Pros And Consequences Of Privatization

When it comes to the criminal justice system, the major impact of privatization has been the prisons. With the privatizing of correctional facilities, corruption can likely occur. PICO National Network (2011) uncovered very damaging evidence of corruption within the criminal justice system. PICO stated “Many Americans were shocked to learn that two Pennsylvania judges accepted ‘cash-for-kids,’ kickbacks from for-profit-juvenile detention companies in exchange for locking up young people for very minor offenses” (p. 2). This is just one example of what can come from privatization. One other aspect is the lack of oversight of the actual contract. There is no minimum required wage set forth for the workers. This can lead to underpaid, overworked employees that are tasked with guarding maximum security

At the expense of the young, to the detriment of the poor, and on the backs of the immigrants is the means by which the private prison companies have constructed a business that trades freedoms for profit but more concerning is to what ends these freedoms are being exchanged. The advancement of the private prison system has changed the face of the prison industry as we know it. Because little attention has been given in the media to the private prison industry, they have been able to expand their influence and their revenue by means the average American would consider unscrupulous. Private prisons came about to act as the solution to a problem facing federal prisons, overcrowding, which was created due to the war on drugs, but in acting as a solution to one problem they created another one that could be more problematic than the one it intended to fix. Proponents of private, for profit, prisons claim that it is a better alternative than federal prisons because they can provide the same service for less and save taxpayers money in the process. They also contend that the service they provide would help to stimulate the economy. However, privatization of America’s prison systems will contribute to an increase in the incarceration rate and unfairly target certain demographics of the population, which could lead to psychological trauma affecting the people of those demography’s that it

In America today, there is a trend in corrections of taking the duty of running prisons out of the hands of state and federal authorities and contracting it out to private organizations. Along with the drift to privatization is a plethora of research pertaining to the subject taking many different approaches to analyzing the effectiveness. The majority of research focuses on one of three areas. The first questioning whether or not it is cost effective to make the switch. The second being the ethical problems that can and have risen from the privatization of prisons. The third being a wide painting of the change and the implications it has on society as a whole.

According to Alex Tabarrok, privately managed facilities can have cost savings of 15-25% on prison edification and 15% on administrative expenses. Likewise, private prisons generate competition and exert pressure towards public prisons. They encourage public prisons to also innovate and lower costs. Other studies (Lundahl et al. 2009, page 392) argue, “prison privatization provides neither a clear advantage nor disadvantage compared with publicly managed prisons.”

Thesis: Private prisons actually exacerbate many of the issues they were designed to solve by incentivizing increased incarceration, and at the same time they produce lower value than regular prisons while ultimately costing more, such that private prisons should be abolished and incarceration should remain exclusively public.

Over the last couple of years, there has been a major discussion as to whether you should privatize a medium-security prison in your state. They guarantee substantial savings to the state and that may be true but the effects of this would be much greater. Private prisons have been known for inmate misconduct and lead to many court cases. Penal Corporation left out that they offer inadequate compensation to staff which can lead to many problems. Finally, although it may not be factual, it is said that private prisons have no lower and maybe higher rates of recidivism.

This idea was explored further in Atlas Shrugged, where individuals like Dagny and Hank were forced to abandon their ambitions and needs in lieu of whatever the majority in power, the government, dictated. Their industries were restricted and nationalized by political leaders who argued their sacrifice was for the good of the “big family” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged 608), but like in Soviet Russia, the only ones who benefited were the leaders themselves. Consider the “anti-dog-eat-dog rule” (Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 77), which limited the expansion of railroad companies and the start-ups of new companies; such regulations and antitrust laws symptomatic of socialism rob individuals of their rights to support and run businesses (Rand, “What is Capitalism?”), Rand explained, despite their claim to help consumers and business owners.

580). Gran and Henry (2007-2008) argue that evidence of efficiency in private prisons provides questionable support, in part because of difficulty in comparing private and government-run prisons. They also state that while private prisons may be less expensive to construct and operate, those cost savings may be “the result of cost cutting by the private firms” (p. 176). Arguments against private prisons are more ubiquitous and include the following: • “The necessity for detailed contract development, monitoring, and regulation will be so significant that it will eat up any savings achieved through privatization;” • “The government will retain its legal liability and therefore will be liable for actions of contractors over which it has only limited

Privatization – Privatization, as defined by the textbook, is “the movement toward the wider use of private prisons” (Schmalleger 448). This movement began in the early 1980s and was slow to cat on, however it has since grown at a rapid pace. In 1986, only 2,620 prisoners could be found in privately run confinement facilities. But by 2012, privately operated correctional facilities serving as prisons and jails held over 130,900 state and federal prisoners across 31 states and the District of Columbia. The largest growth came in the federal sector, with a 784% increase in the number of federal inmates held in privately run facilities between 1999 and 2010 (from 3,828 to 33,830). Today, the privatization of prisons refers to both the takeover of existing public facilities by private operations and to the building and operation of new and additional prisons by for-profit prison companies. Many of the new prisons, additionally, are built to house out-of-state inmates and depending on the jurisdiction. The local, state, or federal government is then charged a per diem or monthly rate for each prisoner. In terms of private prisons, these are defined as for-profit type prisons which is a place in which individuals are physically onfined or incarcerated by a third party that is contracted by a government agency. Private prisons companies typically enter into contractual agreements with government that commit prisoners and then pay a per diem or monthly rate, either for each

Are Private Prisons being run for profits or are they just a solution to the current problems we are dealing with today in society? There has been a recent debate on whether private prisons are being run for profit for their corporations or for the people. Especially with the expected increase in stocks on the two major private prison corporations due to the election of our new President Donald Trump. There has been many different problems and views arising to this. Many of the problems I will be talking about that include the important topic of mass incarceration and the safety of the inmates and staff at these facilities.

Before discussing the privatization of the penal institutions, we should understand some of the history of the penal system. Going back to 1790 in Philadelphia, “ the Walnut street jail was converted from a simple holding facility to a prison, it is commonly referred to the nation’s first prison.” ( Bohm, Haley, 2012, p.358.). I have enjoyed learning how the criminal justice system has shaped our country in the last 200 years. In the next few paragraphs I will discuss the privatization of the penal institutions and the factors that support it.

Privatization of prisons is the confining of inmates by a third party that is contracted by a government agency and it refers to the takeover of present public facilities by private operators and the operation of new prisons by for-profit prison companies. Privatization is simply a contract that shifts public functions and responsibilities, in whole, from the public sector to the private sector. Private prisons can also be defined as a contract to provide other services to public prisons such as transportation, maintenance, food, and a contract to project and operate new prisons. There are two sides to the argument about the privatization of prisons. Both have strong arguments in whether they are for or against the model. I have researched the history behind private prisons, the positives for them and also negatives that present.

Privatizing prisons may be one way for the prison population to get back under control. Prisons are overcrowded and need extra money to house inmates or to build a new prison. The issue of a serious need for space needs to be addressed. “As a national average, it costs roughly $20,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison. There are approximately 650,000 inmates in state and local prisons, double the number five years ago. This costs taxpayers an estimated $18 billion each year. More than two thirds of the states are facing serious overcrowding problems, and many are operating at least 50 percent over capacity. (Joel, 1988)” Private prisons may be for profit, but if they can solve the issue of cost then it may be a

In this book it is argued whether private or public prisons are more efficient. In private prisons, inmates are required to work and are paid little to nothing for their efforts, which could be considered a violation of their rights. In another way, it is said that the quality of rehabilitation and treatment services, as well as job training and education seen in private prisons is superior than that of public institutions. Also, private prisons can choose which inmates they receive while public institutions cannot. Private prisons tend to be smaller and hold non-violent offenders, which is why there is a lack of violence in private prisons as opposed to public prisons. However, there is concern about whether or not privitization of prisons

The de-privatization is a policy influenced by political interests. The politicians based their policies on what are the basic and essential needs of the population, which are public services, in particular the health system. They know that these agencies are sensitive issues for the people and use it as a bell policy for future elections. The privatize these agencies brings as a consequence the loss of control of the government. On the other hand, they used the public services as a method to keep the interests of the public and place those services in the direct control of the government and directly accountable to the elected representatives. Despite the fact that the de-privatization brings as a consequence the loss of dividends by privatized companies,