Are Private Entrepreneurs of Punishment More Efficient than Government Ones - Essay Example

?Private Entrepreneurs of Punishment Are More Efficient and More Effective Than Government Agencies Privatization is the word used to describe the “systematic transfer of government functions and programs into the private sector” (Ashworth, 2005). The privatization of the correction and punishment facilities has been a growing trend in the UK for the last few years. Most of the private correction institutions in the country normally operate by offering services for a certain amount of fees. There is another privatization form that involves the government transferring its commercial enterprises, asset ownership and management responsibilities to a private entity or organization. In short, privatization of punishment can take the form of outsourcing, build-operate-transfer services and market testing. There have been debates on the effectiveness and efficiency of private entrepreneurs of services as compared to government agencies (Feeley, 2002). One of the most important factors that facilitated the establishment of private institutions of the criminal justice system was the need for better services. The most basic role of prisons and the correctional system in the UK is to provide quality services that would go towards the rehabilitation, correction and skill development purposes of the criminal justice system. Privatization is widely believed to be a reliable source of high quality services in the entrepreneurial world (Ashworth, 2005). Hence with the privatisation of the system of punishments, it was highly anticipated that the level of services offered in the institutions would be enhanced. Almost two decades after the first private prison was established in the UK, the issue of the effectiveness and efficiency of the privatised correctional facilities as opposed to government agencies remains quite debatable (Scott, 2008). Background and Development Major changes were happening within the English Criminal justice system in the 18th and 19th centuries and this culminated in the establishment of professional police corps. The changes also saw the establishment of full time and legal-trained court judges and court clerks who made the justice system more formal and professional. These changes saw the beginning of refined and systematic court procedures and application of criminal law (Garland, 1990). During the 1970s, the UK government was being faced with the problem of a rapidly increasing prison population and an antigovernment sentiment among members of the general public which resulted to a boom in the privatization sector (Feeley, 2002). In the penal estate, private providers of punishment have always tended to play a minor role. However, this has not meant that their work is any less significant. The first modern day private prison in the UK was opened in 1992 in the Wolds. In addition to high incarceration rates and overcrowding in the penal institutions, there was also pressure from increasing correctional costs which led to the establishment of more privatised correctional facilities all across the UK. Today there are over 11 private prisons which have operations in England and Wales and they are operated by Kalyx, G4S and Serco. The prisons are run by 4 private corporations. This puts the number of prisoners under private watch to be a tenth of the entire prison population. Private prisons in the country are normally inspected by the Chief Inspector of Prisons just like public prisons are. The prisons also have a liaison who connects them to the Ministry of Justice within the government. Even though the introduction of the private penal system was marred by controversy on many levels, it has become more established and considerably well accepted than before (Ashworth, 2005). Over the last one and half decades, there have been important developments within the private penal system in the UK, most of which have contributed to their acceptance within the general public. In England and Wales alone, there have been more than 6000 offenders who have been held private correctional facilities. Since 1992, Britain has been able to create what can only be considered as the most privatized criminal justice and prisons system in the whole of Europe. Some of the factors that have contributed to the development of private punishment provision include: the failure of rehabilitative experiments which have also been too costly, rising cost of incarceration which the government cannot keep up with and finally, the willingness of both the government and the public to consider private means of incarcerations (Scott, 2008). According to Feeley (2002), the development of the nature and forms of punishment have to be viewed as being a labour market function. Prisons act as places where cheap labour can be retained and used by entrepreneurs for production purposes. However, this may not be true at all. Some private entrepreneurs of punishment normally follow the code of ethics of prisons and their prisoners normally get out of the facilities better people than when they got in. Analysis of Issues and Policy Dimensions, Implication, Priorities and Options When considering the matter of privatization of punishment, there are certain issues that are hard to ignore. First of all, those private organizations which are run different prison facilities must ensure their independence of political or any other influence (Tonry and Rex, 2002). This means that the organizations must always be on guard on the issue of the influence that may come with political or economic pressure. There are many cases of political and bureaucratic interference of prison programs which creates a barrier to the development of the facilities. Bureaucratic rigidity is also related to resistance to change. As the criminal world becomes more complicated, there is need to shake off bureaucratic tendencies which only make it hard for punishment systems to cope with the present punishment and correctional demands (Ryan, 2003). The issue of entering into risky contracts with the government is another important concern. In most instances, the government has the power to revoke a contract within as little a time as 60 days and this normally puts the organization at a risk of losing its assets. It is therefore crucial that private corporations planning to enter into the business of entrepreneurial punishment should carefully consider the type of agreement that they are entering into with the government so as not to lose too much of their assets if and when the agreement falls apart. Another important issue in the provision of privatized punishment is how much the organization can put its trust on the government to fulfil its end of the bargain. This issue is serious since it is inevitable to have to deal with the government at one level or another. The two parties must agree on their respective responsibilities so that in case a sensational issue arises, it would be easy to find a suitable solution to the problem without too much mad slinging (Joyce, 2006). There is also the issue of how and when it is appropriate to control the contract of private providers of punishments. This is a tricky issue since the contracts signed between governments and corporate institutions are normally legally binding, so changing them is out of the question. This becomes an even serious issue since the services of an organization that offers private punishment should be for the greater good of the public. If the public feels that the services are not good enough, there is nothing much anyone can do since the institutions are normally legally protected. However, for public institutions which are badly run, the only thing that is needed is a change of governance and things will be as the public wants them to be (Home Office, 2002). Proponents of the privatization of the prison or punishment system normally vouch for it due to many different reasons. One of the reasons for support of the systems has got to do with cost. The argument used here is that private enterprises of punishment normally help the government save on costs that it would have had to use on running prison and other correctional facilities. Prisons for profit may not be a fine idea for many people, but there is no denying the fact that a lot of money is saved when society decides to turn to and accept the privatization of punishments (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007). This money can be used to provide other services such as healthcare to the general public. Prisons for profit also help in the reduction of facility overcrowding. One of the most common problems that public correctional facilities face is lack of space, and this leads to acute overcrowding in prison cells. The situation is not made any better by the prevalent and ever increasing rate of crime. The number of people increasing jail terms for various offences is too high for the government to deal efficiently with. This is why it is common to find petty offenders being cramped into the same cells as serious offenders such as those charged with murder and other violent crimes. Faced with such a situation the government can only turn to the private sector to help decongest its prisons, and thereby, be able to offer better services at the institutions (Ryan, 2003). With privatization of punishment systems comes a higher level of accountability. This is because the providers of the correctional services are legally bound by the contracts that they sign to serve the public well and efficiently. Corporate organizations that have ventured into the business of offering punishments services are there to make profit. Therefore, there must be a form of accountability that will enable the organization to run as smoothly as possible so as to gain the required profits (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007). This level of accountability can never be found within public institutions since they are not legally bound to perform their duty and nor are they under pressure to make profit like private institutions are. These only points to the fact that although there are many issues that dog the privatization of punishment, there is no denying that the kind of services offered there are way better than those offered in the public institutions, in terms of effectiveness and efficiency (Ryan, 2003). Proponents of a privatized system of corrections and punishments also argue that there is likely to be a higher level of innovation and competitiveness. The laws of a free and competitive market require that players in a certain sector have to offer the best possible services if they are to beat their competitors (Liebling, 2004). In this line of thought, it makes sense for different players in the incarcerations sector to ensure that they are innovative enough to offer original and unique services which will not only win them public acceptance and appreciation, but also enable them to make more profits than the other institutions. Public institutions and correctional facilities rarely do have this level of competition and innovation, and therefore the quality of their services remains a thing not be desired (Joyce, 2006). While it is generally an accepted fact that the private sector does provide a more superior corrections and punishment system, opponents of punishment privatization argue that the overemphasis on efficiency and effectiveness normally tends to make people not see some serious flaws in the system (Bottoms, Rex and Robinson, 2004). One of the most common criticisms of privatization of punishment is that the profit motive by private entrepreneurs could lead to adverse cost cutting measures which may affect the provision of quality services in correctional facilities that are privately owned and controlled. However, as much as this line of argument may sound valid, it does not hold much water. This is because cost cutting that affects quality would only occur if the private corporations only had a short term profit goal which is quite unlikely. Cost cutting that has the capacity to affect quality of services is also not very common in a competitive environment as the one in which private providers of punishment in the UK operate in. for these two reasons, it is quite clear that the quality provided in privately run punishment institutions is quite high, if only compared to government controlled facilities (Home Office, 2002). Another common criticism of privately owned punishment systems is that there is a high likelihood for abuse of power due to the lack of constraints that are supported by law (Tonry and Rex, 2002). For instance, some opponents argue that private security officers and wardens are likely to use excessive force since many of them are normally disgruntled in one way or another. This arguments is however, not supported by any valid evidence. On the contrary, it is a well known fact that private providers of punishment are the least likely to use any kind of force or violence when placed on the same pedestal with their public counterparts. In any case, private entrepreneurs of justice tend to employ officers who have a service-oriented personality and this normally is a good thing since it helps in the provision of quality services that the public can be comfortable with (Mahmood, 2004). There is also the argument that private provision of punishment is only reserved for the rich minority. This is to say in other words that justice is only for a few people, which not the truth especially in the UK situation. This argument is flawed since it does not consider how much the so-called poor in society actually contribute towards the running of publicly owned punishment systems. One group of institutions cannot be said to better than the other on the basis of who pays for its upkeep (Cavadino and Dignan, 2007). If the rich can afford to pay for the services offered by private entrepreneurs of punishment, then they are only contributing to a safer society where the crime rate is likely to go down because of their efforts. Furthermore, it is not true that these private institutions only cater for the rich, the not so rich can also make use of the services offered in these institutions at lower costs that come with better quality of services than those offered in public institutions (Feeley, 2002). Not all private prisons in the UK have a rosy story to tell about quality and cheap services. Some of them have been marred in controversies that have put a spot light on the effectiveness and efficiency of similar prisons (Joyce, 2006). A good example of a private prison that did not live up to its billing was the Ashfield prison which was established in 1999. This facility was the first of its kind to house youthful offenders. However, it was not too long before riots broke out within the facility. This was accompanied by rumours of poor management. However, nothing was done o remedy the situation and in 2003, the Youth Justice Board transferred all the prisoners from Ashfield and threatened to take drastic measures if the situation was not rectified. However, things soon returned to normal and the facility continues to be privately managed (Mahmood, 2004). The Moral Question The issue of establishing a privatized sector of incarcerations had raised some serious debates about its morality. While some argue that there is nothing ethically wrong with the establishment of these private systems, there are those who view the establishments as serious violations of ethics. One of the common arguments used by those who oppose the establishment of private punishment systems is that that is a role reserved for the government, which is a representative of the people (Bottoms, Rex and Robinson, 2004). Taking this responsibility away from government, claim the moralists, is like taking away the power of the people or the general public to run its punishments and correctional facilities. The moralists also argue that privatization is itself an effort in futility since it cannot help reduce the rising population in prisons. To support their argument, they normally claim that since the core function of privatization business is to make as much profit as possible, the organizations involved in the privatization of correctional systems do not care much about the ethics and fundamental reasons why these facilities exists in the first place. To them this is business and like any other business they have to do all it takes to make thrive (Easton and Piper, 2008). Therefore, the argument used here is that correctional systems that are privatised are only a means of helping organizations earn huge profits at the expense of rehabilitation, correctional and skill development purposes of prisons. Prison privatization was an ideology that was first propagated by Thatcher’s conservative government and other conservative administrations continued with the trend. The policy has survived to date despite the spirited opposition from the Labour Party who termed the privatization of correctional systems as being morally repugnant (Scott, 2008). For instance, in 1994, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott had made promises to the effect that all privately managed prisons would be reverted back to the public domain. This position was supported by those who were on the view that it was not appropriate for anyone to profit from incarcerations. However, Labour made a complete U-Turn and after the 1997 elections, it endorsed rather than rejected the establishment of new privatised prisons. There have been many policy debates all concerned with the legitimacy of privatization of punishments in the UK. However, there has been no major policy change to alter the situation apart from the fact that organizations are now required to openly tender for the establishment of new prisons (Easton and Piper, 2008). Conclusion The main problem with privatization of correctional systems is comes about from the differences between the proponents and opponents of the systems. The proponents believe that privatization of punishment institutions would promote the provision of better and cheaper services than those offered in government agencies. The major push for organizations to venture into the business of corrections privatizations is mainly profit making. This means that the businesses of offering corrections services is maintained by the fact that the organizations create demand for better alternative source of services, and then they go ahead and provide those services for which they create demand. This brings about a few moral questions which are also some of the reason why opponents of this form of privations are against the whole idea. They argue that Privatization seems to be the norm in the modern society, therefore, it is likely that privatization of punishment is not something that is going away, not any time soon anyway (Tonry and Rex, 2002). However, the government provision of correction and punishment is also not likely to diminish. Therefore, the two must continue operating together within the same environment and using the same resources. However, with the many legitimacy and ethical issues that continue to dog the privatization of punishment, it remains to be seen how stakeholders can come up with policy structures to ensure that this kind of punishment is consistent with the general public’s interests. References Ashworth, A. (2005) Sentencing and Criminal Justice 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bottoms, A. Rex, S, and Robinson, G. (eds) (2004) Alternatives to Prison: options for an insecure society. Cullompton. Willan. Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. (2007) Penal Systems: An Introduction (4th ed.) London: SAGE. Easton, S. And Piper, C. (2008) Sentencing and Punishment: the quest for justice, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Feeley, Malcolm 2002 "Entrepreneurs of Punishment: The Legacy of Privatization." Punishment and Society 4,3: 321-344. Garland, D. (1990) Punishment in Modern Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Home Office (2002) Justice for All, White Paper. London: RDS available at: http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/downloads/application/pdf/CJS%20White%20Paper%20-%20Justice%20For%20All.pdf Joyce, P (2006) Criminal Justice: An introduction to Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Cullompton: Willan Liebling, A. (2004) Prisons and their Moral Performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mahmood, M. (2004).u "Collateral Consequences of the Prison-Industrial Complex." Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict and Worm Order 31,1-2:31-34. Ryan, M. (2003) Penal Policy and Political Culture in England and Wales. Winchester: Waterside Press. Scott, D. (2008) Penology. London: Sage. Tonry, M. and Rex, S. (eds) (2002) Reform and Punishment: the future of sentencing. Cullompton. Willan. Read More