Prison Privatization Issue - Annotated Bibliography Example

Prison Privatization: Annotated Bibliography By Prison Privatization: Annotated Bibliography I. Theory JingJ (2010) Prison privatization: a perspective on core governmental functions. Crime Law Soc Change 54:263–278. Prison privatization: a perspective on core governmental functions is a scholarly article written by Yijia Jing. In this paper, the author states that prison is traditionally perceived as an ‘inherently governmental’ function over which the state has a clear monopoly power. Jing (2010) says that the idea of prison privatisation raises a set of challenges to this conventional view. According to Jing, prison privatisation expresses the political rationality of governments. The author gives some logical explanations to support his point referring to the evidences from the prison privatisation implemented in the United States. 2. Medina B (2010) Constitutional limits to privatization: The Israeli Supreme Court decision to invalidate prison privatization. International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 (4): 690-713. This article examines the recent decision by the Israeli Supreme Court to invalidate prison privatisation. Referring to the court decision, Biele indicates that the idea of establishing a privately operated prison is unconstitutional per se regardless of its expected outcomes. This piece of writing critically analyses the court position and points out some of the difficulties raised by the court decision. The author suggests that the decision would have gained greater legitimacy if it had focused on prohibiting the privatisation of core governmental powers rather than the aspect of human rights. 3. Barak D (2011) The Private Prison Controversy and the Privatization Continuum. The Berkeley Electronic Press 5 (1): 139-157. According to this article, the two major aspects relevant to consider while planning a move to prison privatisation include sovereignty of the state and the rights of disempowered indicted criminals. In this paper, Barak-Erez furnishes some strong claims to oppose the conventional view of the public law that the move to privatisation is just a matter of policy by not of law. 4. Epstein WN (2013) Contract Theory and the Failures of Public-Private Contracting. 6 Cardozo L. Rev. 2211 Available at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/206 [accessed 17 Aug 2014]. This article provides a comprehensive view on the idea of privatising prisons with particular focus given to the aspects of the contract theory. Epstein critically evaluates the different perspectives of the contract theory that make private providers responsible for providing quality services to the beneficiaries intended. With the support of theoretical views presented, the author argues that prison privatisation would assist the government to cut costs significantly if implemented properly. 5. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C et al. (2009) Prison Privatization: A Meta-analysis of Cost and Quality of Confinement Indicators. Research on Social Work Practice 24 (4). This research, which based on a meta-analysis of reports on comparisons between publicly and privately operated prisons, analyses the efficiency of prison privatisation in the light of long term benefits and shortcomings. The paper concludes that prison privatisation may not necessarily guarantee expected cost savings. The authors add that when the quality of confinement appears to be similar, publicly operated prisons have a slight competitive edge in terms of skills training and inmate grievances. 6. Fulcher PA (July 2, 2012) Hustle and Flow: Prison Privatization Fueling the Prison Industrial Complex. Washburn Law Journal 51 (3) Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2097864 [accessed 17 Aug 2014]. In his research work, Fulcher describes a profiteering system called Prison Industrial Complex (PIC) which is enhanced by the economic interests of federal and state correctional organizations, private institutions, and politicians. This paper evaluates how the prison privatisation was helpful to grow the PIC. The writer also scrutinises how the government’s provision of funds to private prison companies contributed to an inefficient allocation of resources. 7. Feeley MM (2014) The Unconvincing Case Against Private Prisons. Indiana Law Journal 89 (4): 1401 This article was particularly furnished to critically evaluate the legal and constitutional aspects of Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate prison privatisation. Feeley strongly argues that the state monopoly theory, based on which the Supreme Court made the decision, is fundamentally flawed. The article analyses historical records and philosophy of the state to challenge state monopoly theory. The author uses a range of empirical records to support his arguments. 8. Wright KA (2010) Strange Bedfellows? Reaffirming Rehabilitation and Prison Privatization. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49 (1): 74-90. This scholarly paper points to the need of considering prison privatisation on a broader level to assess how this concept can add value to current penological practice in the context of growing prison population and correctional costs. The article claims that the idea of prison privatisation provides an extensive exposure to reconsider the dominant correctional philosophy in America. The author specifically states that the contractual structure of private prisons is really effective to organise performance evaluations in a more effective way. 9. Culp R (July 15, 2009) Prison Privatization Turns Twenty-Five: The Evolution of a Mature Private Prison Industry in the United States. Social Science Research Network Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1462792 In this scholarly work, Culp explores the current level of competition and innovation in the US private prison industry. The author identifies that the mature prison privatisation market failed to achieve what theorists had promised in 1980s and early 1990s. He adds that the limited involvement of government jurisdictions in incarceration services would result in an oligopsony of consumers. Using a number of theoretical frameworks, the article proposes an increased participation of the non-profit sector for making correctional facilities secure. II. Advantages 10. Gaes G (2010) Cost, Performance Studies Look at Prison Privatization. National Institute of Justice Journal 259 available at: http://www.nij.gov/journals/259/Pages/prison-privatization.aspx [accessed 17 Aug 2014]. This article was published in the journal of National Institute of Justice to analyze the actual implications of prison privatisation. This paper says that prison privatisation is a potential strategy while considering the taxpayer benefits. However, as Gaes points out, it is difficult to compare publicly and privately operated prisons on many dimensions of performance. 11. Mennicken A (May 2013) Too Big to Fail and Too Big to Succeed: Accounting and Privatisation in the Prison Service of England and Wales. Financial Accountability & Management 29 (2): 206-226. This paper mainly addresses the benefits of recently developed governmental policies that aimed to improve the accountability of prison services in England and Wales. The author opines that the private sector consulting expertise can greatly benefit prison industry to redefine its values and prison performance. The paper shows how the policy reform influenced the delivery prison services in the private sector. 12. Sharon D (August 27, 2012). How Privatization Thinks: The Case of Prisons published in GOVERNMENT BY CONTRACT: OUTSOURCING AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, Jody Freeman and Martha Minow, eds., Harvard University Press (2009); UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 07-07. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=970629. In the article, Dolovich says that the practice of privatising state functions such as incarceration would be motivated by the concept of comparative efficiency. The author holds the view that such an outsourcing strategy can benefit the state to carry out its duties and responsibilities in a more effective way. Dolovich puts some strong arguments to oppose the claim that privatisation would ruin the quality of prison services. 13. Rosky, CJ (May 11, 2009) The Privatization of Punishment, Policing, and Military Force in Liberal States. Connecticut Law Review 36: 879. This article says that prison privatisation is a better way to address growing challenges in the field of criminal justice and to improve the state’s imprisonment services significantly. The writer argues that the use of private sector force in prison services can generate unprecedented profits. The paper says that today governments are actively working toward the spreading of privatisation in more areas. 14. Aman AC (2009) Private Prisons and the Democratic Deficit. PRIVATE SECURITY, PUBLIC ORDER, Simon Chesterman, Angelina Fischer, eds., Oxford University Press. Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 160. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1567129. In his research paper, Aman Jr. examines the view that some state functions such as prison management should be regarded as ‘inherently governmental,’ and those functions should not be outsourced to private companies. The paper points that currently the state governments are busy with taking a range of legislative initiatives to contract out several governmental services including incarceration. 15. Cabral S, Lazzarini SG and Azevedo PF (2010) Private operation with public supervision: evidence of hybrid modes of governance in prisons. Public Choice145 (1-2): 281-293. This article uses data from Brazilian prisons to evaluate how prison privatisation influences the delivery of incarceration services. Based on the data analysed, the writers tell that private prisons contribute not only to cost savings but also to improved performance on a range of quality indicators. The authors also particularly emphasise the significance of a state-appointed public supervisor to monitor and coordinate the activities of private prison companies. III. Disadvantages 16. Crewe B, Liebling A and Hulley S (April 2011) Staff culture, use of authority and prisoner quality of life in public and private sector prisons. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 44 (1): 94-115. This research paper explores how the use of authority by prison staff can influence the prisoners’ quality of life in the light of privatising incarceration services. The study found that prison staff working in a private setting would be harsh for prisoners as they are motivated by their financial gains only. The article concludes that improper and ineffective exercise of authority in private prisons can be cited as a disadvantage of prison privatisation. 17. Mason C (2012) Too Good to be True: Private Prisons in America. NCJRS. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=262862 This research paper indicates that the available evidence does not point to any notable prison privatisation benefit. The writer says that although private prison services may result in small cost savings in certain circumstances, the structure of the private prisons can have serious negative impacts on the overall prison services. The author presents the available data to support his claim that economic benefits of private contracting do not lead to any substantial cost saving in prison management. 18. Flynn M & Cannon C (2009) The Privatization of Immigration Detention: Towards a Global View. A Global Detention Project Working Paper. Available at: http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/fileadmin/docs/GDP_PrivatizationPaper_Final5.pdf In this paper, Flynn and Cannon reflect some of the disadvantages of the prison privatisation. The authors say that the appropriate treatment of people imprisoned has long been considered as a core state function. According to Flynn and Cannon, once entry is granted to private operators to this state function, they will focus only on maximising their profit and expanding their business. The writers conclude that such a situation would lead to abuses. 19. Anderson L (2010) Kicking the National Habit: The Legal and Policy Arguments for Abolishing Private Prison contracts. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1534372 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1534372. In his article, Anderson says that prison privatisation has a range of negative effects on the treatment, rehabilitation, and care of prisoners. The articles develops a view that prison privatisation becomes a potential barrier to implementing an effective and humane corrections system. As a major point of concern, the paper highlights that private prison companies are basically profit oriented and hence they are less likely to consider the humane aspects of prison management. 20. Hog AH (2012) The Privatisation of Non-Custodial Measures: An Uneasy Balance between Legitimacy and Immediacy. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 2 (4): Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2055087. This scholarly paper identifies the long term disadvantages of prison privatisation. The author strongly argues that the private sector always prioritises profit while framing policies and operating plans, and thus prisoner often becomes a commodity. The article also indicates that risk management practices undertaken by the for-profit prison companies are often ineffective as they are actually not interested in delivering superior quality services to prisoners. The paper highlights the coercive treatment of prisoners as one of the major demerits of prison privatisation. 21. Kish RJ & Lipton A (2013) Do Private Prisons Really Offer Savings Compared with Their Public Counterparts? Economic Affairs 33 (1): 93-107. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2213126 or http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12005. This scholarly paper was drafted to analyze whether private prisons really offer cost savings as compared to their public counterparts. Kish and Lipton tell that explicit, implicit, and agency costs involved in prison services make it difficult to analyse the real impacts of private contracting. Hence, the article reflects that measuring the cost benefits of prison privatisation may not be easy as literature suggests. 22. Opperman G (June 2014) Change Your Prison, Change Your Outcomes, Change Your Community. Economic Affairs 34 (2): 224-234. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2450281 The research paper contends that prison privatisation may not be a potential idea as its proponents argue when it comes to an ethical perspective. The writer says that a prisoner has certain human rights that prison managers must always strive to promote. Since private prison operators are motivated by profit motive, private prison managers often do not give due consideration to prisoners’ rights. The paper recommends the establishment of community-based organisations to promote proper treatment of prisoners. 23. Sigler M (July 29, 2010) Private Prisons, Public Functions, and the Meaning Punishment. Florida State University Law Review 38 (1): Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650872. This article proposes the view that it is not justifiable to compromise the wellbeing of the prisoners to take advantages of cost savings offered by privatisation. To support her position, Sigler claims that punishment is an inherently public function and therefore outsourcing punishment to private prison companies itself constitutes the abdication of a core state function. The article draws a conclusion that the concept of prison privatisation will represent treating justice as a mere commodity. 24. Epstein WN (2012) Contract Theory and the Failures of Public-Private Contracting. Cardozo Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2166086. This scholarly paper indicates that although prison privatisation may be beneficial to trim down costs, the cost advantage obtained will be at the sacrifice of quality service. The author particularly states that private prison companies may neglect security concern so as to maximise profits. The article sums up that despite the efforts taken by governments to improve private prison management, poor quality service still remains to be an issue limiting the scope of prison privatisation. 25. Volokh A (2012) Privatization and the Elusive Employee-Contractor Distinction. UC Davis Law Review 46 (1). This article proposes a view that private contractors would lack legitimacy in the eyes of the general public and hence it is not better to offshore incarceration to the private sector. The paper also suggests governments not to consider cost as the primary concern while planning prison management because basic values of prisoners are to be necessarily met in a liberal democratic environment. Read More