Private prisons arose due to zero-tolerance policies that led to mass imprisonment. As state and federal prisons grew overcrowded, private companies grabbed the chance to construct and house their prisons. Corrections Firm of America was founded in 1983 by Thomas Beasley, Doctor R. Grants, and T. Don Hutto as the world’s first contemporary for-profit prison firm (Ukwuoma, 2021). Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) was the first contemporary for-profit prison company globally. Corecivic and many other for-profit jails founded after it get their income from government contracts that define a per-inmate fee for which taxpayers are responsible (Ukwuoma, 2021). The institutions promise to provide daily rations of food, clothes, medical treatment, and other necessities in exchange. Although private prisons increase the number of inmates housed while reducing government waste, they should be abolished because they are not accountable to the public, prevent social interaction, and are operated by profit-seeking corporations.
The closed-system approach views an organization as a system of its management, technology, personnel, equipment, and materials. This strategy excludes other stakeholders, including competitors, suppliers, distributors, and government authorities. Many of the duties involved with prison management are passed to the private corporation rather than the government (Burkhardt, 2017). The government is responsible for sentencing, classifying, assigning, and monitoring criminals in prisons. This factor ensures that the prison does not have to cope with all the administrative tasks associated with running a prison. Additionally, public prisons are entirely owned and administered by the government. This suggests that they are responsible for supplying the jail’s framework, filling the guards and administrative posts, and keeping control over all prisoners and prison activities (Baćak & Ridgeway, 2018). Even in a public institution such as a prison, some services, including maintenance, cleaning, and food service, are contracted out to private corporations.
The state would want to use private prisons because they reduce their respective political and legal obligations when the states privatize. These incidents demonstrate the inadequacy of the current jail system to accommodate the current prison population. Whether overcrowding, deficiencies in medical care, or other problems, these cases show the weaknesses of the existing jail system. Additionally, the state would not want to use private prisons because personnel levels at privately operated correctional institutions are far lower than in government-operated facilities, and they lack access to MIS help. In addition, they report a notably increased frequency of assaults against staff members and other inmates.
Public prisons are owned and managed by local, state, or government agencies. Until the 1980s, most prisons were government-run (Ukwuoma, 2021). The government may determine an individual’s punishment and have the authority to give parole to prisoners. Some information about public prisons must be made available to the general public since they receive government funding. As a result, taxpayers and policymakers may better understand how the institution is run and how well their money is being spent.
A detention facility is deemed private if owned and maintained by an independent entity and the local, state, or federal government has contracted with it. The government provides a payment to the private prison depending on the number of convicts housed there. Most privately operated prisons in the United States are located in the southwestern and southern areas, and their prisoners include both state and federal criminals (Baćak & Ridgeway, 2018). Because private prisons are managed according to their standards, these institutions are allowed to accept or reject any accused individual. However, it is generally known that they will not take offenders who lack sufficient housing funds. The cost of defending an accused person with medical conditions, mental health issues, or dietary limitations will increase. According to data, private prisons often house less violent and dangerous offenders than public prisons (Johnston & Holt, 2021). This is because the needed security would increase if these inmates were kept in public jails.
There are some responsibilities to fulfill, such as ensuring the public is safe and protecting the environment. These duties include the fact that the government is compelled to provide for incarceration on several fronts, including legally, politically, and ethically (Burkhardt, 2017). For instance, considerable constitutional competition emerges between public and private considerations over the denial of prisoners’ liberty, the administration of punishment, and the safeguarding of their constitutional rights. The use of force, the denial of credit for time served, and the practice of segregation are all linked issues of concern (Johnston & Holt, 2021). It is possible that private operators will not have the necessary skills to fix the significant problems, and the financial motivation will make it challenging to fulfill duties correctly. As a direct result, private prisons have monetary incentives to take on expenses.
The idea of private prisons offers a perverse incentive that ensures that criminal punishments will continue to be severe and that the number of jailed people will continue to increase. Private correctional companies are political actors who try to establish favorable marketing circumstances for their services (Burkhardt, 2019). They are simultaneously restrained by external political factors, such as political parties, revolutionary movements, and popular sentiment. A troubling aspect of this is a large amount of money going straight to politicians from both parties, even though there is little proof that private prison companies are funding this effort (Saadi & Tesema, 2019). Even though both political parties get large quantities of money, it is implausible that their votes on criminal legislation are not influenced by the massive sums of money given to lawmakers in the United States (Burkhardt, 2019). Political donations and lobbying efforts have been funded by significant sections of the budgets of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), GEO Group, and Management Training Corporation (MTC), respectively.
In addition, there is the issue of a lack of transparency, which is problematic since many private jails are not forced to comply with the different standards of openness imposed on public institutions. These regulations aim to improve transparency and accountability within public organizations. The Vermont Human Rights Defense Center recently contacted the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) to request access to shared data, but the CCA refused to oblige (Saadi & Tesema, 2019). CCA asserts that since it is a private firm, it is exempt from complying with Vermont’s transparency requirements. In contrast, a Vermont court compelled CCA to provide its records because the organization serves a public purpose (Burkhardt, 2019). This judgment’s rationale was provided in the preceding clause.
Although privatization advocates claim that private prisons may save governments money, the state of Arizona is an excellent illustration of how the cost reductions claimed by private organizations are rarely fulfilled in the form of Arizona. Even though proponents of privatization have made similar statements, this is the case. While private prisons in Arizona are required by law to conduct cost-cutting studies, state records show that offenders in private prisons spend up to $1,500 more per year than those in public correctional facilities (Burkhardt, 2019). Again, in Arizona, the Management Training Corp. mandated that maximum-security prisons maintain a 97 percent occupancy rate, or the state would be penalized for having vacant beds. Management Training Corporation (MTC) presented a bill to the state of Arizona when the prison’s capacity ultimately dropped below 97 percent (Saadi & Tesema, 2019). When the state refused to pay for its services, Management Training Corporation (MTC) launched legal action. A settlement was achieved after the end of discussions, resulting in the billing of taxpayers in the state of Arizona.
Private prisons increase the number of convicts held and decrease the amount of government waste by restricting social contact. Furthermore, they may be administered by a profit-seeking firm without fear of intervention from outside entities or legislation. Similarly, a public jail is owned and run by the local, state, and federal governments, while a private prison shift many responsibilities to a private firm. There are far more attacks on employees and prisoners in privately owned prisons than in public institutions, which have a lower workforce level. In addition, a private jail is a detention facility owned and maintained by a third company under contract with municipal, state, and federal governments. As a result, private prisons contain fewer violent and dangerous criminals than public prisons, as this would raise the required level of security. However, even if most private enterprises run more effectively than the federal bureaucracy, the very structure of confinement mandates that they stay in the hands of the government.
References
Baćak, V., & Ridgeway, G. (2018). Availability of health-related programs in private and public prisons. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 24(1), 62-70. Web.
Burkhardt, B. C. (2017). Who is in private prisons? Demographic profiles of prisoners and workers in American private prisons.International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 51, 24-33. Web.
Burkhardt, B. C. (2019). The politics of correctional privatization in the United States.Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 401-418. Web.
Johnston, J. M., & Holt, S. B. (2021). Examining the influence of representative bureaucracy in public and private prisons.Policy Studies Journal, 49(2), 516-561. Web.
Saadi, A., & Tesema, L. (2019). Privatisation of immigration detention facilities.The Lancet, 393(10188), 2299. Web.
Ukwuoma, U. C. (2021). Prison education in the United States of America: The racism connection. In Research Anthology on Empowering Marginalized Communities and Mitigating Racism and Discrimination (pp. 1108-1118). IGI Global. Web.