The subject of crime and its subsequent punishments evoke strong emotional feelings. Some argue that prisons cost society less than crime itself so building more prisons is the way to prevent crime. The more criminals that are locked up, the reasoning goes, the less crime will be committed. Others are incensed, confused and frustrated that there is not a better way of dealing with offenders than to lock them away to be forgotten. It is an expensive proposition to ‘lock them up and throw away the key.’ The high economical cost of prison, the rising prison population and humanitarian concerns regarding prison does not generally lead people away from the idea of prison usage altogether, though. The larger concern of public security prompts people to demand that the government to do what is necessary to provide that safety. This discussion examines the theory and practice of privately owned and operated prisons. The two competing points of view regarding this issue disagree vehemently regarding their implementation in addition to the social and financial impact. Many have concluded that building more prisons, whether private or publicly financed, is not a viable solution, that implementing non-custodial punishments for non-violent offenders will decrease costs to the government as intended by privatisation of prisons as well as address humanity concerns, an option this discussion will briefly examine.
Prisons suffer from serious problems associated with over-crowding, poor sanitation, violence, drugs and sexual assault. State-run prisons experience familiar problems of other public-sector institutions that face no competition: inadequate supply, poor quality and high cost. To solve these problems, especially the cost factor, the UK has encouraged the private sector to build and run new prisons (Smith, 2002). Privately-owned prisons were implemented in the UK in the 1990’s in an effort to ease costs to taxpayers and expand available prison space. Economic common sense implies that if there is a market to buy, sell and rent prison cells, the problems of funding and efficiently allocating prison space would decrease.
The competition of privitised prisons forced costs down even among state run prisons as a result but the average cost of public-sector jails in the UK was still 15 percent higher than private jails by the late 1990’s. For these reasons, the Labour government, elected in 1997, became staunch supporters of prison privatization. “Home Secretary Jack Straw, who had once described private prison management as a ‘morally repugnant’ idea, now gave the go-ahead to several privately managed jails” (Smith, 2002). Several private companies compete for prison contracts. A leading US firm currently manages 55 prisons located mainly in the UK, US and Australia. In the UK, competition was introduced gradually. The first private-remand prison opened in 1992. Private institutions now house in excess of 6,000 prisoners, eight percent of the total prison population in the UK. “Nine of 136 prisons plus immigrant detention centres are now run by the private sector. In England and Wales all prisoner-escort services have been contracted out to private companies” (Smith, 2002).
Proponents of privatized prisons report that they have established new standards in efficiency, amenities and prisoner wellbeing. Private providers also have better facilities for rehabilitation efforts with their inmates promoting more purposeful time spent outside their cells. The Inspector of Prisons consistently reports that standards of care are higher and problems such as assaults are lower than in government-run prisons. “HM Chief Inspectorate of Prisons inspects private prisons in the same way as public sector prisons” (HM Prison Service, 2004).
Whereas it took 15 to 20 years to build new prisons in US states, private prisons have been built in six to nine months in those countries allowing privatized prisons. In the UK it used to take ten to twelve years to build a prison: private companies have demonstrated their ability to build jails in less than nine months. In the UK, the excess jail space created by privatisation emptied police station cells which were previously filled to capacity as there were no vacancies in the overloaded prison system. “In 1998, over 1500 such prisoners were accommodated in police stations in the London area alone. Police men and women were required to provide security, transportation and escort duties – which were highly wasteful and inefficient” (Smith, 2002).
Overall, private prisons perform better on every key measure. Privately managed prisons make a dual contribution to society by offering an improved chance to deal with the offenders’ central problems and at lower cost. A competitive contract system brings the discipline of contractual obligations and the need to meet specified standards. It puts pressure on all prospective prison providers to maintain their quality and keep costs at a minimum (Smith, 2002).
Private prisons operate largely without scrutiny from the international human rights organisations monitoring and imposing legal standards and state of affairs in prisons. “Even within the flawed concept that ‘prison works’, privately run prisons have generally failed to match the claims made for cost efficiency, innovative regimes and lower recidivism rates. In their short history, private prisons have mirrored and even, on occasions, gone beyond the systemic human rights abuses found in the worst of the state sector” (Nathan, 2001). In December 2000, a federal grand jury concluded that the largest private prison company in the US had operated within a corporate policy of using excessive force. Juveniles under a private prisons’ care in Louisiana had been subjected to such abuses. This same company runs prisons in the UK. “The US Justice Department filed a lawsuit ordering the company to end the use of corporal punishment, excessive force and gas grenades, limit the use of chemical and mechanical restraints, eliminate suicide hazards, hire sufficient staff to provide adequate safety and security and provide adequate mental health treatment” (Nathan, 2001). The government had to buy back a privately financed, designed, built and run women’s prison from a private prison company in Australia after four years of persistent problems. These are not isolated examples.
Most countries that have the worst prison conditions and human rights records also face serious debt problems and demands to cut public spending and privatise assets and services. Prison companies are aspiring to capitalize on this situation. “European firm Sodexho operates in 70 countries; Group 4 Falck operates in 50 and Securicor in 30. Florida based Wackenhut Corrections Corporation has the most non-US contracts and its parent company, the Wackenhut Corporation, is a security firm with operations in 50 countries” (Nathan, 2001). These companies offer privately financed solutions based on what they tout as success of privatisation in the US, UK and Australia. For many governments the proposal appears, on the surface, to be fiscally appealing. Government has no immediate capital costs as the company borrows the necessary money to build and operate the prison. Penal reformers too might argue that private finance provides new infrastructure and creates jobs. “Private finance measures mean that a government hands over the finance, design and construction of a new facility and the provision of related services to a company or consortium in exchange for monthly fees over, usually, 25 years” (Nathan, 2001).
Because private businesses need to be profitable, their main interest is reducing costs causing social, economic and political implications including the loss of public accountability, poor wages and inadequate prison operation. As the private sector becomes more involved in operating correctional facilities, there will be increased pressure on legislators and executive staff to build more prisons and increase opportunity for profit. The private sector also becomes even more entrenched in the making of criminal justice policy. “Aside from the moral and ethical arguments about prison privatisation, there is ample operational evidence that the policy is wrong. Pending such an examination there should, at the very least, be a moratorium on private prisons” (Nathan, 2001). Claims of significant cost-savings and improved efficiency from private prisons have not proven true. The current movement to privatize prisons assumes that modern entrepreneurs are somehow more compassionate and humanistic so that the exploitations will not occur. “Privately managed facilities will bring new opportunities for corruption. Given poorly paid, undereducated, and inadequately trained staff, opponents question the professionalism and commitment that privatized staff will bring to the job” (Walker, 1994).
Analysis by Strathclyde University indicates that the public has lost confidence in criminal justice and want a simple and forceful solution to crime and punishments. Public attitudes are occupied by idealistic contradictions but support effective prevention. They attach importance to a simple approach in which criminals are punished (Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, 2004, p. 23). Immediate response to the concept of non-custodial sentences tends to be a negative one. People find the new concept hard to grasp. The range of options it covers, some of which remain unfamiliar, rendered it ineffectual next to the simple and strong symbol of prison.
In support of the non-custodial custody options, National Offender Management Service Chief Executive Martin Narey made it clear that his intention would be to direct more funding away from custodial sentences and focus on non-custodial sentences. His hope is that by investing more in non-custodial sentences the judiciary can be convinced to not send as many people to prison thereby reducing the Prison Service budget (Caton, 2005). Ministers and senior judges have been urging the courts to send fewer people to jail, including low-level burglars who might in the past have been imprisoned for up to 18 months (Johnston, 2003).
Other low-level offenders crowding the prisons include those convicted of drug offences and motoring violations. Narey (Griffin, 2004) warned that jails are being over-run by drivers convicted of motoring offences. He said the number of inmates serving short-term prison sentences had soared and called for minor offenders to be given non-custodial punishment. “Prison sentences for some quite petty offences have quadrupled Custody rates for men and women convicted of motoring offences are four times higher now than they were 10 years ago. They don’t need to be in jail in such numbers,” Nary said. “This is symptomatic of an ongoing crisis in the way we view and tackle crime seemingly more often about appeasing a reactionary and vociferous minority than dealing with the real issues or with what works best” (Griffin, 2004). The Association of British Drivers believes motoring offences should be punished by community service. “Prison is intended as a method by which we remove dangerous people from society; murderers, rapists, people who damage others” (Griffin, 2004).
Proponents of non-custodial punishments agree that community sentences should be severe. Sentences should determine hours worked in community service and to compel offenders to confront their victims, something they are not required to do in prison. By facing up to the consequences of their crimes, offenders might learn values such as hard work, respect, and an appreciation of how civil people live. Community service is much less expensive to the public than prison. “The average unit cost of keeping someone in prison is £24,271 a year compared with £2,369 for a probation order and £1,770 for a community service order” (Assinder, 1998).
Although the private sector has been unable to follow through with its initial assurances of greatly improving prison operations, the sheer presence of privatisation has had a significant impact on the government’s traditional prison operations methods. Privatisation has served as a mechanism for change by demonstrating the means for competition in the industry of corrections. As limited as they are, however, these cost-saving innovations should be but one item on the privatization plan. Basic human rights should also be considered. These basic rights balanced with the costs of crime drive impassioned discussions such as non-custodial punishments versus prison time and state versus privatized prisons. Which of these systems offer the most effective combination of human dignity coupled with cost reduction is an issue to be debated for some time to come and each has its own merit.
References
Caton, B. (2005). “’Capital Punishment’.” The POA: The Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers. Web.
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation. (2004). “Rethinking Crime and Punishment: The Report.” Web.
HM Prison Service. (2004). “Contracted Out Prisons.” Crown Copyright. Web.
Johnston, P. (2003). “England has Highest Rate of Imprisonment in EU.” News Telegraph. Web.
Nathan, S. (2001). “Prison Privatisation.” Penal Reform International. Web.
Smith, A. (2002) “Chapter 36: Competing for Convicts: Private Prison Provision and Management.” Around the World in 80 Ideas. Web.
Walker, D. (1994). “Privatisation in Corrections.” Correctional Counseling and Treatment. Ed. Peter C. Kratcoski. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.