The Origin of Security Privatization in America - Case Study Example

DISCUSS HOW THE PROCESS OF PRIVATISATION CAN BE SEEN AS RELATED TO RISK, FEAR AND INSECURITY USING THE EXAMPLE OF THE GROWTH OF THE PRIVATE SECURITY INDUSTRY By Rana Afiouny Student # 18096789 Perspectives in Criminology 15 May, 2015 Introduction The rising need to maintain security, law and order in the global society has facilitated increased privatization of security functions. Private firms like the G4S, GEO group, and SIS (Security International services) companies now operate in prison industry, offering their diverse security services. Some of their functions entail management of correctional facilities, security consultation, private investigations, prisoners’ transportation, and guarding in prisons (Strom et al 2010). Private security firms/services have gained acceptance for their alleged efficiency, better quality and low cost services than the public institutions (Friedman & Parenti 2013; Siegel 2011; Freeman1999). Since the origin of security privatization in America, it has spread to Australia and the rest of the world and has been massively employed in Australian prison industry. Most states have since adopted privatization, delegating their functions to private firms, through contracts and leasing of correctional facilities to be run by private corporations. However, privatization has been accompanied by certain risks, fear and insecurities it poses in the greater society. Risks, fear and insecurity are closely related concepts and determine the outcome of each other. Fear factor entails the panic and social tension, risks exposes the potential threats and vulnerabilities, while insecurity concept describes how individuals relate with the rest of the world. Thesis The essay seeks to expound how the process of privatization is seen to be related to experienced risks, fears and insecurity in the society. Using relevant examples of prisons privatization in private security industry, it discusses how privatization in crime control generates fear, risks and insecurity through net widening, violation of human rights, corruption, political interests and conflicting interests. Private prisons and fear of human rights violations Privatizations of prisons in the modern world have brought what can be considered a disgrace in national security. Though governments intended to transfer financial risks to the private sector through privatization, it facilitated what can be termed as capitalists punishments. Advocates of human rights oppose privatization process of correctional services for the fear that prisoners and the accused risk been victimized under the care of private operators. There are already numerous litigations and unreported cases of violations of prisoners’ rights in States’ correctional facilities. According to the Human rights advocates (n.d, p.2) in Berkeley California, the process of prisons privatization “places inmates’ basic human rights at the mercy of a free market system that is governed by the laws of supply and demand, which moves to commoditize them only to makes them vulnerable to abuses.” With privatization, third parties in prisons’ security are brought into the picture. Some of those employed in the private correctional centres are military veterans or individuals subcontracted from National Guard services. Due to their past exposure to violence, training and experience in managing terror situation, prisoners and detainees rights are at risk of violations through use of excessive force. Although privatization has made progress in cost efficiency, there exists a trade off in the quality of service delivery. With the profit motive, costs are cut in exchange of notable substandard services. Mason (2013, p.10) states that low costs translate to less training, “substandard hygiene and healthcare that lead to volatile environments often more prone to abuse, injury, violence and death.” Most studied have reported violations of prisoners’ rights in establishment of inadequate food and nutrition, squalid conditions of confinement and neglected medical care (Dolovich 2005; Pozen 2003). There exist public and inmates fear over the accountability and transparency of the contracted companies in ensuring safety of the inmates. Cases of dire physical and sexual assault and tortures of people by the private guards, staff and inmates themselves are still apparent in privatized facilities. According to the 1997 research in U.S department of justice, there was a wide difference in recorded incidences of inmates assaults at 35 and 25 individuals per 1000 in privately and publicly run facilities, respectively (Dolovich 2005). While the international convention of human rights condemns torture and violations of prisoners’ rights, private run prison and detention centres are increasingly being accused of human violations. As inmates are separated from the rest of the society, there are greater risks of their human rights violations in the privately run facilities, due to the limited transparency in their operation. Moral panic due to risks of net widening Privatization of correctional facilities has translated to increased prisons’ population in attempt to create more profits by housing more inmates. Higher profits obtained by the private prisons’ corporations enable their investment expansion, and putting pressure on the judicial system for high incarceration rates. More individuals are being incarcerated and detained in private facilities. Entrepreneurs venturing into security businesses through privatization facilitate creation of demand, and then solve it by supplying alternative forms of social control. The development of new private prisons in states allows more capacities to house extra offenders. They act to supplementing the existing public and private facilities, creating opportunities for exponential increase in imprisonment, which is feared for its net widening effect (Harding 1998). Because of globalization, offenders are able to organize themselves into criminal networks and share ideas to innovate and propagate crimes (Findlay 2008). One of the proposed measures to Australian government in controlling crime is ‘getting tough on crime,’ which encourage harsher and longer penalties, and mandatory sentencing (Garland 2001). This would greatly benefit private corporations in prison industry. While claiming to rehabilitate minor offences under privatization, individuals are at risk of being detained in private correctional facilities for minor offences not destined for such penalties. If the proposal is adopted, judges will extend the penal sanctions to, and sentence more individuals for less serious offences into the private prisons. The widening of the social control in the society ushers in a moral panic, such that through privatization individuals fear been detained for petty crimes, while the minority and the impoverished members of the community fear been targeted (Jewkes, Crewe &Bennett 2007). Here, moral panic imply the exaggerated fear of citizens for the perceived net widening, which threaten their freedom, being criminalized and incarcerated for minor offences. As more problematic behaviours in the society are criminalized, those unable to bail out because of their low socio-economic status could be sentenced as offenders to private prisons. Individuals fear that privatizations would encourage offender net widening and put more people into the privatized correctional facilities. Profit maximization at the expense of the public interest risks insecurity The principle of profit maximization under privatization explains the underinvestment issue in maintaining facilities and acquiring adequate staff for inmates’ supervision. This poses an insecurity issue to the greater society and the working staff in the private correctional facilities. Privatization employs a gaming principle with the aim of expanding the profit margins. The effect of cost cutting in their service delivery is associated to the less investment in recruiting experienced and training sufficient staff, especially the guards (Tanner 2013). This limitation creates a scenario of low ratio of supervising guards to prisoners, which avails opportunities for incidences as violence and escapes among others due to inadequate management. The public interest of security is therefore placed at risk with privatization when the prisons supervision and public’s safety are left in the hands of the few and inexperienced prisons’ guards. During 2004, guards in privately run Acacia prisons in Western Australia went on strikes claiming inadequate staffing level by the management insufficient in supervision of the hundreds of inmates during the shifts (Private corrections working group n.d). Under staffing is correlated to prisons incidences and would well fit cases of prisoners’ escapes in situations of inadequate supervision. The highlights of Texas private prison scandals expose the reported inadequate number and training of staff, which is congruent with recurrent account of prisoner escapes (Grassroots leadership 2009). Some of these escapees are criminals of capitals offences and other dangers that pose a threat to the society within the short period they get loose. Such escapees can execute rapid and massive destructions in the already risk society in a short period before they are caught or disappear completely. Such incidences can be prevented if the public interest is given priority and seriousness through sufficient investment in training and recruiting guards to improve supervision. Corruption and escalated crimes in private facilities Privatization of correctional services is undermined by corrupt management and staff that perpetuate criminal activities within the prisons and risk insecurity of the greater global community. The public facilities are often criticized for their inefficiencies and corruption. However, with the rising cases of drugs use and business inside the private prisons, one questions the effectiveness of privatizations role in supporting offenders’ rehabilitation, and the administrative integrity in supporting their health and change. Changes brought in through privatization of the correctional system create vulnerabilities for corruption, especially in form of extortion, bribery and abuse of power among officials and guards to self gains (Criminals justice Commission 2000). This starts with the employees hired by the private corporations. Without sufficient care, some have employed officials with records of corruptions and criminals activities only to realize later when the harm is done. Drug business and use in private prisons remain a major challenge in privatization effectiveness. Numerous private prison guards in the U.S have been charged for facilitating drugs smuggling and business to the facilities (Adler School & ICIRR 2012; the centre for social justice 2015). Examples are the corruption cases of Civigenic guards in Texas’s private prison for aiding drug smuggling to inmates. Although privatization is criticized for low salaries/wage to their staff, corruption is not an excuse for the guards to meet their needs. There are also cases of staff aiding escape of prisoners from the facilities and smuggling of other gadgets at a price. Drug smuggling into prisons facilitates recidivisms while in prisons for inmates previously charged similar patterns of drugs offending, recruits new users and obstruct their rehabilitation efforts. As far as concerned, corrupt prison guards that aid smuggling enable inmates to conduct drug business in the facilities. The fear of corruption perceived with privatizations risks facilities’ maladministration that would aid crime escalation among inmates. Privatization and political risks Privatization in security industry threatens the societies’ security through private corporations’ garnered power to influence correctional and sentencing policies. Private companies managing correctional facilities have vested interests in tightening enforcement efforts, sentencing practices, and promoting policies leading to greater demand of their correctional services and facilities (Rizzo & Hayes 2012). Their increase in number and economic power gained through maximization of profits from prison industry give them more political ability to lobby for support of strict policies, sentencing and privatization. Majority of politicians, who are convinced that tightening the policies would assist to reduce crime in the greater community, tend favour privatization. Such decisions introduce again the concept of widening social control for minor offences. With privatization, there is a risk of empowering the private security industry to have a higher say, influence and control in penal policies and decisions of the states. The concern with the risk is whether their influenced policies would best serve the public’s interest, or has a hidden agenda for profit maximization. At this point, the public’s interest clash with privatization. Conclusion Through the process of privatization, prisons, detentions and correctional services have greatly been privatized relieving the public facilities off the high cost and overcrowding problems. However, privatization in security industry did introduce risk, fear and insecurity to the broader society. One, privatization process of correctional facilities and services increases political risks as private corporations lobby for tight policies that support their profit maximization principle. Second, it is vulnerable to corruption through its officials that may perpetuate crimes continuity as drug businesses in prisons. Therefore, interfere with the rehabilitation process for economic gains of the few. Third, underinvestment in staff training and recruitment of experienced workers create opportunities for inmates and detainees incidences as escapes, which is an insecurity threat o the public. Fourth, there are numerous risks of human rights violations with the reduced transparency in their operations. Finally is fear of new widening by facilitating resources to put more people under the correctional system even for minor offences. References Adler School & ICIRR 2012, ‘The economics of private detention: False promises, Hidden costs’, Chicago, IL: Author, viewed 18 May 2015, Criminals justice Commission 2000, ‘Queensland prison industry: Review of Corruption Risks’, Augusts, viewed 17 may 2015, http:// www.ccc.qld.gov.au/.../queensland-prison-industries-a-review-of-corrupt... Dolovich, S 2005, ‘State punishment and private prisons,’ Duke Law Journal vol 55, no.3, pp. 437-546 Findlay, M 2008, 'Globalised crime and governance: the outcomes for understanding international criminal justice', in T Anthony & C Cunneen (eds), Thecritical criminology companion, Hawkins Press, Leichhardt, Australia, pp. 315-29. Freeman, R M 1999, Correctional Organization and Management: Public Policy Challenges, Behaviour and structure, Elsevier, Woburn, MA Friedman, A & Parenti, C 2013, Capitalist Punishment: Prison privatization and Human rights, SCB Distributors, London Garland, D 2001, The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society, Oxford University Press, Oxford Grassroots leadership 2009, ‘Considering a private jail, prison or Detention Center: A Resource Packet for Community members and Public Officials’, viewed 17 May 2015, http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/CPJ_Second_Ed.pdf Hawding, R 1998, ‘Prisons in private hands’, Western Australia law review, vol 28, pp, 255- 264 Human rights advocates, n.d, ‘Prison Privatization and Prison Labor: The Human Rights Implications’, viewed16 may 2015, Jewkes, Y., Crewe, B & Bennett A (ed.) 2007, Handbook on prisons, Willan Publishing, Devon. Mason, C 2013, ‘International growth trend in prison privatization’, August, viewed on 16 may 2015, Pozen, D E 2003, ‘Managing a correctional marketplace: Prison privatization is the United States and United Kingdom’, Journal of law and Politics, vol XIX, pp. 253-284, Private corrections working group, n.d, ‘Australia hall of shame’, viewed 15 May 2015, Rizzo, E., & Hayes, M 2012, ‘An Assessment of the Risks and Benefits of Prison Privatization’, 30 January, viewed 18 May 2015, Siegel, L 2011, Criminology, Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA Strome, K.., Berzofsky, M., Shook-Sa, B., Barrick, K., Daye, C., Horstmann, N & Kinsey, S 2010, ‘The private security industry: A review of the definitions, available data sources, and paths moving forward’, RTI Project Number 0212315.001.001, viewed15 May 2015, Tanner, W 2013, ‘The case for private prisons,’ Reform Ideas no. 2, pp. 1-27. February, Viewed 17 May 2015, http://www.reform.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Reform_Ideas_No_2_-_The_case_for_private_prisons.pdf The centre for social justice 2015, ‘Drugs in Prison’, viewed 18 May 2015, Read More