Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System: Past, Present and Future

See - Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System: Past, Present and Future





"x x x.

Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System:  Past, Present and Future
Juliet M. Hurley, MBA, MSF, MAC
University of Phoenix
CJA313
Christopher Eberle
December 9, 2006

Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice System

Privately run prisons are not a novelty but have existed before the 20th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, though, private prisons were banned (Corrections, n.d.).  Privatization of prisons had a wave of popularity in the second half of the 19th century.  During this hay-day, greedy legislatures were awarding entrepreneurs contracts to manage and operate several prisons.  In the mid-1980s, privatizing prisons had another wave of emphasis.  Factors such as increasing costs of running a prison, free market ideologies, and the increase of prison population, the option of awarding contract to private firms became a viable option.  Managing a prison is not the only service that private firms have contributed to privatizing prisons.  Contractors building the prisons are currently outsourced as well as security and managing day-to-day operations (Garcia, J., et. all, 2006).  The largest factor in the private prison boom was lack of funding.  Voters started saying “no” to new bond issuance to create more prisons.  This forced states to turn to private investments to fund prisons.  By 2000 10% of prison were privatized, mainly run by Cornell Corrections, Inc., Wackenhut, and CCA. (Corrections, n.d.).  

Currently the topic of privatizing prisons is controversial.  Some argue for privatizing prisons stating that the quality of life for prisoners will increase; other state that the quality of life will decrease thinking that companies will cut costs and provide lower quality items, such as food and clothing.  Another argument for private prisons is that it can create stiffer criminal laws.  Politicians are persuaded by companies that provide prison services, such as Wackenhut.  Wackenhut and other firms that provide private prison service have contributed money to those politicians who are for the death penalty.  However, proponents argue that the influence of private firms could distort the purpose of having laws to prevent and punish crime into that of making a profit to keep crime (Garcia, J., et all, 2006).  Between 1960 and 1970, stiffer laws that created harsher penalties and made new acts crimes caused a boom in prisoner growth.  The new influx of prisoners created overcrowding, and the politicians who promised to build more prisons could not because the funds were not available (Corrections, n.d.).  One of the largest problems is overcrowding.  According to the John Howard Society of Alberta (2006, introduction), “26.4% of inmates stated that they were currently sharing a cell with another inmate. Furthermore, 12% of those inmates sharing a single cell felt threatened by their cell-mate.”

Privatization of prisons is new, and there is not enough data to confirm if they are more successful than government run facilities (Garcia, J., et all, 2006).  I predict that the trend will be more privatizing of prisons, citing cost savings and efficiencies.  Private firms that have run prisons will get reputations, and if good then it can be more persuasive to promote its service to different counties and states.  I think studies should be conducted to determine the effects of privatizing prisons so that the safety of the public is ensured.  In Canada, a study was conducted in which two prisons were created for the purpose of comparing public vs. privately run prisons.  Despite the fact that the private firm saved the Liberal government over $23 million and there was a chance of an additional $11 million in savings, the Canadian government decided that it prefers publicly run facilities (Goggins, K., 2006).  If the American government were to also conduct a study, I would recommend a comprehensive study that analyzes more than the operations of private versus public prisons.  The decision by the Canadian government was based upon its concern with prisoner treatment, not public safety (Goggins, K., 2006).  Therefore, I do not agree with the results.  A study needs to combine the study of the surrounding area’s crime to make a solid determination of the effects of private prison management.  What if in Canada where the study was conducted the local crime rate increased 35%?  Technology such as GIS could be used to determine the effects on public safety.  Law enforcement could also share its GIS information or make it searchable by other law enforcement so that crime trends extending beyond local limits can be analyzed.

To address the fear of loss of quality, safeguards could be put in place.  For example, the government could set specific guidelines as to what has to be provided to prisoners.  Quality checks by independent firms could verify if the managing private firm is keeping in line with standards.  Another step that could be taken to ensure quality is to mandate that every 5 years the prison has to find a new firm to manage the prison.  That would allow economic market forces to create competition to keep quality high in the prisons.

Some ideas to help with the overcrowding issue and profit incentive include changing the structure of prisons and finding ways to reduce crime.  To help prevent private firms from focusing on keeping crime vibrant so that it can continue to be a viable business could have a contingency clause in its contract.  For example, the private firm in addition to managing the prison has to develop a plan to rehabilitate felons.  Statistics such as frequency of second and third offenses of the same or similar crime could be used to determine if the rehabilitation plan was successful or failed.  The private firm would also have to develop plans to educate the community to help deter crime.  Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology could be used to survey trends to determine if crime increases or decreases after an education session was implemented.  
In reference to structure, a Canadian prison in 1992 was renovated based on empirical studies.  The medium security facility installed carpet and acoustic tiles to help lessen the irritating noises of radios, TVs, talking, and walking down the halls.  Cushioned chairs and wall decorations were also used to deafen the noise, but the bonus was to encourage positive social interaction between the prisoners.  

Another change included letting prisoners lock and unlock his/her private rooms in order to give the prisoner perceived increase control over his/her life (JHSA, 1996).

ReferencesCorrections.  (n.d.).  Prison Privatization.  Retrieved December 9, 2006 from:
http://www.correctionsproject.com/corrections/pris_priv.htm
Garcia, J., Hurley, J. and Simpson, J. (2006, November 11).  Private Prisons:  Privatizing 
Corrections.  Unpublished.
Goggins, K.  (2006, May 3).  It’s a new world out there.  Retrieved December 9, 2006 from:  
HYPERLINK "http://www.capp.50megs.com/recentnews315.html" http://www.capp.50megs.com/recentnews315.html
John Howard Society of Alberta (JHSA).  (2006).  Prison Overcrowding.  Retrieved December 
9, 2006 from http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C42.htm
x x x."