Introduction
The privatization of most public services in the United States (US) has become a subject of interest to private and public sector players. Private companies are in the view that there is an economic advantage in the production of correctional services ranging from both the programs and services provided to the prison population (Sellers, 13). Their opinion is that if the private sector can produce correctional services, then the problem related to a public entity in the production of such services would be significantly evaded. Society depends mostly on the private sector to advance their ideal of self-interest, which suppose that if individuals pursue their interests, the community will progress. Thus, society believes that the production of correctional services by the public sector is detrimental to their pursuit of economic self-interest. The US government to reinforce its judicial system has initiated risk-based measures that enhance the expansion of the private sector (Jones et al., 58). It is worth noting that the government gives little focus to private prisons but appreciates the role of public prisons. The paper will provide a clear argument on the subject matter and then give a conclusion justifying the need to retain private prisons.
History of Private Prisons
The history of private prisons in the US can be drawn back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, privatization of prison has been dominant throughout history, especially in Australian and Great Britain (King, 12). The operation of private prisons emerged as a result of the role played by the private sectors. During the colonial era in America, prisons were used as a holding cell for borrowers and those awaiting trial or punishment. Prison laborers emerged in the 17th century as a means for the countries to save some of the expenses related to incarcerating offenders (King, 13). England used prison laborers as a form of punishment where they would transport criminals and debtors inexpensively to North America and obtain the right to sell them off as slave laborers. However, the procedure of transportation of criminals to North America ended due to the rise of the American Revolution. In the mid-1980s, private prisons reappeared again in the US as uneven incarceration of black people, and it was used as a means of generating government revenue (Hallett, 3). Evidence reveals that there are more black Americans in prisons than those attending universities in the United States (Hallett, 5). The rapid development of the US economy led to the emergence of new challenges that resulted in a rise in crimes at alarming rates.
Public outcry pushed the state government to enact new laws that provided harsh punishment for minor crimes and life sentences for repeated crime (King, 16). The tough prison sentences and new drug laws of the mid-1980s increased the prison population at an alarming rate and resulted to increase in government expenditure. Even though crimes were being addressed through such radical measures, the exploding prison population was becoming a huge burden for the government. Besides, the rise in crime rate leads to overcrowding in prisons that complicated the matter further and it necessitated the need to open the door for the private sector to take part in prison ownership. Privatization of prisons was seen as an ideal choice to help reduce the cost incurred by the state government in building and operating prisons. The private sector committed to build and control prisons more efficiently that provided a rewarding alternative to the government’s dilemma. With time, a new belief arose that contracting for correctional services was utmost to direct state provision (McDonald et al., 9). Private sectors were believed to be more efficient than public agencies, particularly in labor relations and procurement. Private-sector managers could employ and fire without restriction by civil authority. Besides, where labor was not unionized, the private sector could control and relocate with greater affluence.
The Roles of Private Prisons
The overall function of US prisons whether privately owned or publicly operated is the general confinement of adults. However, the variety of roles played by privately operated prisons tend to be different from those operated by the state government (McDonald et al., 23). The majority of private prisons serve as drug and alcohol treatment parts as well as custody for bail violators’ returnees. Some private prisons contract with the state and central correctional agencies to provide incarceration of special prisoner populations such as those with mental problems. Others help states and the central government in identifying and regrouping newly admitted inmates. By using private prisons, the government endeavors to gain operational flexibility in fulfilling certain requirements in their correctional system. For instance, prisoners are referred to private prisons on the basis that their needs cannot be met adequately in public operated prisons. The government is in the view that private prisons have adequate facilities and are well classified to meet the needs of inmates requiring special hospital confinement. Private prisons play an important role in the private sector especially in influencing policy. When looking for growth opportunities in a given venture, business people sought the assistance of private prisons (Selman et al. 3). They are motivated by an increasing amount of cash going into corrections. Also, private prisons are seen as an avenue to draw money from the rich and use it to build and manage prisons that in turn lead to the redistribution of resources.
Private prisons not only influence policy in the private sector, but they also assist the public prisons and judicial system in the provision of essential goods. They are considered to be an important player in the criminal justice system. The judicial system contacts them in the provision of essential services such as education, health, laundry among others (Selman et al., 4). The privatization of correctional roles has created an avenue for the provision of effective programs to handle a large number of offenders. The overcrowding problem in publicly operated prisons may limit the delivery of such programs. For many offenders held in private prisons, there are noncustodial programs that are run on contract in partnership with state and federal government. By having private prisons, innovative kinds of low-security custody have been initiated. Such custody has become a key area of correction as well as an important segment of the private sector (Feeley, 139). For instance, Juvenile Judicial System has contracted private sector to avail such low-security custody facilities for juveniles. The action has led to flexibility in handling juveniles as well as increased capacity by the judicial system in committing them into custody. The introduction of privately owned prisons has made the provision of better technology for surveillance and control. A rise in numbers returned to custody has necessitated the need for cost-effective custody facilities in addition to better forms of confinement.
Given that private prisons have a better facility profile, it easy for them to provide electronic devices that monitor the movement of individuals (Feeley, 140). Such a facility offers convenience in the provision of surveillance and control services besides providing the possibility of confinement without custody. Electronic devices are seen as effective and less costly forms of punishment and can be used to confine drug abuse victims to their homes. Private sector involvement in correction has resulted in new methods of punishment which extend the ability of the state to apply for criminal approval. Private prisons serve as an engine of economic development by providing revenue to the government as well as creating jobs for masses of unemployed people in the US (Carey, 6). They offer added advantage by providing a significant amount of tax revenue to both state and federal governments. The rise in the privatization of prison has been reinforced by the need by the US government to reduce costs and encourage competition (Carey, 8). Thus private prisons help in reducing the state burden attributed to the increasing number of prisons in the United States. By contracting out prison building and operation to the private sector, the state government can reduce costs and tackle the difficult of overcrowding in public prisons.
The Need for Private Prisons
The privatization of prisons continues to be feasible and beneficial to the state authority in prison management. The shift of prison management to the private sector is indispensable in helping the government meet the rising demand for better and adequate imprisonment facilities at a convenient cost to the public. With the same level and scope of services, the private sector are in position to provide custody and correction services at convenient cost than the public sector (Sellers, 18). Overcrowding in public prisons comes with a huge financial burden to the government and having private prisons is seen as a relief to the government especially in driving the cost per inmate down. Additionally, the state is in view that facilities owned by private prisons are more efficiently run compared to those owned by public prisons. Findings show that private sectors can constructs and manage new facilities with ease and at a minimal cost than public entities (Austin, X). Therefore, the privatization of correction services to the private sector is seen as a way of overcoming management problems associated with publicly operated prisons.
The multifaceted problems associated with rising demand for prison funding and space have led to a lack of trust in the value of correctional services provided by public prisons. Corrective programs meant to rehabilitate criminals as a way of addressing high crime rates have proved to be ineffective resulting in loss of credibility by the public (Austin, 1). Failure by the government in the provision of quality correctional services has made the public believe the government is not adequately equipped to handle the modern institutional confinement challenges. Privatization of prison services is seen as a contract process by the government in shifting the public roles and responsibilities from the public to private entities. For instance, government correctional agencies tend to contract out particular amenities such as education, health, food services, and among others. The move is seen as a means to control the type and quality of services provided and this is interpreted as a way of injecting fair competition among private and public entities (Austin, 14). Another reason justifying the need for private prisons is the ability to provide safety for inmates. Private prisons are believed to effectively protect that inmate’s safety. As aforementioned, they provide electronic devices that monitor the movement of people and are suitable in the provision of surveillance and control services. Additionally, the need for private prisons arose from the necessity to provide specialized human treatment that is not adequately provided by public prisons (Lamparello, 420). Private prisons have modern facilities that facilitate the provision of specialist medical services to the inmates. The government has often sought the private sectors in providing the imprisonment of prisoners requiring special treatment such as those with mental disorders.
Concerns over Private Prisons
Several concerns have been raised over the privatization of correction services that tend to undermine the usefulness of private prisons. Those who contend against the privatization of prisons cite poor performance from the private sector (Schultz, 100). However, with the right parameters, the performance of private prisons can be kept in check. Besides, some question whether private prisons are ethical considering they are prisons for profit. The concern arises out of view by some people that an entity with a profit-oriented motive should not be put in charge of prisoners’ lives. Nevertheless, a prisoner whose freedom is withdrawn care little about who watches his cell whether the private sector or government (Moore, 30). Farther, contracting out correction services to the private entity does not relief the government of legal and ethical accountability of ensuring appropriate treatment. Another concern raised over private prisons is the legality of putting inmates in private prisons. Different government organs appreciate the need for legal authority to delegate the management of prison to private sectors. Also, the Bureau of Prisons recognizes the need for the judicial system to contract with the private sector in the management of the prisons (Moore, 31). Also, there is no law forbidding the contract for private prisons and thus it is seen as legal to put inmates in private prisons.
Some critics of private prisons argue that private prisons cannot manage unrests or use deadly force. However, if private entities are handling prisons of every security level, then the use of lethal force is definitely unavoidable. Further, the state law permits the private individuals to use lethal force in defending themselves or others and this of course implies that private prisons can equally use deadly force. With sufficient employees and adequate training, private prisons can easily manage unrests. Still, some question whether public officers have minimal control over privately operated prisons than over publicly operated prisons. In response, a contract with private prisons guarantees the public officers a great level of control. Moreover, by contracting out prisons services, the government is in a position to introduce an extra degree of accountability through the monitoring procedures. Several also are in the opinion that private prisons are associated with high cases of inmate misconduct. Conversely, research reveals that there is no substantial alterations in the extent of misbehavior done by prisoners in either private or private prisons (El Sayed et al., 1). Findings further discloses that private prisons in comparison with public prisons are less probable to be involved in influential violence connected with convicts’ behaviors.
Conclusion
The United States government is experiencing an increasing crisis emanating from overcrowding in jails and prisons. Even though crime rates seem to be lessening, prisoners on average are serving more time complicating the problem further. Overcrowding in public prisons has led to a huge financial burden to the government associated with building and controlling more prisons. The privatization of prison services is seen as the only solution to this problem. Private prison is believed to be run more efficiently and provide quality services at a convenient cost. As a result of the growing needs of inmates, the state, federal, and local officials have resorted to private entities for the provision of specializes services and this has been met with great success. Even though private prisons may not provide a universal remedy, they are undoubtedly part of the answer, and thus, they should not be abolished.