Sentencing trends are shifting from the traditional position of incarceration to the modern state. Due to the increase in the inmate population and high costs of running prisons, many jurisdictions are beginning to look for alternatives. This is also because imprisonment does not play any role in reducing recidivism and that more than half of released inmates end up being re-convicted (Beck & Karberg, 10). Community corrections are one such alternative. They include halfway houses or release to work at low-security.
Electronic surveillance is an emerging sentencing trend through which an offender is released but an electronic gadget is put on his wrist to monitor all his movements and actions. House-confinement is also a new sentence whereby an offender is released but is restricted not to go beyond the confinements of his home compound. A sentence of compensation or repatriation involves payment of sum money to a person injured by one’s criminal offences (Beck and Karberg 11). One of the new trends in sentencing involves privatization of prisons and correctional facilities.
There have been recent trends towards privatization of government correctional facilities. This entails the practice of contracting private firms to run prisons. By June 2001, the number of private prisons in the United States were approximately 154 with a capacity estimated at 142, 000 each (DiIulio 35). It has been claimed that the inmate population had been growing at an average rate of 100% since the early 80s.
The trend towards private correctional facilities is because of the congestion and over-stretched capacities of government prisons. For instance, in the year 2000 there were over 2 million prisoners in the United States, overstretching the capacity of the prisons by 20% (Beck and Karberg 21). Public budgets are limited and the cost of constructing new prisons at the expense of other essential services such as education and health is considered a liability to the government. The limited funds also mean low-quality services to the extent of infringing on the rights of prisoners. This means more suits against the government in law courts.
Privatization of other sectors such as energy, transport, and health just to mention a few has led to provision of quality services and efficient management. It has therefore been proposed that private firms have the funds to construct more prisons and deliver services of high quality. Elimination of the bureaucracy necessitated in running public prisons means that private companies could purchase items needed in the prison in bulk without having to go through the rigorous processes and obstacles that are common features of bureaucracy.
Private prisons are also able to save money. This is because there is room for innovation in the private sector. Efficient management of the facilities means that no money goes to waste. There are no major frauds or corruption schemes as the interests of the balance sheet and the profit and loss statement are well safeguarded. “Privatization may take the form of a contract where a firm is hired to run a government facility; or it may take an ownership form where a firm constructs and owns prison and manages it or hires it out” (Anderson, Davoli, & Moriarty 33).
The private sector offers three broad services to correctional facilities, which include Construction and design of the facilities, General services such as food, health and rehabilitation programs, and Management. In terms of efficiency and cost-saving, private firms are able to construct prisons faster than government hired contractors. Research done indicates that it takes about two and a half years for a government to construct a prison while private firms do so in approximately eight months. This is because it is only the signature of The Chief Executive officer, which is needed to commission or approve a construction request (Anderson, Davoli, & Moriarty 35). On the other hand, a government’s approval has to go through various cumbersome stages due to bureaucracy.
The restrictions on purchasing and sub-contracting imposed by governments do not apply to private firms. They are therefore able to solicited and get the best deals so their costs are much cheaper. Though this process is fast and efficient, it is criticized as lacking in democracy, which is the major reasoning behind bureaucracy. This includes public procuring procedures, yet the money used to pay for their services is sourced from public funds sustained by taxpayers.
The education and rehabilitation services of private companies have been successful so far and have exceeded expectations by government officials. A critical feature of private firms is that they follow up on offenders after releasing them and ensure successful re-integration into society by offering post-release counseling and support (Anderson, Davoli, & Moriarty 35). This has led to lower rates of recidivism. That is the probability that one will be reconvicted upon release from prison.
As a policy most private correctional facilities hire government prison workers, motivate them by offering them higher pay, and better terms of employment. The experience they provide ensures broad-based management where the prisoner is treated as “king”, (just like a customer) and offered quality services. Cases of infringement on rights are very rare and isolated and therefore liability from lawsuits is reduced (Roberts & Cole, 15). This reduces ugly incidents between personnel and inmates that are the main basis of lawsuits.
The most feared danger accruing from privatization is that private companies are businesses and their main goal is to maximize profits. Prisons are a lucrative business with two major companies in The United States, Corrections Corporation of America (C.C.A) and Wackenhut Corrections Corporation being listed in The New York Stock Exchange and performing quite well (Roberts & Cole, 15). This means that they will go extra-miles to gain the requisite numbers of inmates and prisoners. To remain relevant in the market every firm needs supply of raw materials and to such private firms prisoners are raw materials (DiIulio 56).
Future trends in private corrections indicate that in the future government run prisons will have to be run incorporate the private style of management or will have to be dispensed with. Corporates may also undertake private corrections as part of their corporate social responsibility. Future trends also indicate requirements of major changes in legislative policies and the organization structure of correctional facilities (Roberts & Cole, 15).
The extent of privatization must be laid down in statute. As such, the private correctional centers should also be under a duty to disclose their financial records to the public and audit reviews should be conducted into their operations in such a time as the state policy may deem fit. Rather than being run by limited stock companies that seek to maximize profits they should be run by companies limited by guarantee or charitable organizations aided by state funding.
Works Cited
Anderson, Peter, Davoli, Catherine. R., & Moriarty, Lewis. “Private Corrections: Feast or fiasco?” The Prison Journal, 65, 1985: 32-41. Print.
Beck, Ann & Karberg, John. Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 2001. Print.
DiIulio, Joseph. Governing prisons: A comparative study of correctional management. New York: Free Press, 1987. Print.
Roberts, Victoria, & Cole, Dennis. Making sense of sentencing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Print.