Private Prisons free essay sample

As state budgets throughout America become tighter because of rising costs, many are looking at private prisons as a way to reduce the cost in detaining inmates. Just like everything else in America there has to be a debate about it. There are those that are for the privatization of prisons and those that are against it. James A. Fagin introduced this topic in his text book CJ2013; he discussed the major selling point of private prisons, and the problems that states are faced with. The major selling point for the privatization of prisons is cost reduction for states. It’s argued that private prisons can reduce costs by millions because the upfront high costs to build new prisons do not have to be spent by the states; it is the private prison owner’s responsibility (Fagin 239). Another selling point is that with temporary increases in the prison population within states, they will not have to commit to permanent personnel and facility upgrade costs (Fagin 240). We will write a custom essay sample on Private Prisons or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Private prisons also market themselves to states by promising to provide jobs in low-income communities and providing inmate labor for community projects (Fagin 241). Although it seems to make sense that states should save money because of private prisons, the Arizona Department of Corrections performed a study in 2011 that suggested that private prisons would only save the states about 3 cents per day. The study suggested that when factors such as the exclusion of certain inmates such as maximum-security prisoners, inmates with limited physical capacity, inmates with severe physical disabilities, inmates with chronic illnesses, and inmates with high-cost medical needs or high-need mental health conditions private prisons may cost more per inmate than state prisons because all the high-cost inmates are left within the state prison system costing the states more money (Fagin 239, 240). Those that oppose the privatization of prisons have a plethora of gripes. According to Fagin one of the issues that inmates are faced with is being transferred a long way to be held in a private prison. This causes additional mental stress on those because they are further from family, friends, support services, and their lawyer (Fagin 240, 241). Fagin also says that with an emphasis on containing costs, private prisons provide less training and lower salaries to prison personnel, and have a higher inmate to correction officer ratio. With that same emphasis in mind private prisons do not provide the same quality of care or supervision that state prisons do; leading to a lack of educational, recreational, and rehabilitative services (Fagin 241). Perhaps the scariest two of the scariest gripes that opponents of private prisons have according to Fagin is the states continued liability for inmates, and the possibility of escaped prisoners. Although state prisons face thousands of lawsuits yearly for violations of inmates’ rights, states are also liable for the violations inmates’ rights when they are in private prison control. With substandard training for correction officer in private prisons and private prisons on the rise this could be extremely costly for states (Fagin 241). The possibility of escaped prisoners is scary because private prison correction officers have no law enforcement jurisdiction and that may jeopardize public safety. Fagin says that â€Å"not all states have enacted legislation that recognizes the potential status of inmates in private prison escapes. Thus, a prisoner who escapes a private prison may not have broken a state law! † (Fagin 241). Richard A. Oppel Jr. wrote an article for The New York Times called â€Å"Private Prisons Found to Offer Little in Savings. † In this article Oppel discussed the Arizona Department of Corrections Study in more detail and finds that privately operated prisons can cost more than state-run prisons even though they stay away from the costliest inmates. The article points out that aside from the initial cost of building a new prison not being a burden on the state, there are not many other benefits to having private prisons. There is no evidence to support the perception that private prisons are more efficient. In the article Oppel quotes from an Arizona study that says minimum-security state inmates cost 2. 6 percent or $1. 39 more than those in private prisons before extra costs are accumulated by the state, and after the extra costs are figured in state inmates only cost 3 cent more a day. He says state medium-security inmates cost 4. 4 percent less before the extra costs and 8. 7 percent less after the extra costs are figured in. The result according to Oppel’s study is that state inmates cost $1,679 less per year, per inmate at a taxpayer expense of about two million dollars a year per prison. In an article published in April of 2000, by the American Correctional Association Incorporated â€Å"Comparing Public and Private Prison Costs: The Arizona Method† written by Carl E. Nink and Judith Kilgus, Nink and Kilgus evaluate how the legislation from the State of Arizona makes sure that private prisons are maintaining a cost effective status for the state. The original legislation stated that â€Å"Before renewing the initial contract, the performance of the contractor shall be compared to the performance of this state in operating similar facilities† which only required a comparison but did not have clear parameters. Arizona State legislation has now has added that the required cost savings are to be determined based on a cost comparison model established by the director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Office for Excellence in Government every five years (Nink, Kilgus). In the Arizona’s first study, the first thing that had to be done was to find an unbiased person to perform a study. The Arizona Legislation chose Dr. Charles Thomas to conduct a study of Marana Community Correctional Facility which is owned and operated by Management and Training Corp. , a private group. In Thomas’ study he found that there were many difference in private prisons as compared to state run prisons. The major differences were a restriction that excluded inmates with serious or chronic medical problems, mental health problems, and multi gender facilities. Thomas found that the inmates were required to be of a lower public or institutional risk and to be in need of the more intensive substance abuse programming offered at the Marana Prison. Finally, the methodological design included all state prisons of similar general custody levels averaged against the Marana Prison, since there was no state prison in operation that truly mirrored the Marana physical plant or population base (Nink, Kilgus). With the differences that were noted Marana Prison showed a cost reduction from 13. 8 to 16. 66 percent from similar state run prisons. With the use of Thomas’ research the State of Arizona now uses certain methods in determining the cost effectiveness of privately owned prisons. Direct costs, indirect costs, and all adjustments are factored in. If private prisons when evaluated after their five year contract are not operating at a cost effective level for the state, there contracts are not renewed. Nink and Kilgus found that the method that Arizona uses is cost effective for them. It is the conclusion of Nink and Kilgus that â€Å"the practicality of employing private prison to meet the ever-expanding bed needs of an agency will be enhanced through the use of a cost comparison model that accounts for the systemic differences typically found in a state prison system. † I am absolutely not in favor of private prisons. The biggest reason is because I have always tried to use the acronym K. I. S. S. in my life, or keep it simple stupid! If it is that hard to figure out whether or not private prisons really save the state money even with them selecting their candidates, the reduced quality of services to the inmates to include educational, recreational, and rehabilitative services, along with less pay and benefits for employees, why the heck are we going to continue to waste tax payer money to attempt to figure it out. The only straight forward positive aspect that private prisons have to offer is the reduced construction costs to states. Furthermore, every other aspect of the criminal justice system is state run, why contract corrections out to private organizations for someone to get rich off of. Imprisoning people should not be a business; it should be a necessity in the essence of public safety, and a burden of the state. I can only see the private prison industry heading in the direction of corruption with private corporations buying judges and politicians (as if there isn’t already enough of that) for more people to be put in their prison. It’s ridiculous and stupid! Private Prisons free essay sample Correction facilities being ran privately instead of being run by the government is a growing concept that has been meet with both praise and skeptisism. Pratt and Maahs, describe privatization in corrections as a growth industry state â€Å"Rooted primarily in the political and economic context of the 1980s. The movement to privatize public services has received increasing support in response to taxpayer demands that government provide more services with fewer resources. Advocates of correctional privatization often argue from a ‘public choice’ theoretical perspective†¦ holding that private entities can provide correctional services at a lower cost than governmental agencies. At best, however, the empirical evidence for this claim- the efficiency hypothesis- remains inconclusive†. The practice of privatization has received its share of criticism. There is concern being expressed over the possibility that prison conditions may deteriorate as a result of an effort to save money. â€Å"Coercive confinement carries with it an obligation to meet the basic need of the prisoner, â€Å"states Logan. We will write a custom essay sample on Private Prisons or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page â€Å"Thus, measures of health care, safety, sanitation, nutrition, and other aspects of basic living conditions are relevant. Furthermore, confinement must meet a constitutional standard of fairness and due process, so it is not just the effectiveness and efficiency, but also the procedural justice with which confinement is imposed that is important. † Logan goes on to describe confinement as† much more than just warehousing† (Logan 1990) The goal of confinement should be, instead, to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and ensure that they are housed in decent and humane conditions. No one is advocating for luxury living for inmates but if occupational skills, education, and safe living are not provided inmates will not rehabilitate. Logan is among observers of privatization who contend â€Å"it is reasonable and realistic to expect quality from commercially contracted prisons. † This author, citing the example of privatization in New Mexico, maintains that privatization can promote factors necessary for effective prison management. These factors include a well-designed facility, greater operational and administrative flexibility, decentralized authority, higher morale, enthusiasm, and sense of ownership among the staff, greater experience and leadership among the top administrators, and ‘by the book’ governance of inmates† (1990 Logan). In understanding why privatization arose, Pratt and Maahs observed â€Å"Until recently, public officials were reluctant to privatize entire correctional institutions. Since the early 1980s, however, two major development have forced policy makers to reconsider the option of private prison management, the perception of the deteriorating conditions of public prisoners and, more importantly, prison crowding† (1999 Pratt Maahs). Thus, the need for commercial management of prisons arose not only to affect savings but to improve the conditions of confinement. Louisiana was one of many states which, during the 1980s, were faced with the problem of prison overcrowding. They tried an experiment, and they built three prisons of similar size and design and housed them with the same type of inmates, one to be managed by the State Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and the other two turned over to private bodies that contracted to provide services. â€Å"In effect, the State of Louisiana created a field experimental laboratory for the study privately versus publicly operated prisons,† writes Archambeault. These reports were also intended to provide information to the Federal Court of Judge Frank Poloza, allowing the monitoring of prison safety in Louisiana prisons†. The result of the comparison suggested that private correctional facilities were in fact better than public according to their criteria. Thus, private correctional facilities, as compared with the state prison, were found to be significantly more cost-effective by operating by between 11. 6 to 13. 85% less. Similar differences were found for each fiscal year as when examined separately. In addition, private facilities were found more satisfactory on the following key factors. They reported fewer critical incidents. They also were reportedly safer for their employees and other staff. In addition to this they also provided better and safer living conditions for their inmates. The Louisiana experiment would indicate that privatization can work and that inmates can be housed in private facilities at less cost to the taxpayer and can be housed under more humane conditions. Even studies that dispute these claims do not necessarily maintain that public correctional facilities are by their very nature more cost-effective. Pratt and Maahs, for example, cite findings showing that â€Å"for both mixed level and maximum security prisons, the private institutions had a lower daily per diem cost,â€Å" while, â€Å"in minimum and medium security institutions, however, the public facilities fared slightly better† (1999 Pratt and Maahs). Concluding that, in both cases, â€Å"none of the differences in costswas statistically significant,† these authors maintain that â€Å"overall, the results indicate that regardless of the owner of the facility, it is the economy of scale achieved by the prisons, its age, and its security level that largely determine its daily per diem cost†. Thus, while the literature makes strong arguments for privatization it also makes as many that claim it not to really bear a significant difference at all. Division is mainly between studies that find significant advantages to privatization and those that find no significant differences between public and private facilities. The implication of this finding is that some privatization programs are succeeding. It has also been found that there isn’t really any difference at all. Over all our prisons continue to over populate and Private Correctional facilities will be utilized and they are here to say. There is also no conclusive evidence that that suggest they cannot be ran at least as effectively as government facility and in some cases they can even be ran better. It’s another solution to our overcrowding prison system.