The Case against the Privatization of Prisons - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned 30 November 2008 The Case against the Privatization of Prisons The globalization of the world economy and the opening up of the markets has given a new thrust to the demand for the privatization of the state run facilities. The governments and the state financial institutions also seem to be more then willing to comply with such expectations and the privatization of the social and the state institutions is considered to be a panacea for all economic ills. To a great extent such aspirations are valid, considering the fact that various researches and papers have time again decried the inefficiency, financial irregularities and the lack of accountability rampant in the state run facilities and institutions. Besides the privatization of the public institutions leaves the governments less burdened, thus leaving them with ample time and resources at their disposal, to take care of more pressing responsibilities and obligations. As per the dogmas affiliated to the classical and modern economics, the privatization of the government institutions seems to be just the right choice in the contemporary scenario. However, the vital point is that should economic and financial considerations be the only criteria through which the relevance of state and public institutions be gauged Should the important public facilities like the schools, health facilities, education and prisons be left at the mercy of the private sector corporations Certainly it will be utterly myopic to wear the spectacles of economics to access the importance of very vital state institutions like prisons. The prisons in any society are very important social and political institutions. Infact the scope and ambit of prisons as a social institution is utterly different from other institutions like hospitals and schools. So far as other institutions in any dynamic society are concerned, they happen to be primarily service oriented and their efficacy and worth is judged on the basis of the quality of services extended by them. The prisons tend to differ in the sense that they primarily give expression to the collective conscience of a society. The way a society treats and takes care of its offenders is a direct picture of its ethical moorings and value system. The need to rehabilitate the offenders, to take ample steps to bring them back into the national mainstream is something that comes within the purview of the social responsibilities of a nation and demands a considerable sense of responsibility, commitment and involvement. Any attempt to define prisons as institutions where prisoners reside or are kept in confinement will be utterly narrow and short sighted. Infact, the prisons should be treated more as rehabilitation facilities that primarily exist for the purpose of giving the offenders a chance to serve their sentences and at the same time to facilitate them with just the right kind of environment so as to help them to become better persons and to ensure their assimilation back into the social mainstream. Considering this factor, the contemporary trend towards the privatization of prisons leaves massive scope for doubting the ability and intentions of the private corporations taking over the prisons, to fulfill this onerous social responsibility by allocating requisite funds and resources. The privatization of the prisons is not a new trend. The federal and state governments had already initiated the policy of the privatization of the facilities managed by them a long time ago. Such services primarily included medical facilities, food processing, education and vocational training. However, this panache for privatization achieved unprecedented heights with the newfound state predilection for the privatization of the prisons in the late 80s. A great many factors were responsible for this trend. However, the major reason that ultimately convinced the federal and the state governments in favor of the privatization of the prisons was an immense overcrowding of the prisons owing to the initiatives taken by the successive governments to combat the rampant drug menace and crime in the society by further toughening of the statutory measures and provisions over the years (Bates 13). This amazing burgeoning of the prisons population made it financially unviable and difficult for the governments to manage such facilities. Hence, the existing measures for the contracting of the specific prison facilities to the private parties were further extended to solicit private bids for the complete takeover and management of the prisons by the profit oriented private players (Carey 21). The privatization of the prisons was first started in the year 1984 when a private company by the name of Corrections Corporation of America was trusted with the overall management and administration of a prison facility in Hamilton County, Tennessee (Thomas 14). The question that evokes the interest of any responsible citizen is that are the private companies entering the prison business out of any sense of social or national responsibility. There is no denying the fact that corporate concerns do follow certain valid ethical and social standards. However, this should not be forgotten that the private sector companies are primarily run by distinct profit motives and the private prison industry is a big business. In the last two decades the scope of this industry has augmented exponentially and at present its gross revenues stand well over $ 1 Billion (McFarland, McGowan and O'Toole). Infact it is this massive scope for accruing large profits that has attracted the private corporations to enter the prisons business. Certainly, there is nothing strange about this fact. Even a sixth grader with rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that private corporations work for profit motives. The thing that is to be feared is that this panache for big profits may stimulate the private corporations entering the prisons business to ignore the social and moral considerations associated with the institution of prisons. As already mentioned, this industry owes its conception to an unprecedented rise in the number of prisoners in the federal and state run facilities over the years. In 1987, there existed 3.5 million prisoners in the US, out of which 3,122 were trusted to the private prisons (McFarland, McGowan and O'Toole). By the end of the 20th century, the gross prison population in the US swelled to 6.5 million, out of which 123,000 inmates served their sentences in the private prisons (McFarland, McGowan and O'Toole). Hence this 90 percent augmentation in the US prison population led to 4,000 percent increase in the number of prisoners handed over to the private facilities (BOJS). This potential is expected to further grow with the shrinking of the capacity in the state prisons in the times to come. In the wake of this crisis, a majority of the states in the US including Texas, New Mexico, Montana, Wisconsin and Tennessee have wholeheartedly gone for the privatization of prisons (Thomas 25). The proportion of the inmates in such states as compared to the total inmate population is constantly on the rise. The privatization of the state services often raises a doubt in the minds of the people that it will mean severe compromises in the quality of the services provided by such facilities. Infact the whole purpose behind the privatization of the prisons was to enhance the services available in such facilities while assuring a commensurate reduction in the costs of operating them. The supporters of private prisons claim that further privatization of the prisons will lead to considerable savings in the state exchequer. Still the fact is that till date there exists no study that unambiguously establishes the superior efficiency of the privately run prisons (Greene). Instead a study conducted in the private prisons in New Mexico showed that though the private prisons exhibited higher standards in the sterile administrative aspects such as management and safety, they scored pathetically low in the human factors such as the prisoner care (Montague). Whether an individual endorses or rejects the idea of private prison often depends upon one's ethical moorings and values. Some people believe that prisons stand to serve as deterrents to crime and thus must be utterly stringent in terms of the facilities extended to the inmates. Such people usually support the idea of privatization of prisons. On the contrary, there are groups who resort to a more humane approach and believe that prisons aught to serve as rehabilitation centres for the inmates and must extend them all the basic human facilities and amenities. This segment of the society vociferously opposes the privatization of prisons on the grounds of inhuman treatment and care extended to the prisoners in the private facilities. The proponents of the privatization of the prisons validate their claims on the basis of some studies conducted in the recent few years that celebrate the so called high efficiency of the private prisons. Though one may be tempted to quote the findings from such studies, the fact is that they are nothing but inhumane statistical crap. Infact the whole basis for such studies appears to be utterly ridiculous when one delves on the parameters selected by them to gauge the efficiency of the private prisons that include average cost per prisoner, estimated savings and what not. These studies miss the cardinal point that the American democracy is all about rights and even prisoners have their rights. The basic issue that how a society treats its offenders and how it plans the rehabilitation of those who go off the track should be central to the overall question of ascertaining the validity and relevance of private prisons. It has more to do with values and ethics then about dimes and savings. Hence such studies grossly overlook the key humane and sociological factors for the sake of minimizing the operational costs. The analyst James Austin conducted a survey on the private prisons in the year 2001. The findings were astonishing. He discovered that in the private prisons there occurred nearly 49 percent more instances of inmate on staff assaults and roughly 65 percent more instances of inmate on inmate assaults (Greene 12). One does not need to be an expert in criminology or sociology to bust the euphoria associate with the private prisons in the administrative and corporate circles. Infact a cursory perusal of the morning newspaper could turn out to be an eye opener. In 1996, two hardcore sex offenders escaped from a CCA run prison in Texas and the ensuing enquiry revealed that the CCA management had failed to inform the local authorities about the presence of these prisoners in their premises (Jaffe and Brooks 12). In 1997 it was revealed that the Northeast Ohio Correction Center in Youngstown reported 13 incidents of stabbing, 6 instances of inmate escape and 2 of murder within the 14 odd months of its operations (Jaffe and Brooks 16). Later on the cause of this mayhem was traced to the inadequately trained staff employed by this company and the consequential mishandling of the maximum security offenders in this privately run prison (Jaffe and Brooks 16). The US Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against a private prisons run by the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation in Louisiana (Slevin 32). The Department of Justice alleged that the firm under consideration extended inadequate care to its juvenile inmates and the guards employed at this privately run prison repeatedly abused the inmates by resorting to blatant physical and verbal abuse (Slevin 34). All this documented instances of misconduct amply reveals the way the privately run prisons expose the innocent citizens and the inmates to gross harm and vulnerability because of their negligence, unethical behavior, unprofessional management and an inhuman approach towards the prisoners. The dilemma is that prisons cannot be treated as regular industrial facilities, where occasional irregularities and accidents are acceptable and normal. In case of the prisons, any negligence or mishap has much broader and multipronged ramifications. Such incidents not only threaten the requirements of justice, but also precariously endanger the safety of the inmates and the people residing in the vicinity of such facilities. Even if one sets aside this factual evidence pertaining to the faulty management and administration of the private prisons, there exist relevant concerns and apprehensions pertaining to the mishandling, manipulation or distortion of the ethical and social factors like the administration of justice, rehabilitation objectives and safety concerns by the private prison industry. It is a known fact that all the corporate entities do have their lobbies in the federal and the state legislatures. Infact it is a part of the American democracy. In this context, the private firms running the prisons may use their influence over the conservative elements in the legislature to go for more stringent and tougher laws that may eventually materialize in extended incarceration of the offenders, resulting in material benefits to these firms. Such firms may also tamper with the administration of the judicial procedures and provisions by submitting fabricated or concocted records pertaining to disciplinary misconduct during parole hearings. As these firms are paid per prisoner per day, there exist valid fears as to why they should refrain from doing so (Dilulio 47). Private prisons are a potent safety threat to the society. This paper has already dealt with countless examples of the negligence of the safety procedures by the private prisons. In their quest for reducing costs and augmenting profits, private prisons often employ fewer prison guards and the accompanying support staff and they too are often ill equipped and inadequately trained. In that context, private prisons may time and again may jeopardize the security of the common citizens and the inmates trusted with them. May seem absurd, but their exists a valid possibility that the private prisons may be approached by the mafias and gangs to seek undue advantages and facilities for their imprisoned members. Such instances are not uncommon in the state prisons. The low paid private prison staff may prove more vulnerable to such overtures. Profit motives may also tempt the private prison managers to compromise on the quality of the health facilities, education, vocational training, general amenities and daily diet given to the prisoners. Hence private prisons pose a grave and plausible threat to the inmates in particular and to the society in general. Once a majority of the prisons are privatized, the government may shy away from its moral responsibility of planning rehabilitation programs for the inmates. As private prisons are run by profit motives, there exists no reason why they should invest in such programs. This will reduce the inmates to dumb and helpless battery hens. Under such circumstances, a prisoner serving a sentence in a private prison is more liable to stick to one's criminal past as compared to those serving sentences in the state prisons. Besides the state prisons being run by the tax payers' money are subject to the voter approval. In contrast, private prisons being managed by corporate concerns are exempt from such need for soliciting the public approval and support. This stands to be a grave injustice to the society. How can the society be denied the right to have a say in the functioning of the important social and political institutions like prisons. May sound repetitive by now, but the very fact that the private prisons are run by profit motives is the very reason that they may turn out to be dangerous, ineffective, corrupt and inefficient. The democracy in the United States stands on firm moral and ethical values and cherishes its long standing democratic goals and ideals. The very act of the privatization of the prisons goes against the basic values and ideals enshrined in the American constitution. Prisoners are not mere ranch cattle that could be trusted to be guarded by people and concerns that have legitimate reasons for deviating from the humane and just values respected by the American masses. Hence private prisons are not in consonance with the recent developments and shifts in the public values throughout the West. The contemporary Western society sees a prisoner as a person who has to pay one's debt to the society and who has every right to be assimilated in the society through proper rehabilitation programs planned and furnished by the state. There exist valid and often corroborated doubts that the privatization of the prisons may deprive the cooperating prisoners of such rights and may endanger the security and conscience of the entire society. Thus it becomes the duty of every concerned and responsible citizen to save the society from untold dangers and risks that the privatization of prisons pose. Scarcity of resources and finances cannot be cited as an excuse for justifying the shirking of the state and societal responsibilities by the concerned authorities and institutions. Prisons are too delicate and vulnerable an institution to be trusted out of the ambit of public scrutiny and validation, into the hands of money mongering concerns. Prisoners are also human beings and not lifeless material objects to be sold at bidding daises and stock exchanges. Works Cited Bates, Eric. "Private Prisons". The Nation, 5 Jan 1998:13 "Prisoner Census". BOJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 2002. 29 Nov. 2008 Carrey, Bill. "Prison Plan: Is it Practical or Political". The Tennessean, 21 April 1997 Dilulio, John. "The Duty to Govern: A Critical Perspective on the Private Management of Prisons and Jails." New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990 Montague, Eric. "Private Prisons: A Sensible Solution". Policy Brief, Washington Policy Center, August 2001 Greene, Judith. "Prison Privatization: Recent Developments in the United States". A Paper Presented at the International Conference on Penal Abolition, 12 May 2000 Greene, Judith. "Bailing out Private Jails". American Prospect, 10 Sept. 2001 Jaffe, Greg & Brooks, Rick. "Violence at Prison Run by Correction Corp. Irks Youngstown, Ohio". Wall Street Journal, 5 Aug. 1998 McFarland, Stephen, McGowan, Chris & O'Toole, Tom. "Prisons, Privatization , and Public Values". 29 Nov. 2008 "Private Prisons". DOC, State of Oklahoma. 29 Nov.2008 Slevin, Peter. "Prison Firms Seek Inmates and Profits". The Washington Post, 18 Feb. 2001 Thomas, Charles. "Capacity in Private Prisons 1999". Private Corrections Research and Information. 29 Nov. 2008 Thomas, Charles. "Comparing the Cost and Performance of Public and Private Prisons in Arizona". Arizona Joint Legislative Committee, August 1997 Thomas, Charles. "Rated Capacity of Private Facilities by Geographical Location". Private Corrections Project. US, 09/04/2001 Read More