Analysis of Private Prisons - Research Paper Example

? Private Prisons: The privatization of prisons is a result of two crucial factors. The first one is the increase in crime rates over the years. The increase in crime rates results from a number of socio-economic and legal factors. An instance of a socio-economic factor is the increase in population. Increase in population escalates economic disparity due to strained resources (Reisig & Pratt, 2004). This causes a form of social aggressiveness that leads to crime. Legal factors are as a result of policy with a country or region. Actions considered “normal” in the past are now illegal; for instance, the smoking and possession of marijuana in some American states is illegal in contrast with the Red Indian period (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). These and many other factors cause an increase in the number of illegalities, increased crime rates and thereby overcrowding of prisons. With the increase in the number of offenders, there is a need to substitute government (public) prisons, hence, the need for private prisons (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). The second factor that led to the increase in privatization of prisons is capitalism. Previously, prisons were a form of social cleansing as it was a way of getting rid of extreme deviants regarded as a threat to social tranquility. However, capitalism saw the change of this view; people regard prisons as a business entity and, therefore, a means to make a living (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). Evidence shows that the government, through respective states, aggressively bids for the incarceration of offenders in private prisons. The reasons remain similar with the onset of privatization of prisons. The government wants to reduce overcrowding in prisons and cut the coasts of running the penal justice system. The government also argues that hiring private contractors is cheaper than training state employees so as to make them proficient (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). In the olden times, public prisons and private prisons benefited from utilizing the offenders’ labor but prisoners are no longer liabilities. The private sector devised means to make incarceration a cheap and monetarily beneficial process. First, there is the aspect of government and donor funding (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). These prisons use mass incarceration to solicit funding from the government and other investors. The companies that run private prisons amass wealth and build political ties. With these powers, the companies influence politicians and other political entities to pass policies that support higher rates of incarceration. Secondly, these prisons somewhat handpick their inmates (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). This allows them to engage low-cost offenders while the backlog of high maintenance offenders go back to the public sector. High maintenance can include patients suffering from costly diseases such as diabetes or those incapable of labor due to a disability (Reisig & Pratt, 2004). The privatization of prisons has a negative effect not only on the inmates but also the society. Nurge (2004) reports that at the onset of privatization of prisons, there was a cordial relationship between the prison guards and the prisoners. The management of the prisons was also better or matched the standards of public prisons. However, in recent times, new statistics show that private prisons are facing the same negative issues as public ones. This is in regard to prisoners’ relationship with the guards and the adequacy of prison facilities (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). There are several possible explanations of this situation. Some researchers claim that previously, the prison guards in private prisons were free of the penal system corruption. With time, however, they got assimilated and developed the survival for the fittest technique common in public prisons. The guards now mistreat the inmates and engage in other forms of corruption detrimental to the safety of the inmates. For instance, recent years have seen the increase in riots in privately owned prisons. The inmates’ protests lousy food, poor medical care, underpaid labor and harassment from the prison guards (Nurge, 2004). Also with the need to cut down running costs, the security of the private prisons is more often than not compromised. There are reported incidents of inadequate patrols, inconsistent prisoner screening and a lax prison culture. Classical liberalism creates a foundation for rights-based liberal theory and libertarian requisite. It is upon these two theories that sociologists support the privatization of prisons. For instance, John Locke holds that the authority, rights and other legitimate powers the state holds are those vested in them by individuals. From this approach, privatization is giving back to society what legitimately belongs to it (Reisig & Pratt, 2004). While the individual gives the government authority to ensure fair enforcement of the law, the individual maintains the mandate to use force to protect and enforce the law. The discipline of sociology is the mother of the most prominent theories in criminology. The social disorganization theory sheds light on some important aspects of street crime and how to mitigate it. However, limited this theory’s perspective its relevance to the private prisons sector is unquestionable (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). This theory postulates that the ecological characteristics inclusive of social and cultural interactions may increase or reduce the chances of occurrence of a crime (Reisig & Pratt, 2004). The original environment of private prisons before corruption from politics and economics was serene enough with an equally friendly culture to mitigate negative social interaction. This is crucial in reducing the chances of an offender repeating a crime once they are out of prison as they develop a positive attitude towards themselves and life in general (Reisig & Pratt, 2004). It is disconcerting that the theories that replaced this theory support the current state of prisons, both private and public. Hallet (2006) holds that new criminology theories do not seek to mitigate underlying causes of crime as in the social disorganization theory. Sociologists now formulate theories that seek to treat the symptoms of a crime. This, in essence, does not rid society of the crime but merely keeps it in check. This is particularly convenient for the private prison sector as they can make society safe and at the same time not go out of business, capitalizing on the existence of crime (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). For politicians, the issue is more of a game than it is a sociological problem. Whatever side gets one elected, the more they will root for it. As such, politicians will support or oppose private prisons depending on the political climate. The public is as wavering as the politicians (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). On the other hand, there are a number of factors that cause the public to flinch at the mention of private prison. First, there is the business nature most of them adopt. Secondly, there are humanitarian factors. In recent times, cases of prisoner mistreatment, overcrowding and poor facilities in private prisons have been on the increase (Hallet, 2006). Despite the negative implications, the governments need to retain private prisons because of their benefits but reduce their jurisdiction to enable the suppression of their negative impact. For instance, full privatization is too much of a gamble (Shefer & Liebling, 2008). As such, the government should be a shareholder in most, if not all, of these prisons. If this proves hard, there are other methods, such as formulation of policies, which limit the private prisons in regard to economics, sociology (how they handle prisoners) and check the prisons’ political ties (Reisig & Pratt, 2004). References Hallett, M. A. (2006). Private Prisons in America: A Critical Race Perspective. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Nurge, D. M. (2004). Capitalist Punishment: Ethics and Private Prisons. Critical Crimology An International Journal, 16(5), 133-156. Reisig, M. D., Pratt, T. C. (2000). The Ethics of Correctional Privatization. The Prison Journal, 12(3), 210-222. Shefer, G., Liebling, A. (2008). Prison privatization: In search of a business-like atmosphere. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 32(4), 261-278. Read More