that the pattern of sending less expensive inmates to private prisons artificially inflates cost savings (Potter, 2012). The same study conducted in state of Arizona found that public prisons were seven times more likely to house violent offenders and three times more likely to house inmates convicted with offenses that are more serious.
Future studies
Future studies should focus on investigating and presenting clear recommendation on the cost-effectiveness on both the public and private prison systems.
Conclusion
After careful analysis on public and private run correctional facilities, one may conclude that private run correctional facilities are not safer or cost effective than public correctional facilities. In addition, it raises ethical concern when comparing the lives of inmates with the monetary benefits purported to arise from private investors. The government should take the responsibility of running correctional facilities because private providers regard their business as for profit.
Annotated Bibliography
Thomas, C. W. (2005). Recidivism of public and private state prison inmates in Florida: issues and unanswered questions. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 89-99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200172344?accountid=458
Potter, R. H. (2012, Feb 26). Private vs. public prisons: Where's savings? Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/923595709?accountid=458
The findings from this study shows that there is no evidence suggesting that private prisons are more efficient than public prisons.
Wood, D. B. (1998, Jul 21). Private prisons, public doubts as california's first big private prison goes up, questions surface on profits vs. safety. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/405639184?accountid=458
References:
Thomas, C. W. (2005). Recidivism of public and private state prison inmates in Florida: issues and unanswered questions. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 89-99. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200172344?accountid=458
Potter, R. H. (2012, Feb 26). Private vs. public prisons: Where's savings? Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/923595709?accountid=458
Wood, D. B. (1998, Jul 21). Private prisons, public doubts as california's first big private prison goes up, questions surface on profits vs. safety. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/405639184?accountid=458
Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2002). Private prisons. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(3), 425-426. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200157254?accountid=458
Prison costs and reform. (2006, Nov 17). Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/422121226?accountid=458
Noble, R. L. (2006). Black Rage in the American prison system. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
Reese, R. (2006). Prison Race.Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
