Pros And Cons Of Prison Privatization

Prison Privatization
Prison Privatization

This paper deals with issues of privatization of prison and the pros and cons of the subject matter. First, what is prison privatization? Prison privatization means the transfer of prison functions from the government sector to the private sector. This can take various forms in the case of prisons. One of the reason why there was a need to allow privatization is the problems of prison overcrowding and high costs may be the "privatization" of prisons. By using the private sector to build or manage prisons, many states believe that they can reduce costs. So far, most state correction agencies have used the private sector only to manage minimum-secure or non-secure "community" correction centers, such
as juvenile institutions and halfway houses. Currently over half the states have passed legislation to allow for this form of prison privatization.
I support the use of privatization for our jail system; I believe privatization of the jail system would allow these facilities to operate through a coordinated and cost-effective management approach. Work cooperatively with state and local governments to obtain needed detention bed space and services. Operate efficiently and effectively the Justice Prisoner and inmates in general by securing our communities and at the same time rehabilitating the inmates.

The privatization of the jail system would help to better protect the public, the issue of over-crowed in the state own jail would be a thing of the past - once the jails are privatized. The primary concern of the justice system around the country is to ensure that the public are well protected. It is however impossible to achieve these goals if our prison system is over-crowded and futile. For instance, incarceration statistics have skyrocketed, crime rates have increased much more slowly. In fact, from 1975 to 1985, the serious crime rate actually decreased by 1.42 per cent while the number of state and federal prisoners nearly doubled. The number of people sent to prison is actually much more higher; in order to better prepare for the future it is better to contract the management side of our prison system to a private sector, while we can still hold on to the administration side of the operation. One of the core functions is for the confinement of persons convicted of crimes and sentenced to terms of incarceration, and those charged with any types of offenses and detained while awaiting trial or sentencing, a hearing.
The primary responsibility consists of maintaining secure, safe and humane correctional institutions for sentenced offenders placed in its custody. Our goal is to develop and operates correctional programs that seek a balanced application of concepts of punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation with opportunities to prepare the offender for successful reintegration into society.
The facility will be privately operated facilities, including half-way houses and community corrections facilities. It would also house special problems that accompany the long-term custody and care of sentenced offenders from all counties, etc. The private sector can do it cheaper and more efficiently. This assortment of entrepreneurs, free market ideologues, cash-strapped public officials, and academics promised design and management innovations without reducing costs or sacrificing the quality of service agreed upon during their initial contract with us. However, public sector corrections systems are in a state of chronic failure most measure, and no other politically or economically feasible solution is on the table to eradicate this problem across the board. Thus, in order to prevent another non-efficient ideology; it is my recommendation that this task force should consider a private sector to run these facilities.
The public employee unions representing public sector prison workers, such as the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal. Employees (AFSCME) fear that extensive privatization will reduce salary and fringe benefits for prison workers. Private contracting poses much less of a threat than the unions claim. In common with most contracting practices at the state and local levels, state employees usually receive first refusal for jobs with the private contractor. And because the correctional system is highly labor-intensive, prison operation requires a large work force. Studies also suggest that wage rates in privately run prisons are the same or are higher than in government-run prisons.
Private jail system might have save the government money relative to the operational cost, the system can in some cases cannot prevent private guards from labor strike under the protection of the National Labor Relations Act. However, many contracts can contain provisions denying these private employees the right to strike. In cases where no such provision exists, private guards nevertheless are likely to be discouraged and or may still strike and leave the inmates unattended. On the other note, correction agencies can threaten to terminate a contract, which would mean the loss of their jobs. In any event, should a strike occur, authorities could call in the National Guard or state police, as they would to quell a severe disruption in a state-run prison. Such a situation would cause bottle-neck for the already over-loaded system.
The state of corrections has come under attack by many during the past
decade.
Many contend that the current state of affairs will not work in the 21st century. Some argue that the public sector is incapable of handling the complex and changing dynamics associated with corrections, and therefore more prisons need to be handed over to the private sector; others argue that private industry should not be a part of the public matter of penalizing offenders of crime. Although the private sector has had a long history of involvement in corrections, private prisons make up less than 5 percent of the current market. This study offers a review of the history of privatization, presents a review of relevant research on the issues involved, and compares some of the major findings from the National Survey of State Prison Privatization, 1997, conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1998) and the Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1995, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997a), on the benefits and costs associated with private- and public-managed prison facilities.

Although private prisons tend to house mostly minimum-security inmates, the findings from this report suggest that private prisons operate much the same as public facilities. Private prisons offer only modest cost savings, which are basically a result of moderate reductions in staffing patterns, fringe benefits, and other labor-related costs. No evidence was found to show that the existence of private prisons will have a dramatic effect on how none-private prisons
operate.

In conclusion, privatization is a practical and innovative solution to the problems of overcrowding and high costs facing the U.S. prison system. Many states are recognizing this, contracting out services, contracting out inmates' labor to private firms, and seeking private financing for prison construction. An increasing number of states are contracting out the entire operation of prison facilities. The federal government has been less active, limiting itself to contracting out facilities holding illegal aliens and juvenile offenders. Many jurisdictions are unsure of prison privatization, fearing a loss in service, problems with liability, and threats to the jobs of prison personnel. As more and more jurisdictions experiment successfully with privatization, however, their experience would probably privatization’s value, thus allowing the use of the program to go further.

Reference:

A Guide to Prison Privatization by Dana Joel
Backgrounder #650

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance
Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons
James Austin, PhD.
Garry Coventry, Ph.D.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Monograph
February 2001 NCJ 181249