Should Prisons be Privatized?

Should Prisons be Privatized?

Privatization is the practice of shifting control to the private sector from the public sector through the selling of the public organization to private investors or exclude the barriers to entry of a private firm into a public sector. Privatization of prisons arises when the state government agrees with a non-governmental third party to manage and oversee a jail or prison. The main daunting challenge that confronts many, if not all, of the justice systems today all over the world is the overcrowding of government prisons. In the United States, there has been a doubling of adult offenders, which has increased the country’s inmate population. Approximately two million individuals are presently imprisoned in the United States. Securing and humanely accommodating such large inmate populations has placed enormous challenges on prison administrators and also the local, federal and state jurisdictions who must finance the institutional incarceration of the multitude of offenders. The average cost per inmate is about $ 30,000, which turns out to be such an overwhelming issue for the government.

For the government to reduce its cost, they shift towards the private sector for answers to their problems (Gunderson, 1). The emergence of privatized correctional facilities since 1987, has witnessed an increase in inmate population that would have otherwise ended up in the crowded public prisons. Despite the continuous growth of private correctional facilities, they still represent a very minimal share of the entire market of correctional facilities. Currently, about 100 private prisons are accommodating approximately 133 000 inmates. So, should the prisons be privatized? Yes, they should.

Prisons should be privatized because it results in several benefits for both the prisoners and the federal government. The key benefit of privatized correctional systems is that it permits for market forces to oversee the expenses that are paid through taxes, to sustain the prison population. Private firms can always negotiate lesser rates for essential items and save money in several other ways only if they have responsible management with suitable staffing levels every time. Another significant benefit is the cheap and streamlined cost to the federal government. If privatized, the government pays the private companies a lower amount of money to care for a prisoner as compared to what they get to spend housing the prisoner on their own.

The privatization of correctional facilities offers a platform for the creation of economic and job opportunities on many levels for a community. Direct jobs such as prison wardens, cooks, doctors, teachers and other service industry jobs provide support for the prison population. Transportation professionals and agriculture also offer additional support by giving consumable goods. Privatized prison institutions also provide entry-level law enforcement opportunities, which are otherwise a problematic proposition in public facilities. These facilities offer opportunities, skills and knowledge to new employees. Private prisons provide an entry-level position for the correctional officer where they can be able to gain experience. Cumulatively, in the United States, the private prison economy equates to an average economic impact of approximately $80 billion annually.

Privatized correctional facilities have a proven history in the reduction of levels of prison populations. Publicly operated state and federal prisons currently house maximum numbers of inmates with others working way above their maximum capacities (Burkhardt, 512). This is rapidly outnumbering the available beds and prison space that they were designed to accommodate. Overpopulation, in combination with the low staffing numbers of prison employees, can create challenges in controlling and maintaining the prison environment. By opening privatized correctional facilities, per-facility population levels can be lowered so that the inmates can experience a better quality of life during their incarceration. Inmates incarcerated in privatized correctional facilities have shown to have lower reoffending rates than those locked up in public prisons. In some regions, the rate of prisoners reoffending and being sent back to correctional facilities can be over 80 percent. Private facilities, however, may have a reoffending rate, which may be as low as 20 percent even though the inmates may be serving longer prison sentences. The availability of more resources in the private prisons equips them with skills that make them employable when they finish serving their sentences.

In private prisons, there is much less administrative red tape than the public prison system, where decisions that involve the running and management of the facility must go through the hierarchy and bureaucracy of legislation. Local congressional bodies must first debate on the proposed prison bill changes, which could last up to 4 years before approval and implementation. However, in privatized correctional facilities, decision making runs through the company where any changes in procedures or policies can be directly and immediately handled. Private prisons also have a selectiveness level of selectiveness regarding inmates. These private prisons can contract with several jurisdictions and can accommodate inmates for diverse government levels. This flexibility permits them to reduce costs by sidestepping certain prisoner types such as the older, and high-risk ad medically costly prisoners (Bacak and Ridgeway, 65).

The correctional and rehab programs are more efficient and effective in private prisons due to their services being unrivalled because of the lesser population. Presently, private penitentiaries are the preferred means to rehabilitate and prepare criminals for contact with society once they are released (Duwe and Clark, 380). The inmates get to be better prepared and educated to reenter society with valuable skills. This is a positive externality since the prisoner being released will be a benefit and can contribute more to the community. The government can encourage the continuance of these positive externalities by offering tax breaks or subsidies for private prisons.

In 2016, the United States Department of Justice declared that it is commencing to cut back on the usage of private prisons for inmates who are federally based. They stated that the purpose of withdrawing the service was that private prisons related poorly to those publicly operated (Burkhardt and Jones, 49). They learnt that private facilities offered fewer services, had higher security risks and safety risks without producing a substantial level of savings. Looking at this closely, prisons need to only house prisoners they can take care of and not just overcrowd them to offer more services. Much debate on this issue is concerned with the actual cost savings of the private prisons, but there is no real evidence to support these savings, only assumptions (Friedmann, 510). Private prisons are also not perfect. Private prisons are conventional for exploitation because they are more concerned about pleasing their investors and making profits. Such an instance can only be intervened by the government, which needs to regulate how these private prisons should behave. The private sector can also be incentivized to perform better, which is something that can be challenging to do within a public jail.

Most states are increasing the capacity of prisons because of the increase in incarceration and the length of imprisonment. Due to the continued growth in the number of inmates, private prisons are probably going to increase. Private prisons are a simple, quick-fix, and cheap solution to prison overcrowding. Conversely, private prisons can create additional moral, legal and policy problems. For private prisons to become the most practical solution, overseeing the agencies of the government must do inmate rehabilitation and care. Private prisons are likely not going to implement policies and processes that wound their profits. Therefore, government agencies must meet them halfway to make sure the promotion and regulation of correctional goals. Private prisons also need to be used as an innovative strategy for rehabilitation programs. This is because private prisons can assist the criminal justice system and inmates. Nevertheless, until this occurs, research concerning private prisons must find a systematic way of comparing and analyzing beyond case studies.

Work Cited

Bacak, V, and Ridgeway, G.” Availability of health-related programs in private and public prisons.” Journal of Correctional Health Care, 2018, 24, pp. 62-70.

Burkhardt, B. C. “Who punishes whom? Bifurcation of private and public responsibilities in criminal punishment.” Journal of Crime and Justice, 2016, 40, pp.512-527.

Burkhardt, B.C. and Jones, A. “Judicial Intervention into Prisons: Comparing private and public prisons from 1990 to 2005.” Justice System Journal, 2016, 37, pp. 39-52.

Duwe, G., and Clark, V. “The effects of private prison confinement on offender recidivism: Evidence from Minnesota.” Criminal Justice Review, 2013, 38, pp. 375-394.

Friedmann, A. “Apples-to-fish: Public and private prison cost comparisons.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, 2016, 42, pp. 503-568.

Gunderson, A. “Why do states privatize their prisons? The unintended consequences of inmate litigation.” 2017. Retrieved from http://www.annagunderson.com/uploads/1/5/3/2/15320172/pp.pdf

Justice Policy Institute. “Gaming the system: How the political strategies of private prison companies promote ineffective incarceration policies.” 2011. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/2614?utm_source=%2fGamingTheSystem&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=redirect

Forrest, Sherrie, and Michael Fedder. “Chapter: 1 Introduction and Goals of Climate Change Education.” Climate Change Education: Goals, Audiences, and Strategies: A Workshop Summary, The National Academic Press, 2012, pp. 1–86. www.nap.edu/read/13224/chapter/2. Accessed 29 Nov. 2019.