Introduction
The privatization of public prisons has gained pace in the United States. The main reason for the move is the assumption that the practice is cost-effective. This paper aims to highlight the pitfalls associated with the practice, such as the hidden costs, the violations of inmate rights, the endangerment of prisoners’ lives, and the perils associated with cost-cutting measures.
In addition, the inefficiency of policies meant to address privatization challenges is addressed. Even though there is some support for privatization, the evidence presented by its supporters is not sufficient. It is incumbent upon the United States to stop the privatization of its prisons, given the risks to which inmates are exposed by profit-driven corporations.
Argument Against Prison Privatization
Current Situation
The American penal governance system is increasingly adopting prison privatization. The quest for neoliberal administration prompted states to adopt private prison systems in the 1980s (Butz & Fording, 2022). There has since been a significant rise in the number of individuals held in private facilities across the United States. It should be noted, however, that the increase has been uneven, with the highest numbers recorded in Arizona at 19.6%, New Mexico at 43.1%, Montana at 38.8%, Oklahoma at 26.6%, Indiana, Tennessee at 26.4% and Hawaii at 25.1% (Byrne et al., 2019).
Some states have actively avoided sending their prisoners to non-state-run institutions. Butz and Fording (2022) point out that while only 9% of the country’s total population of prisoners are held in private facilities, some states have resorted to sending a significant number of their inmates to the aforementioned entities. Despite the apparent popularity of privatization, there are significant risks associated with the practice.
There is continued use of private corrections facility services despite the risks such entities pose to prisoners. It is estimated that private prison companies had agreements with the federal government and 27 states in 2016 (Kim, 2019). These private facilities housed approximately 128,323 inmates, or 8.5% of the country’s prison population (Kim, 2019).
The federal government’s adoption of privatization rose much faster than state governments. With the exclusion of individuals held in immigration detention centers pending adjudication, the percentage of federal inmates held in private prisons rose from 6.7% in 2000 to 18.1% in 2016 (Kim, 2019). State governments recorded a less drastic rise from 6.5% to 7.2% in the same period (Kim, 2019). The increased dependence on privatization is ill-advised, given the severity of the dangers to which inmates are exposed.
Violations at Private Prisons
CoreCivic
There are specific examples of private facilities that have been cited for violations. For instance, the largest private prison company in the world, CoreCivic, manages approximately 100 detention, correctional, and reentry centers in the US, according to the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) (Marko, 2021). In addition to running prisons, many of which have been cited for violations, CoreCivic runs immigrant detention facilities and reintegration centers (Marko, 2021).
CoreCivic operated in a safe and stable sales environment thanks in part to the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy (Marko, 2021). The company’s reentry institutions and immigrant detention facilities have been criticized for abuse, neglect, and poor management (Marko, 2021). It is important to note that the company charges convicts for reentry programs formerly offered by non-profit organizations.
The GEO Group
The violation of inmates’ rights in private prisons is a prevalent phenomenon. The GEO Group, which operates both jails and immigrant detention facilities, is referred to as the world’s second-largest private corrections company after CoreCivic by AFSC (Marko, 2021). The GEO Group, like CoreCivic, has seen gains in income and revenue and has benefited from the aforementioned zero-tolerance immigration policy (Marko, 2021).
The jails and detention facilities run by the GEO Group have a negative reputation. In particular, the company’s youth detention facilities have drawn criticism after allegations of torture, systematic abuse, and the maltreatment of imprisoned youth (Marko, 2021). The highlighted facilities illustrate the disadvantages associated with the privatization of prisons.
Cost Cutting for Profit
The danger of privatization is exacerbated by the fact the incentive for profit promotes the adoption of cost-cutting measures. Companies frequently cut back on essential services, including cleaning, because doing so would positively impact their bottom line (Young, 2023). A report by the Justice Department showed that in 2016, privately owned corrections facilities failed to provide their occupants with adequate medical care (Young, 2023). The report also pointed out that the rate of assaults by prisoners on staff and other prisoners was significantly higher in comparison to public facilities (Young, 2023).
The severity of the issues was illustrated by a Christmas Eve incident in which guards at a privately-owned La Salle corrections facility in Texas pepper sprayed and strangled an inmate (Young, 2023). It is worth noting that the temporary guards on duty during the incident failed to complete the 96-hour course that their permanent counterparts are mandated to take (Young, 2023). The incident’s outcome highlights the danger of using untrained staff, as is the case in many private corrections facilities.
Ineffectiveness of Current Policies
The policy measures in response to prison privatization challenges have been ineffective. For instance, even though Texas legislators passed a bill that imposes more limits on unlicensed guards, the regulations permit temporary guards to offer services to facilities prior to the completion of vital training (Young, 2023). The fact that La Salle Corrections identified legal loopholes allowing them to employ untrained guards reinforces the danger of cost-cutting measures on inmates’ wellbeing.
The challenges that plague private prisons prompted far-reaching reactions in the past. For instance, the Obama administration decided to gradually stop requisitioning the services of private prison companies on the federal government’s behalf in 2016 (Kim, 2019). The move was informed by The Department of Justice’s conclusion that compared to public facilities, private prisons did not maintain the required degree of security, safety, or rehabilitation (Kim, 2019).In addition, the cost savings were too insignificant to justify the use of the aforementioned companies’ services (Kim, 2019).
Approximately 3,100 private suppliers identified by the Urban Justice Center offer a variety of services to prisons (Byrne et al., 2019). They include food delivery, case management, medical care, video visitation, and transportation. In addition, it is estimated that more than 50% of the $80 billion prison budget is spent to offset costs associated with the aforementioned services (Byrne et al., 2019). Despite the presence of overwhelming evidence demonstrating the deleterious nature of prison privatization, there are those who hold a different view.
Opposing View
There is a theoretical assumption that private corrections facilities are cost-effective. The supporters of this position argue that the bureaucratic organizational structure that characterizes public institutions means that they must adhere to a variety of formalities, regulations, and a defined chain of command to accomplish tasks (Kim, 2019). The proponents of privatization further contend that adherence to bureaucratic processes creates redundancies and promotes ineffective decision-making (Kim, 2019). In addition, the fact that the labor force in public prisons is unionized means that the organizations incur increased labor costs, given the risks and long work hours associated with prisoner confinement. Therefore, proponents insist the streamlined nature of operations in private facilities means that they can recruit temporary staff to cut down on labor costs and increase overall efficiency.
Rebuttal
Private prisons are not cost-effective solutions to America’s incarceration problem. The claims of increased efficiency and reduced costs need to be subjected to rigorous empirical testing. For instance, numerous publications on cost efficiency reveal an entirely different scenario. For example, a team from the University of Utah revealed in their 2007 study that there are minimal cost savings, if any, in privatized corrections facilities (Young, 2023). This view was bolstered by the Arizona Department of Corrections, which noted that a majority of the state’s private prisons refused to house inmates with serious medical issues (Young, 2023).
Therefore, the overall good health of convicts in private facilities means that they need minimal medical care and cost less to house. Furthermore, Young (2023) notes that in the event convicts in private facilities are in need of extensive medical care, they are commonly sent to state institutions, which bear the burden of high medical costs. Such actions create the false impression that privatization is a cost-effective endeavor.
Conclusion
The abolishment of prison privatization is necessary in view of the risks to which inmates are exposed. The frequency with which prison privatization is being implemented in the American criminal justice system is increasing, the dangers prisoners are exposed to notwithstanding. The desire for profit encourages the adoption of cost-cutting initiatives, which heightens the risks associated with the practice. It is also worth noting that the policy responses to the problems occasioned by prison privatization have been unsuccessful.
The argument that privatization is cost-effective is not supported by credible evidence, seeing as the concept has not been subjected to exhaustive empirical examination. The violation of human rights, systematic abuse, torture, and high costs define the operations of some of America’s largest private corrections facilities. The United States ought to outlaw the privatization of prisons, seeing as the practice poses significant risks to the wellbeing of inmates.
References
Byrne, J. Kras, K. R., & Marmolejo, L. M. (2019). International perspectives on the privatization of corrections. Criminology & Public Policy, 18, 477-503. Web.
Butz, A. M., & Fording, R. C. (2022). The color of corrections: Racial politics and prison privatization. Social Policy and Administration, 56(1), 180–194. Web.
Kim, D. Y. (2019). Prison Privatization: An empirical literature review and path forward. International Criminal Justice Review, 32(1), 24–47. Web.
Marko, K. (2021). Serving the public good? A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of private prisons and for-profit incarceration in the United States. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 1–16. Web.
Young, S. (2020). Capital and the carceral state: Prison privatization in the United States and United Kingdom. Harvard International Review. Web.