The rise of private prisons in the United States has been a controversial topic for decades. While proponents argue that privatization reduces costs and provides similar or better services than public facilities, critics highlight a range of issues that plague the industry and undermine its stated goals.
What are private prisons?
Private prisons, also known as for-profit prisons, are correctional facilities owned and operated by third-party corporations on contract with government agencies. The companies that manage these facilities receive taxpayer money to cover costs, but their primary goal is to make a profit for shareholders.
The concept of private prisons first emerged in the 1980s, with the Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic) opening the first modern for-profit prison in Tennessee in 1984. Over the following decades, the industry rapidly expanded across the country.
Today, around 8% of prisoners in the United States are held in private prisons. A handful of major corporations, including CoreCivic and GEO Group, dominate the market.
What are the main arguments in favor of private prisons?
Supporters make several key arguments in defense of private prisons:
- They save taxpayer money by reducing overhead costs compared to public prisons.
- They allow the government to increase prison capacity quickly rather than undergoing lengthy public approval processes to build new facilities.
- They face more pressure to be cost-effective and innovative due to shareholders and performance contracts.
- They provide similar or better services and conditions for prisoners compared to public institutions.
Based on these purported benefits, advocates believe privatization increases efficiency in the prison system without sacrificing performance or inmate well-being.
What are the biggest criticisms of private prisons?
Despite the claims made by proponents, private prisons have faced substantial criticism over a range of issues:
1. Conflicting incentives
Critics argue that a fundamental conflict exists between pursuing profit and providing humane, rehabilitative services. Even if private prisons cut costs, they have an incentive to take shortcuts that may negatively impact prisoners, such as:
- Reducing staff training and wages
- Providing substandard medical care
- Cutting programming and resources
- Failing to maintain facilities
Unlike public institutions, the more that private prisons reduce expenses, the more their profit margins grow. This directly undermines rehabilitative goals.
2. Lack of transparency and accountability
Public prisons are subject to open records laws and oversight from citizen boards and elected officials. Private prisons often operate under more secrecy, facing less scrutiny over their internal operations and treatment of prisoners.
When misconduct occurs, private facilities are shielded from consequences. It is difficult to hold corporations criminally liable like public institutions. Even when fines are levied, they are often minimal compared to profits.
3. Corruption and cost-cutting
Multiple investigations have revealed alarming trends within private prisons related to efforts to maximize profits by cutting corners:
- Understaffing facilities and having poorly trained guards
- Providing inadequate security and health care
- Serving poor quality food prepared in unsanitary conditions
- Failing to fix broken security systems and devices
Such cost-cutting measures directly jeopardize prisoner and staff safety. Yet companies continue resorting to them, undermining the argument that privatization does not sacrifice quality.
4. Lobbying and political influence
Private prison companies engage in lobbying and campaign donations to grow their business and influence criminal justice policies. Critics condemn this as unethical and counterproductive influence that shapes public policy based on corporate interests rather than evidence-based practices.
Through their political activities, prison corporations have helped increase harsh sentencing for nonviolent crimes and detention of undocumented immigrants, alongside expanding privatization itself. This builds incarceration rates and demand rather than focusing on rehabilitation and crime prevention.
Does privatization save money?
The most prominent argument made by supporters of private prisons is that they provide cost savings compared to public facilities. However, studies analyzing this claim have found mixed results at best:
- Some research shows comparably lower per-prisoner costs at private facilities.
- But others indicate costs are similar to public prisons when accounting for overhead like facility maintenance and staff training that companies try reducing.
- Some studies have found private facilities often refuse to accept costly high-needs prisoners, undermining comparisons.
- Savings come from cutting corners on services and prison conditions, not greater efficiency.
There is little convincing evidence that privatization decreases costs without also decreasing quality. And saving money should not come at the expense of prisoner welfare and safety.
How do conditions compare between private and public prisons?
| Measure | Private Prisons | Public Prisons |
|---|---|---|
| Staff per prisoner | Lower | Higher |
| Staff pay and training | Lower | Higher |
| Staff turnover | Higher | Lower |
| Programming and resources | More limited | More available |
| Safety and security | More unsafe conditions and escapes | Safer facilities |
| Medical and mental healthcare | Substandard | Superior |
| Deaths in custody | Higher mortality rates | Lower mortality rates |
Research consistently shows worse conditions and services in private compared to public prisons when it comes to critical factors like staffing, security, healthcare and programming. This contradicts claims that privatization does not negatively impact quality.
Should private prisons be banned?
Based on persistent problems stemming from the profit motive, many argue private prisons should be phased out or banned altogether. However, others contend they merely need stronger regulation and oversight to provide humane, cost-effective incarceration.
Those supporting an outright ban highlight:
- Private prisons are inherently unable to align profit and the public good.
- Reforms have failed to resolve systemic deficiencies.
- The industry spent decades influencing policy based on self-interest.
- Public management is preferable for such an essential government function.
On the other hand, supporters argue:
- With proper legislation, private prisons can provide adequate services while reducing taxpayer burden.
- Bans could overburden already strained public prisons and corrections budgets.
- Private industry often innovates more effectively than government.
There are good-faith arguments on both sides of this issue. However, the track record of systemic problems suggests private prisons may be beyond effective reform and unable to operate responsibly and ethically.
Conclusion
In theory, allowing private companies to manage correctional facilities could increase innovation and efficiency in the prison system. However, in practice, private prisons have largely failed to deliver on promises of cost savings and adequate conditions. Instead, the industry has faced recurring scandals and demonstrated an inability to overcome built-in flaws stemming from the profit motive overriding public service.
While banning private prisons altogether faces counterarguments, the evidence suggests major reforms are needed at minimum. Given decades of issues and no signs of substantial improvement, private prisons seem unlikely to operate responsibly without much stronger oversight and transparency mandates. Ultimately, the conflicting incentives between profit and humane incarceration may be irreconcilable.