The Rise in Privately Funded Prisons in America - Research Paper Example

?How has the proliferation of privately funded prisons changed the criminal justice system in America? The rise in privately funded prisons in America, owes its growth and penetration within America’s criminal justice system, to the range of transformations that occurred during the mid 1990s. The rise in budget cuts in the prison sector, followed by a simultaneous rise in medical and psychiatric care; introduction of punitive criminal justice policies resulting in overcrowding of the publicly funded prisons and the increased cost of sustaining the overburdened system, culminated into a pressing issue facing the criminal justice policy makers. The proliferation of privately funded prisons in America began in the 1980s when privately owned companies such as the CCA (Corrections Corporation of America) and Wackenhut Corrections were listed as legitimate companies and went public in the stock market (Shichor, 1995). The privatization of prisons, which began nearly three decades ago, due to the burgeoning population of inmates in the publicly funded prisons, and its direct impact on the budget and rising costs, is a phenomenon which can be best described as the takeover of the publicly funded prisons by a group of private operators and signifies the emergence of a whole new era, that has significantly impacted the criminal justice system in the country. The contemporary private prisons business which took off after a privately funded for-profit company, the Corrections Corporation of America, offered to lease a government facility, leading to a historical contract, that any government had ever entered into with a private operator. The aggressive policies towards curbing drug abuse, and the resultant strengthening of the laws, further gave an impetus to the private correctional facilities as more and more inmates were seen being transferred by the federal government to such private prisons. According to Cheung (2002) the federal involvement in privatization of prisons, due to the major overcrowding of the federal prisons is one of the fundamental reasons for the proliferation of private prisons in the country. Figure: Rise in number of inmates between the period 1980-2007 Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Proponents of the privatization of prisons have argued that increased in privatization of prisons, help in cost savings thus garnering continued public as well as political support. Such a claim is backed by research conducted over the years to substantiate the hypothesis. It was observed that the private companies have significantly contributed in cost-savings by reducing cost-per-inmate and offering affordable services as compared to the public prisons (Steiner & Wooldredge 2009). However, this claim was further rejected by another study, which stated that there is hardly any difference with regard to cost-savings, since privatization has only contributed to approximately 1% savings (James & Garry, 2001). The underlying purpose of privatization of any government undertaking is to ensure better quality and effective service provision in the sector and afford cost-savings without compromising on the quality of the service delivered. Privately funded prisons have claimed that they offer better quality services as compared to public prisons, a claim which was substantiated with empirical evidence by researchers. In order to receive accreditation, prisons are required to fulfill various criteria, such as providing improved quality of services such as food, education, health etc., to the inmates; effective implementation of rehabilitative programs; and reducing the aggressive episodes between the staff and inmates, along with various other factors such as providing a safe and healthy living environment for both the staff as well as inmates (Logan, 1991; Lanza-Kaduce & Parker, 1998; Thomas, 1997; Archambeault, 1996). In recent study conducted by Segal (2005) it was observed that merely ten percent of the public prisons were able to fulfill the criteria to receive accreditation against 44 per cent of the private prisons. Furthermore, the laws regarding observance of policies laid down by the criminal justice system are stricter for private prisons as compared to the publicly funded ones, thus suggesting a stricter adherence to the government policies by the private prisons (Harding, 1997). The key reason behind the proliferation of private prisons, i.e., overcrowding, reflects the criminal justice policies during the 1980s which was more in favor of punitive strategies as opposed to rehabilitative strategies. According to Abransky (2009), the harsh criminal justice policies during the era triggered off privatization of prisons, and added to the burden of public prisons to manage the rising number of inmates, culminating into a complete inefficiency to operate due to high costs and overcapacity. According to Holleman et al (2009) there is a direct relationship between such increased number of inmates in public prisons and the corrections budgets. He further states that the punitive strategies implemented by the government during the 1980s, led to a diversion of funds towards prison maintenance and away from more pressing issues such as health care, and education. Furthermore, the strict sentencing policies, the negative profiling of African American youth during the "war on drugs" initiative etc., further contributed to the overcrowding of publicly funded prisons (National Drug Intelligence, 2003). In a recent study conducted in New York, concerning the impact of criminal justice policies and violent crime rates, it was observed that strict polices in favor of controlling the possession of lethal weapons has led to a considerable drop in crime rates. In another study conducted by Zhang (2009) it was observed that criminal justice polices do have an indirect yet significant impact on the number of people imprisoned. The study suggested that there is a direct relationship between strict sentencing policies and rise in prison population. Private prisons are for-profit organizations hence, their primary aim profit maximization which in turn is based on the number of beds filled. Such a motive requires and encourages high number of inmate retention and that too for prolonged duration. In the light of such observations, it is highly likely private correctional facilities will be in favor of criminal justice policies that support punitive strategies as opposed to rehabilitative polices, in order to safeguard their own private interests, since the very basis of their existence in the industry, is highly dependent on the number of inmates in their correctional facilities. It has already been established that there is a strong co-relations between criminal justice policies and prison population, thus any policy in favor of privatized prisons, are likely to favor strict punishment defying the very basis of social justice. Although the privately funded prisons vouch for better facilities for the inmates, as has been supported by evidence based on research, their impact is likely to bring about positive transformations in the manner in which the inmates are treated. However, in the larger public interest, the benefits that privatization of prisons has to offer to the general public is questionable. The interconnection between a profit oriented organization and crime signals a worrisome entanglement of cost-savings for the government and the public interest and policy at large. References: Abransky (2009). "The War Against the 'War on Drugs'." The Nation, vol. 288, no. 26, pp. 18-22, Jul 6 Archambeault, W. G., Donald, R. D., (1998). "Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correctional Centers." Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium Volume 4, August. Harding, R. W., (1997). Private Prisons and Public Accountability. Open University Press. Holleman, H., McChesney, R. W., Bellamy, F. John., Jonna, R. J., (2009). "The Penal State in an Age of Crisis." Monthly Review, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 1-17, June James, A., Garry, C., (2001). Emerging issues on privatized prisons. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 90 pp. Lanza-Kaduce, L., Parker, K. F., Charles, W., (1999). "A Comparative Recidivism Analysis of Releasees from Private and Public Prisons." Crime & Delinquency, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 28-47. Logan, C., (1991). Well Kept: Comparing Quality of Confinement in a Public and a Private Prison." National Institute of Justice, (Washington D.C.). Shichor, D., (1995). Punishment for Profit: Private Prisons / Public Concerns. Sage Publications. Steiner, B., Wooldredge, J., (2009). Rethinking the Link Between Institutional Crowding and Inmate Misconduct." The Prison Journal, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 205-233 Thomas, C., (1997). Comparing the Cost and Performance of Public and Private Prisons in Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Joint Legislative Committee, August 1997. Zhang, Y.; Maxwell, C, D.; Vaughn, M. S., (2009). "The impact of state sentencing policies on the U.S. prison population." Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 190-199, Mar-Apr. 2009 National Drug Intelligence Center (2003). "Arkansas Drug Threat Assessment." [online] Available at: http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs6/6184/6184p.pdf [Accessed: January 24, 2012] Segal, G., (2005). Comparing public and private prisons on quality [Online] Available at: http://www.burnetcountytexas.org/docs/6-Segal-Commission-on-PrisonAbuse.pdf [Accessed: January 24, 2012] U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey [Online] Available at: http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=172 Read More