PRIVATE PRISONS.   Term Paper ID:28059 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: History of privitization. Cost factors, conditions, rehabilitation efforts, public attitudes, problems.... More...

16 Pages / 3600 Words 12 sources, 36 Citations, APA Format $64.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: History of privitization. Cost factors, conditions, rehabilitation efforts, public attitudes, problems. Paper Introduction: Summary America’s prisons hold 1.9 million prisoners, far more than they were designed to incarcerate. Yet, government agencies (both state and federal) lack the funding required to build new prisons. Some states (such as New York and California) have circumvented the will of the voters and built costly new prisons, leaving a huge burden for taxpayers. Other states (such as Texas) have turned to private companies, which have stepped into that vacuum by building and operating prisons around the nation, though not without controversy. Operators of private prisons claim they are cheaper, more efficient, and better at rehabilitation than public prisons. Many opponents challenge these assertions, arguing that the cost savings are illusory. Critics claim that any cost savings that are achieved result from cutt Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Not surprisingly, private prisons have become popular in the South andSouthwest, areas that are traditionally hostile to organized labor, andthey have made few inroads in traditional union areas, such as theNortheast and Midwest. Supporters of privatization suffereda blow when a study that purported to show that privatization providedgreat benefits was discredited after its author (Florida professor CharlesThomas) revealed his affiliation with CCA (The Wall Street Journal, 1999).Moreover, a study commissioned by the U.S. Clinton saw a way to reduce the government'sworkforce, one of his priorities, and saw a way to reduce costs by havingcontractors bid on the right to provide federal prison services. Privatization of prisons is not new. The Department ofCorrections, which houses more than 15 , inmates, estimates that it willrun out of space in 2 4. Political concerns, in the form of the CCPOA,clearly motivate California's denial of private prisons. Nowhere has this battle been more heated than in California, whichsports the largest annual corrections budget ($4.7 billion). Theycontrol nearly three-quarters of an industry valued at $3 to $4 billionin 1998 by Wall Street analysts. Other states(such as Texas) have turned to private companies, which have stepped intothat vacuum by building and operating prisons around the nation, though notwithout controversy. Montana did exactly that after discovering that inmateshad to wait days to see a doctor and that prisoners were not fed regularly. Unbeknownst to the state government, the prisonhad imported felons from other states because it had so many bedsavailable. This proved devastating for CCA, which had built several prisons inCalifornia on speculation that the state would soon allow private prisons.(The announcement prompted CCA to cancel plans for a prison in Mendota.)The move also confirmed the power and influence held by the CaliforniaCorrectional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), which representsCalifornia's 25, prison guards. The television show 6 Minutes documented how the guardslacked basic training, which contributed to the death of an inmate in aprison brawl. Severallawsuits recently filed against CCA allege that the company charges 6 cents per minute for phone calls, plus a $3 connection charge. Consequently, someprisoners spend several weeks on the road. A3. CCA and other companies are trying to make a profit, which canonly be done by operating at or near capacity. Strickland argued that the private contractors were cuttingcorners on safety, and cited instances where private contractors hadcompromised safety. The American public, fed up withincreasing crime and weary of attempts at rehabilitating criminals,clamored for greater punishment of criminals, especially repeat offenders.At the same time, the nation launched a war on drugs. Most arethe equivalent of county jails and are not run by the California Departmentof Corrections (Morain, 1999, A17). Indeed, the voters ended up paying morebecause the bonds issued by the UDC actually carried a higher rate ofinterest (Schlosser, 1998, 1998). Low-paid guards with little trainingusually transport the prisoners. As a resident of California Citysaid, "I know private prisons are faster to build, cheaper to run, andprovide local jobs, but I worry about . 1 3-144. The prison could house 2,3 inmates, but it has sat empty sinceit opened in 1999. Are the savings enough to justify the drawbacks? By contrast, CCA only gave $28 , inpolitical donations, and spent only $25 , in advertising. Not surprisingly, the nation's most populous state alsoimprisons the most inmates. The sex offenders were from Oregon, and eventually they wererecaptured. (1999, July 21). In August of that year, two sex offenders escaped from aprivate prison near Houston. Furthermore, private corporations achieve savings because ofstreamlined procedures for purchasing supplies and awarding constructioncontracts. Many opponents challengethese assertions, arguing that the cost savings are illusory. A8. Conditions at some private prisons in Texas prompted states to canceltheir contracts. In 1996, a privately operated prison in Texashoused more convicts from Hawaii than all but two of that state'scorrectional facilities (Schlosser, 1998, 1998). (1999, July 13). In most cases, theliving conditions in private prisons are superior to those found in state-run facilities, which are often overcrowded (Schlosser, 1998). That day, however, never came. After voters rejected a bond issue in 199 , astate agency issued general revenue bonds, which do not require voterapproval and ostensibly cover everyday governmental expenses. Private prisons exploit hightechnology to a greater extent than public prisons, reducing personnelneeds by utilizing devices such as infrared scanners and video monitors.Finally, private prisons also benefit from tax breaks, free land, and otherinducements offered by local governments hungry for jobs (Phinney, 1998). In California City, adesert town, the company built a maximum security facility at cost of $1 million. This left CCA holding the bag, so to speak. Moreover, in the first half of the 2 thcentury, the prison population remained largely constant, while the rate ofcrime declined dramatically, thus eliminating the need for private prisons. Contrast New York's experience with that of Texas, one of the nation'smost ardent users of private correctional facilities. Local communities have nowarning when these prisoners are coming through town. (1998, June 21). Congress is taking a harder look at private prisons, too. "Prison expert is assailed by academics."The Wall Street Journal, p. (1999, May 3). Immigration andNaturalization Service. This paperwill examine the move towards privatization of prisons, particularly inCalifornia, which houses the most inmates in the nation. Private prisons rarely house violent offenders, whoremain locked up in maximum security facilities run by government agencies. Morain, D. Doubts also exist about the claimed benefits of prison privatization.The federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO) surveyed everymajor study on this issue and found no evidence that private prisons savedtaxpayers money. Finally, few guidelines exist for private prisons. Are thefailings of private prisons any worse than those found in public prisons?Until private companies can provide good answers to these questions, theirprisons (such as the one in California City) will remain empty, at least inCalifornia. They found their quarry in other statesthat faced prison overcrowding, and they began importing convicts from allover the United States. "Prison-Industrial Complex." TheAtlantic Monthly, theatlantic.com/issues/98dec/prisons.htm Smalley, S. Davis and other opponents cited CAA's mishandling of a prison inYoungstown, Ohio. Notsurprisingly, once in office, Davis found little reason to supportprivatization. Indeed, the prison industry has beenplagued by several celebrated incidents that have prompted some states tore-examine the use of private facilities. Ifso, by how much? Faced with such opposition,CCA's prison in California remains empty, and likely will stay that wayunless the company agrees to hire CCPOA members to staff the facility(Morain, 1999, A17). "A flurry of recidivist legislation means 'threestrikes and you're out.'" Journal of Legislation 2 , pp. Voters wanted government cut, claiming that the private sectorcould do the job better. Most people did not view the government as the answerto society's problems, and many came to view it as one of society'sproblems. (1998, December). Private companies run state lotteries, collect garbage,and run social service programs. Some states (such as NewYork and California) have circumvented the will of the voters and builtcostly new prisons, leaving a huge burden for taxpayers. Though initially inclined to repeal Rockefeller's draconian drug laws,Cuomo eschewed that idea, recognizing that the conservative tide of the eraindicated support for more punishment, not less. (1998). Not true. Several states have banned or are considering a ban onthe importation of inmates. A1, A17. During the next 12 years (1983-1995), Cuomo added more prisons bedsthan all of his predecessors combined, at a cost of more than $7 billion.Many New York legislators harshly criticized Cuomo's building boom.Liberals argued that the UDC was creating the wrong kind of housing for thepoor. The prisonindustry has its sights set on claiming more of that huge budget bybuilding and operating larger prisons. What if CCA or anothercompany comes to dominate the market in one state or several states, thenraises its rates? A riot at another private facility, the Frio Detention Center,required Texas to send 3 officers to quell the disturbance among inmatesfrom Utah and Missouri. 1. The moneyfrom those bonds instead built prisons, which were then rented to theDepartment of Corrections (Walters, 1998). The CCPOA takes a hefty deduction from each guard's paycheck,and it uses the money to maintain an army of lobbyists in Sacramento andcontribute huge amounts to candidates in statewide elections (such as the$425, they gave to Governor Pete Wilson's 199 campaign). References Associated Press. Criticsclaim that any cost savings that are achieved result from cutting corners,which puts public safety at risk. (1999, December 19). The law is unclear at best, so it wouldhave to be changed. Only ahandful of small, private prisons operate in the state. By 1996, Texas housed 5, inmates from 14 other states, though notwithout problems. The rise in crime led to more arrests and more peoplebehind bars, but the number remained manageable. (1998, May 11). Later, several prisoners escaped, and prison administratorsdid not alert police, who only learned of the breakout thanks to ananonymous call (Morain, 1999, A17). When he took office in early 1983, he found the state facing amassive corrections crisis. The U.S. Undaunted, Cuomo continued to utilize UDC as part of his prisonpolicy. In1999, Representative Ted Strickland, a Democrat from Ohio, introducedlegislation to ban the transfer of any more federal prisoners to privatecompanies. Cuomo used the $2 million to fill gaps in the statebudget, while the UDC's "purchase" of Attica eventually cost the state'staxpayers $7 million. In December 1999, the state scrapped plans forprivately run prisons, deciding instead to ease overcrowding by building anew prison (Morain, 1999, A3). Theprivate contractor either operates an existing facility, or the contractorbuilds a facility and then operates it. "Private prisons, public doubts."Christian Science Monitor, www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/ 7/21/p1s1.htm Heglin, R. Other questions continue to plague lawmakers, not just in Californiabut throughout the country. For example,can the guards use deadly force? Why not let private companies operateprisons, too? So far, however, California'spowerful prison guards union has thwarted the industry's attempts to carvea bigger niche in the Golden State. The CCPOA raised other questions about private prisons. Most states prohibit guards from walking off the job during alabor dispute in the interest of public safety. Theadministration of justice could be severely hampered by these questions,which is why most legislators opposed private prisons. The state governments will be at the mercy of thecompany. Regardless, manyquestions remain unanswered about private prisons. Moreover,the CCPOA asked, what happens if the state investigates an incident at aprivate prison and CCA refuses to give up internal documents. (1998, October). The government asserted control overprisons when investigations revealed that many prisoners had been abused orneglected (Phinney, 1998). The state, however, could not prosecute them for escaping fromprison because Texas had no law prohibiting escapes from private prisons(Schlosser, 1998, 1998). Reagan andBush, though, offered mostly rhetoric and few policy initiatives(Schlosser, 1998). These officers are the best paid in thenation, thanks largely to their union, which wields enormous clout inSacramento. A month later, two inmates from Utah escaped fromthe Frio Detention Center, including a convicted murderer (Schlosser,1998). This confluence of events led to the prison privatization movement,and it started with the federal government. Thus, Cuomo decided, NewYork needed more prisons, and fast. CCA made the necessary fixes, but still couldnot convince the California Department of Corrections to send anyprisoners, despite claims that they could save California $1 millionannually (Morain, 1999, A17). There, the company built and operated what it billed asa medium security prison. The prison industry has its sights set on securing a chunk of the bigpie-California's $4.7 billion annual budget for corrections. (1999, September 4). Youngstown's mayor later describedCCA "as deceitful and dishonest as any company I've ever dealt with"(Smalley, 1999). In onenotable incident, six prisoners overpowered their two (unarmed) guards andtook them hostage at a rest stop en route to a prison in New Mexico.Fortunately, a motorist witnessed the crime and called police, who managedto recapture the prisoners and rescue the guards (Schlosser, 1998). The transport of convicts from one state to the next is subject toeven less government oversight. As it stands, the prison industry haslittle chance of making inroads in the state, unless a Republican wins thestatehouse in 2 2. "1 9 N.M. Thus, California again seems to be on the forefront of a movement, onethat is calling for governments to take a step back from the prisonprivatization movement. They pay less per hour and usually do not pay overtime, but theyoffer employees stock options, something state-run prisons cannot do(Schlosser, 1998). Consequently, federal and state governments turned toprivatization as the answer to their shortage of prison cells. The administrations ofPresident Ronald Reagan (1981-89) and President George Bush (1989-1993)both pushed prison privatization. Beres, L.S., and Griffith, T.D. One state where private prisons have struggled to gain a foothold isCalifornia. Developers went to impoverished towns and counties and offered thesheriffs profit-sharing deals. Privatization of Prisons The United States has experienced an explosion in the number of peopleincarcerated during the past 2 years. "Prison firm sued over phone rates." Washington Post, p. These developmentsled to a dramatic rise in the number of people incarcerated, even as thecrime rate remained constant for much of the 198 s (Heglin, 1994, 213),then declined to its lowest point in decades in the late 199 s (Beres andGriffith, 1998, 1 5). To save money, the prisons combine thetrips, picking up prisoners in several states. "Compromise is the key to prisondilemma." Sacramento Bee, A11. Texasclaimed that it cost $3 to house an inmate in a private facility, comparedto $39.5 in a public prison. "The booming prison business." ABC News,abcnews.go.com/sections/us/prison/prison_business.html Schlosser, E. There are limits. Their arguments took on more force as the countryendured an economic recession during the early 198 s that forced cutbacksacross the board. "Do three strikeslaws make sense? Operators of private prisons claim they are cheaper, more efficient,and better at rehabilitation than public prisons. Department of Justice in 1998found marginal cost savings (at best) from the use of private prisons(Smalley, 1999). Consequently, CCA announced it would seek inmates from other statesand from counties within California. "State scraps plan for privately runprison facilities." Los Angeles Times, p. The state delivered a swift response:Attorney General Lockyer announced that California law barred theimportation of prisoners without the state's consent. The evidence is mixed, at best. Investors in Texas' prison building boom included big names from WallStreet, such as Allstate, Merrill Lynch, Sherson Lehman, and AmericanExpress. All of the standards andregulations that govern public prisons do not apply to private prisons. The rehabilitation and drug-treatment sessions generally aresuperior in private prisons, but if the company needs to cut costs, nodoubt such programs will be first to go. Yet, government agencies (both state and federal)lack the funding required to build new prisons. B1. The strengthening of New York's drug laws byGovernor Nelson Rockefeller during the 197 s had led to a dramatic increasein the number of people being sentenced to prison. The state has experienced a building boom,spending billions to erect several new prisons. The state does have 12 private prisons, but theyare small facilities that house only 6, nonviolent inmates. The latter part of the 19thcentury saw many communities contract with private firms to handle theincarceration of prisoners. Faced with the courtorder to relieve overcrowding, Texas turned to private entrepreneurs duringthe 198 s to build prisons and jails (local facilities that generally onlyhouse those defendants awaiting trial or convicts serving short sentences). Phinney, D. California utilized asimilar formula as New York. "We have obligations to ourselves, to democracy, to ourConstitution, and some obligations to the prisoners to act in aprofessional manner," Davis said in 1999, "and I don't feel comfortablehaving any prison that isn't managed and operated by sworn officers"(Morain, 1999, A17). "For-profit prisons offer privatizationlessons." National Journal, p. Voters had turned down a $5 millionprison bond issue in 1981, and the state faced a severe financial crisisbecause of the nation's economic recession. Nonetheless, the prisonerskept coming, and the state needed someplace to house all of them(Schlosser, 1998). Some state officials disputed that assertion. CCPOA members also are state employees, so they are shieldedfrom personal liability, unlike the guards in private prisons. For the federal government,private contractors usually incarcerate nonviolent offenders, such asillegal immigrants (Schlosser, 1998). Nonetheless, business is booming for the Corrections Corporation ofAmerica and Wackenhut Security, the two largest private prison firms. After World War II, crime began a steady rise, reaching its peakduring the 197 s. "Privately run correctionalfacilities sprang up throughout rural Texas, much the way oil rigs wereonce raised by wildcatters" (Schlosser, 1998, 1998). However, most of these savings are achieved by using nonunion workers.The majority of prison budgets (6 to 8 percent) are consumed by employeecosts, and private prisons save money by substantially reducing thosecosts. (1994). Democraticlegislators promptly proposed legislation to prevent counties from sendingtheir prisoners to privately run prisons. inmates sent out ofstate after riot." Los Angeles Times, p. .abdicating responsibility tothose who are more interested in making money than in rehabilitatingprisoners" (Wood, 1998). Summary America's prisons hold 1.9 million prisoners, far more than they weredesigned to incarcerate. Private contractors operated two of New York'sprisons and Louisiana's first prison. Republicans slammed the governor for thwarting the will of theelectorate, which had turned down a bond issue for new prisons yet stillended up paying for exactly that. So, Cuomo turned to the Urban Development Corporation (UDC, a stateagency created in the wake of the civil rights movement during the 196 s.New York had created the UDC to spur development in downtrodden urbanareas. In September of 1999, a riot at a private prison in New Mexicoresulted in the death of a guard and forced the state to send 1 9 prisonersback to Virginia, which housed them in a maximum-security facility(Associated Press). They argued that government, bydefinition, is inefficient, and that the private sector can do manygovernmental tasks more efficiently (and thus more cheaply). The UDC technically owned the new prisons the leased them back toNew York's Department of Corrections. "Private prison has everything butprisoners." Los Angeles Times, pp. 213-233. Privatecontractors can build and operate prisons at a much lower cost than states. Private prisons, which began accepting their first inmates during themid-198 s, have experienced an explosion in growth during the 199 s. This prompted the private prison operatorsto scramble around for prisoners. Are they cheaper? In the 1998 elections, the CCPOA contributed $4.1 million, including$2.3 million in support of Davis. . The prison populationhad almost doubled, leaving the state's correctional facilities dangerouslyovercrowded (Schlosser, 1998). Walters, D. More people are spending more timebehind bars because of the nation's war on drugs and because of publicsupport for harsher penalties (as evidenced by "Three Strikes" laws). Montana also canceled after one of its inmates was killed by an inmatefrom Hawaii and after several Montana convicts escaped from a privateprison in Texas (Schlosser, 1998). B2. Many point to an inherent conflict ofinterest. By contrast, CCPOA members are all peace officers, so,under California law, they are authorized to use deadly force whennecessary. Thus, they need convicts.So, many wonder, how can they be expected to fully support rehabilitationprograms. Cuomo planned instead to use it tobuild prisons in downtrodden rural areas because the UDC had the ability toissue bonds without the approval of the state's voters (Schlosser, 1998). Continuing in that vein, Cuomo"sold" Attica to the UDC in 1991 for $2 million, which the UDC raised byselling more bonds. Towards thatend, Republican legislators pushed through a bill to allow contracting withprivate firms to build and operate prisons in 1998 (Walters, A11, 1998). CCA splitsthe profits with the long-distance carrier (Miller, 2 , B2). Miller, B. Critics countered that the private prisonshad lower costs because they only housed nonviolent offenders and becausemany costs (such as land given to CCA by municipalities) were actuallyborne by the state but not included in the computation (Phinney, 1998). New York voters elected Mario Cuomo to be the state's governor in1982. Moreover, those analysts expect double-digit growth rates in the private prison industry because the business is"recession-proof," although in recent years the industry's leaders haveseen their stock prices plummet (Phinney, 1998). Morain, D. Those factors combined to snuff out theprivatization movement. A Democratic leader, President Bill Clinton (1992-2 ), actuallyfurthered prison privatization to a greater extent than either of hisRepublican predecessors. Habitual offender statutes and criminal incapacitation."Georgetown Law Journal 87, pp. That said, private prisons usually offer much better rehabilitativeservices, such as drug counseling and vocational training. (2 , February 17). Concurrently, the American public's attitude towards governmentunderwent a change. Theconvict population quickly outstripped the capacity of the nation'sprisons, and the financial ability of states to build and operate newfacilities. Otherwise, they might allow hundreds of prisoners to be releasedbecause the government does not have the resources to supplant the privatecompany after the contract ends. Worse, according to critics, private prisons are makinghuge profits by taking advantage of inmates and their families. The 1998 elections returned aDemocratic governor (Gray Davis) to the statehouse for the first time in 16years, while the Democrats reclaimed their majority in the legislature.Moreover, former state senator Bill Lockyer, an ardent opponent ofprivatization and a supporter of the state's powerful prison guards union,became Attorney General. As it turned out, the facility accepteddangerous felons from Washington D.C., many of whom belonged in a maximumsecurity prison. That began to change inthe late 197 s and early 198 s. Those areas have paid much more for buildingprisons, as the taxpayers of New York state can attest (Schlosser, 1998). Most people assumethat private prisons are just like public prisons, only with private-sectoremployees managing the facility. For example, CCA faced no state penalty for its decision tohouse maximum security prisoners in its medium security facility inYoungstown, though a judge did order the dangerous felons removed and thecompany agreed to pay $1.65 million to settle a class-action lawsuitbrought by the inmates (Phinney, 1998). The governor, however, faced anothercrisis: the state had no money. Specifically, the state founded the UDC to build housing for thepoor in the state's largest cities. New Mexico's legislature passed a bill (latervetoed by the governor) that would have required better training for guardsin private prisons (Smalley, 1999). A state-financed building boom ensued, and Texas added1 , beds during the 199 s. - - -. The developer would build and operate thejail, and split any proceeds with the sheriff. By1998, 27 states (plus the federal government) were utilizing privateprisons, housing more than 9 , inmates for profit. Most towns neverfind out who has been visiting, unless the prisoner escapes. All of those new prisons have helped ease an overcrowding crisis, butthey have only delayed the state's day of reckoning. Atthis point, the industry has grown at a faster pace than the regulators canmaintain. First the California Board of Corrections inspected theprison and found it lacking. Wood, D.B. Such benefits are not available to state agencies, which mustfollow strict rules about procurement. What if the guardsstrike? They soon found themselves facing competition, however, from thestate of Texas. Other concerns: What if the company goes bankrupt? The facility served as a holding station forillegal immigrants under contract to the U.S. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.