Private Control versus Public Control of Britains Correctional Facilities: A Critical Review - Research Paper Example

PRIVATE CONTROL VERSUS PUBLIC CONTROL OF BRITAIN’S CORRECTIONAL FACILTIIES: A CRITICAL REVIEW Contents Introduction 3 Prison Privatisation 4 Criticisms of Private Prison Systems 5 Reasons Private Prisons Persist in the UK 7 Conclusion 9 Bibliography 11 Introduction Privatisation seems to be the natural consequence of the development of modern Capitalist states around the world (Martin & Parker, 2011). The UK went through a welfare-oriented economic structure after the Second World War (Holden, Matthews, & Thompson, 2010). However, the Conservatives took over from the Labour government in the late 1970s and undertook major reforms which culminated in a systematic transformation of the UK economy into a privatisation-oriented economy (Holden, Matthews, & Thompson, 2010). Indeed, this improved a lot of things in the UK and helped to revive many organisations in the public sector that were either inefficient, or on the verge of collapse (Martin & Parker, 2011). However, there are questions about the large-scale privatisation of the UK’s public sector institutions and organisations (Krahmann, 2010). There is a question of whether privatisation should be expanded to cover areas like the prison services of the UK. This is because private entities seek their profit motives. Hence, there is the issue of whether private institutions running a correctional facility in the UK will live up to the essence and significance of keeping such a facility (Martin & Parker, 2011). “The UK currently has the most privatised prison system in Europe” (Teague, 2012, p. 3). This shows that the United Kingdom is moving towards a system that is not in vogue in other member states of the European Union. Thus, there is the issue of whether the UK is doing the right thing or not. Other supporters of the UK’s privatisation of its prisons indicate that the privatisation is a natural consequence of the need to reduce overcrowding in prisons. Thus, as of April 2012, there were no fewer than 14 out of the 139 prisons in England and Wales that were managed by private companies. These private facilities managed one-eighth of all incarcerated people in the UK and this represented 11,446 prisoners in total (Teague, 2012). The ratio of prisoners held in privately-run facilities in the UK is higher than the United States who have less than 10% of their prisoners housed in facilities that are privately managed or ran. This paper critically examines and evaluates the discussions on the development of prison privatisation in the UK. It will analyse the arguments that go for and the arguments that go against the need to privatise prisons in the UK and how this affects and influences the way these facilities are ran. Also, the paper will assess and analyse the future of the privatisation of prison systems and how it affects people in the UK. Prison Privatisation Burke identifies that privatisation has been an essential aspect of the UK’s criminal justice system for the past fifty years because it helps to meet the objectives of criminal justice which is steeped in protecting the UK public (Burke, 2009). This is fundamentally due to the fact that public-private partnerships are essential for the conduct of business in the law enforcement system. The central act that created the impetus for the privatisation of prisons is the Prison Reform Trust Act of 2004 which came to force after many years of discussions and deliberations about the prison and penal code system of the UK (Easton, 2011). The main issues that prompted discussions was the fact that prison populations were growing steadily and the government funding for correctional services are somewhat limited due to the cuts placed on the Ministry of Justice and related entities that had various roles connected to the UK’s prisons (Cavadino & Dignan, 2005). Therefore, it is apparent that the debates of prison privatisation have their roots in the fact that there was limited money to set up infrastructure for keeping inmates in prison. In countries like Italy where the traditional view was to prevent private ownership of prisons (Cavadino & Dignan, 2005). Private prisons began operating in the UK in 1992 and this naturally came with numerous criticisms from members of the society. The view of promoting investment in prisons remained steeped in the need to prevent overcrowding, but other authorities identify that the need for proper management and ensuring the success of these correctional facilities is the central reason for the privatisation drive (Hough, Allen, & Solomon, 2008). This is therefore based on the fact that evidence exists that shows that private ownership of businesses and public sector entities is important and vital to ensure better results. Low-earning and loss making entities in the public sector began making profits the moment a few properly equipped and dedicated entrepreneurs took over and tried to turn things around with better management practices and improved governance structures (Barak, 2007). Criticisms of Private Prison Systems The downside of this viewpoint is that the profit motive comes with its problems and issues. First of all, there is the question of whether the goals of business owners can ever be truly aligned with what they do. This is fundamentally because business owners are guided by the need to make profits. Therefore, it can be said that they might pursue their interest and their desires by promoting a system that will cut down costs. There is also the inherent issue of businesses trying to promote certain ends that are not on the same level as true spirit and nature of correctional facilities and systems. For instance, a prison facility might seek to favour certain classes of people in the society at the expense of the taxpayer. And this is bound to create issues and problems that could put the whole case of privatisation in disrepute. This is because the is the question of the level of luxury or comfort people must have in prison. Some free members of the country who work to pay taxes and national insurance are likely to have questions about whether their lives are better on the outside or inside of jail. This is fundamentally because privatisation improves the quality of care and this enhances comfort to a very high level in prisons. This brings questions of whether the objectives of the prison system can be truly met if a prison is in the hands of private individuals who control the facility and make it meet its objectives and ends. The third point culminates from the second. This is because in cases where people are dissatisfied with the fact that prison facilities are giving better services to criminals than citizens, there are issues of the legitimacy and conscionability of the owners of these prisons. This is fundamentally due to the fact that such businesses are seen making profits from the provision of a service that the state ought to be providing for its citizens (Price, Merchandizing Prisons, 2006). And secondly, they might be questioned about whether their actions are in sync with the true ends that the prison system ought to be pursuing. As pointed above, some people believe that prisons are not meant to be managed any better than any other institution or organisation in the public sector. Hence, there is always the question of whether these earnings are legally and/or morally appropriate for companies of this nature. Finally, although evidence shows that private prisons are better ran and have better results, evidence indicates that some of the biggest private entities have failed in the three technical aspects and elements of their operations and this includes: 1. Recidivism; 2. Management of inmate safety & 3. Consistency in the delivery of core activities including delivery of education, employment and rehabilitation of inmates (Price & Morris, Prison Privatization: The Many Facets of a Controversial Industry, Volume 1, 2012). This shows that although there are many positive things that private firms can provide in their quest for objectivity and proper attainment of results, there are issues with meeting the specific technical elements and aspects of UK prison services. This is mainly because most private prisons are likely to employ people who are not given the same level of training as other members of the public prisons service (Sandel, 2012). This disparity is clear because running a prison service force is somewhat based on principles that are steeped in nationalism and the motivation to serve one’s country and also try to align the views of people in the society into the process of keeping the inmates. However, in cases where private sector entities and organisations of that calibre are used in the prison system, they come with various allegiance issues. Normally, one will expect a person working for a private prison company to have his primary allegiance fuelled on his desire to remain employed and maintain job security. Reasons Private Prisons Persist in the UK Private prisons remain in the UK and from the evidence apparent at this point, it is clear that the UK will continue to have private prisons in future and Parliamentary reports seem to show that private prisons and their management are important and vital for the UK’s development. This implies that there are positive and numerous benefits that private prisons bring that public-ran organisations and these entities cannot do the same things in most cases and situations where those matters are required. First of all, there is a general case for the privatisation of these entities because they are often ran by people who have strong skills and competencies in the conduct of business and the optimisation of resources. Evidence indicate that different professionals and different entities like those in these private sector work hard and they ensure that they attain better and higher results from their operations (Selman & Leighton, 2010). Hence, private prisons are better off and they are more profitable or at least less prone to losses and to claiming subventions in their affairs and operations. Government subventions were generally rife for the prisons sector because there was a trend whereby public sector management practices were not really focused on attaining any profits. Therefore, the whole unit was meant to provide a service that was assumed to be at the best interest of the state. Hence, the whole idea came with the formulation of budgets that were generally high and since the UK government does not have unlimited resources, there was the need to qualify some of these demands and requirements. Hence, there was a general trend whereby government institutions provided services, but with a high degree of lapses and issues that often limited the earning capacity of the country. This created two main issues. First of all, the state believed it was doing its best for the correctional facilities and hence, they provided what they could afford in each year’s budget and hence, they always had requests for more money and this was problematic. Secondly, the prisons authorities who managed affairs had little to work with and hence, they could not meet their ends and objectives. Therefore, they had to compromise on the kind of services they provided and this meant that a proportion of British nationals who happened to be in prison had to go through harsh conditions and circumstances because of the lack of funds. There is also an issue with the philosophy and competency of a purely public-sector workforce (Maguire & Morgan, 2009). This is because they are able to combine different views and shun workplace politics in order to carry out activities without fear or favour. This is not the case with the public sector where politics and other kind of activities stand in the way of the average prison officer who might be able to do certain things and might not be able to do other things. Therefore, it can be said that there is a logical reason for the maintenance of private prisons around the country. There are obvious issues with the technical competency of private prisons. However, there are very obvious and effective solutions that can be employed to prevent these issues from being problems that can affect these private entities. One of the options is through education and training. This will help to provide some kind of guidance and direction to companies that will be involved in these training processes. This will help to provide important guidance and detachments form their personal interests and hence, a greater chance of meeting objectives of a given prison case (Maguire & Morgan, 2009). A second approach could include the use of members directly tapped from the UK Prisons’ Service as well as other professionals and important public sector players in order to attain the best and most optimal results in this quest. The use of private sector entities also helps to put in place competition for other public sector correctional facilities. This is because without the private sector, the public sector will have a complete monopoly which could be problematic and stand in the way of continuous improvement and enhancement. Conclusion The process of private-public partnerships and the overall change in prison statistics has informed a position whereby it is imperative for the prisons of the UK must be ran side-by-side by private players and the public sector. This is necessary because of the inherent limitations and difficulties that are encountered by using only one of the two approaches and methods in providing prison services might not be in the best interest of the citizens and the people as a whole. This study identifies that the downside of using private stakeholders to run prisons include the fact that they lack technical competencies that is required of that job and its positions. Secondly, private players are influenced by the profit motive. Hence, there is a question of whether they will meet the higher purposes and reasons for which prisons were created in the first place. Additionally, there is an issue of whether the standard met by the private prisons are necessary and whether the profits made by private entities running these entities is logical or not. On the other hand, public control of all prisons in Britain comes with the advantage of ensuring that the technical elements and aspects of the prisons are conducted and evaluated appropriately and properly. This ensures that the main ends of prisons are met through the use of private sector entities. This is due in part to the fact that most of the private firms have better management systems and processes. Hence, these entities are able to understand the needs and requirements of these correctional facilities and they align them to their profit motives and plans. Therefore, resources are used for the best purposes and things are done in the best possible light and circumstances whenever anything occurs. From the facts of the study, it is apparent that both private and public control of correctional facilities comes with advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it recommended that the UK pursues a blend of private and public systems of running its prisons. This is because the private ran jails will complement public jails in order to ensure that overcrowding, which is the main reason for the two streams can be eliminated. Secondly, with the thriving of both systems, there is the possibility of promoting competition. Such competition enables each correctional facility to set realistic targets and put the facility’s resources to attain them. This will help to improve performance and also enhance the way prisons are ran. This will go a long way to help to meet the main ends and the main foundations on which the criminal justice system is based. This procedure will also promote better results of correctional facilities. Bibliography Barak, G. (2007). Battleground: Criminal Justice. Santa Barbera: ABC-CLIO. Burke, R. H. (2009). An Introduction to Criminological Theory . London: Willan Publishing. Cavadino, M., & Dignan, J. (2005). Penal Systems: A Comparative Analysis. London: SAGE. Easton, S. (2011). Prisoners Rights: Principles and Practice. London: Taylor and Francis. Holden, K., Matthews, K., & Thompson, J. L. (2010). The UK Economy Today. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hough, J. M., Allen, R., & Solomon, D. (2008). Tackling Prison Overcrowding: Build More Prisons? Sentence Fewer Offenders? London: Policy Press. Krahmann, E. (2010). State, Citizens and the Privatisation of Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maguire, M., & Morgan, R. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, S., & Parker, D. (2011). The Impact of Privatisation. London: Psychology Press. Price, B. E. (2006). Merchandizing Prisons. Santa Barbera, CA: ABC-CLIO. Price, B. E., & Morris, J. C. (2012). Prison Privatization: The Many Facets of a Controversial Industry, Volume 1. Santa Barbera: ABC-CLIO. Sandel, M. (2012). What Money Cant Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. London: Penguin. Selman, D., & Leighton, P. (2010). Punishment for Sale: Private Prisons, Big Business, and the Incarceration Binge. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Teague, M. (2012, April 1). Private Prison, A Step too Far? Retrieved August 11, 2014, from The Justice Gap: http://thejusticegap.com/2012/04/privatising-prisons-a-step-too-far/ Read More