Is Our Current Penal System a Warehouse of Inmates?

The typical voting public of middle class, white America is not generally concerned with what goes on in our society's prisons. However, the issue bears a closer look in light of the fairly recent trend of reintroducing prison privatization. When private corporations take over the criminal justice system, ethical, financial, and practical concerns are raised. Privately owned prisons subtly encourage the increasing rate of Americans incarcerated, endanger the public's safety, and allow for basic humane and civil rights to be stripped from prisoners. This system is nothing new; medieval England commonly housed privately run prisons and North America saw several privately owned prisons in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the United States, the management of prisons was systematically transferred to the state at the beginning of the twentieth century when the public became aware of the dismal living conditions and regular abuse that prisoners suffered. The government was in control of almost all prison facilities up until the 1980s when President Reagan's wide scale privatization campaign pounced upon the prison system to "liberate" its factions (Sinden 41).

At the start of Reagan's presidency, the prison system was fracturing due to overcapacity and questionable conditions; the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 60 percent of all states were under court order to reduce prison overcrowding in 1987 (Ryan and Ward 2). It is important to note that there are other options to solving prison overcrowding as opposed to privatization. Emergency early release provisions, selective incarceration, increased home confinement, increased use of fines, and intensive supervision probation have all been proven as effective measures in reducing prison populations (Logan 10). While it is difficult to prove why these options have not been explored more thoroughly, indubitably the politics and big business that have become intertwined with the private prison sector are partially to blame. The modern private incarceration system that has become entrenched in public policy began quietly in Texas with two profit-oriented facilities set up to house Immigration and Naturalization Services detainees (Parenti 31), belying the future.

The Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and Wakenhut Corrections Corporation have emerged as two of the largest prison management corporations; and their businesses exemplify the array of safety concerns that arise with poorly run prisons (Parenti 32). When considering all of the risks involved, it is questionable if the privatization of prisons ends up being financially beneficial to the government and taxpayers (Wood 26). However, it is undeniable that the privatization of prisons is extremely lucrative for the corporations that are involved. The Corrections Corporation of America's stock price rose from 8$ a share in 1992 to $30 a share in 1997 while Wackenhut Corrections Corporation was rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country (Silverstein 156). The weight and influence of private prison corporations is intensified when their backers are named: American Express, General Electric, and Merrill Lynch have all invested millions of dollars in private prison construction (Silverstein 162). These corporations are obviously doing something right in pursuit of profit, but the important question is at what cost?

This issue affects everyone living and paying taxes in the United States; there are approximately 650,000 inmates in state and local prisons, which is double the number from five years ago. This costs taxpayers an estimated $18 billion each year (Joel). The number of Americans in the criminal justice system has increased drastically without a similar increase in the number of crimes committed or arrests made. This increase is due to sentencing policies, increased mandatory minimum sentences, and 'three strikes' legislation (Sinden 41), as well as increases in poverty rates, racial conflicts, unemployment rates, and political conservatism (Chang and Thompkins). It is important to note that prison labor has become increasingly more popular along with this influx of prisoners, and it makes sense that if corporations are running prisons for a profit, that they would be very concerned with keeping prisoner intake on the rise in order to make money off them. This further perpetuates the cycle that prison privatization creates with money as the main goal as opposed to rehabilitating criminals.

With the prison system growing due to these motivating factors and legislative changes, it makes sense to pursue a lower cost method of implementation. Private prisons can provide this lower cost in theory, but when examining their cost saving strategies, questions inevitably arise. John Donahue, a private prison critic, states that "imprisonment is such a simple, basic arrangement that there is little room for improvement in efficiency... prisoners must be sheltered, fed, cared for when sick, protected from each other, and prevented from escaping. These do not appear to be the type of tasks that allow for major innovations in technique" (Logan 83).

These simple allowances of care, nourishment, protection, and supervision can be made less costly if one removes ethical concerns. One private firm attempted in vain to build a prison on a former toxic waste dumping site in Pennsylvania after buying the tract of land for one dollar (Silverstein 160). On a less extreme level, companies regularly cut out progressive programs geared towards drug treatment, counseling, and literacy in order to increase profits. The powerful Wackenhut Corporation was investigated for reallocating $700,000 that was originally intended for drug treatment programs (Silverstein 160). Even worse than cutting programs geared towards improving quality of life during and after prison; simple commodities that are given away at homeless shelters and hospitals are often no where to be found, or exorbitantly priced in low quality private prisons. A female prisoner in a CCA facility complained that "The state gives five free postage paid envelops per month to prisoners, nothing at CCA. State provides new coats, jeans, shirts, underwear, and replaces them as needed. CCA rarely buys new clothing and inmates are often issued tattered and stained clothes. Same goes for linens. Also ration toilet paper and paper towels. If you run out, too bad- 3 rolls every two weeks" (Silverstein 161).

Employee salary is the largest consumer of a corrections facility's budget, generally using over 60 percent of costs. Since this is such a large portion of the budget, in order to gain maximum profits companies have to focus on reducing labor costs (Chang and Thompkins). This is frightening when prison guards potentially shape lives by preventing dangerous people from hurting fellow prisoners, or escaping and hurting civilians. This position of authority makes discretion and safety important values to cultivate. Working as a prison guard might not require a college degree, but any bystander would agree that it is important for guards to learn job relevant skills and that prior corrections experience is a valuable qualification. Private prisons escape federal regulations and inspections; making employee training easy to ignore, leaving these important values difficult to attain. A former CCA correctional officer, Linda Carnahan discusses how she was sent to patrol with a loaded shot gun without any prior training: "I told my captain that if we had an escape, I didn't know how to pick up a gun and shoot it. He said go out there anyway" CCA later admitted to skipping firearms training because state certification cost up to $3,000 per person at the time (Parenti 33). Cutting these crucial corners could potentially cost lives and endanger public safety as well as the safety of fellow guards and prisoners.

The U.S. General Accounting Office reported that 80 percent of CCA guards had no experience working in a prison setting, and that the majority of guards were eighteen to twenty years old (Parenti 33). Furthermore undermining the quality of job applicants and potential retention is the average entry-level salary for private prisons' guards at $17,628 in comparison to the public prisons' guard average salary at $23,002. Even more influential on potential guards and where the more qualified applicants would try to work is the difference between the maximum salary figures: $22, 082 in private prisons compared to $36,328 in public prisons (Greene 63). From an economic standpoint, private prisons have craftily tapped into creating need by situating themselves in small towns and reducing the magnitude of potential public criticism. A prison creates a wealth of jobs, and when it is privately run the job applicants often have few requirements (Sinden 44), allowing prisons to gain popularity and avoid close scrutiny. When analyzing private prisons' pros and cons, it is important to reflect on that virtually all better qualified candidates for a prison guard position will choose to work for a public prison; leaving the dregs of the job pool for the private prisons that already operate on a less stringent set of rules.

Even considering these factors, the employment turn over rates in private prisons is startling. As an example: the employee turn over rate at the Gadsden Correctional Facility for Women was ten times the rate of a comparable state prison at 200 percent; a common occurrence in the private sector (Silverstein 161). A CCA supervisor in Tennessee was recorded in a meeting's minutes saying "We all know that we have lots of new staff and are constantly in the training mode... Many employees
Prisoner's rights are not a controversial or overly publicized issue. Generally, citizens remain unconcerned about prisoners' quality of life unless they themselves have been in prison, or are closely involved with someone who has. Ignoring the problematic classism and racism that undeniably exists in our criminal justice system, most citizens are merely concerned with lowering the cost of prisons. This opens the door for private prison corporations to make their pitch and tout large financial gains, offering a quick solution for a problem that most people would rather not think about in the first place. Supporters of prison privatization argue that it lowers the cost of incarceration; giving money back to the government but these face value cost comparisons between public and private prisons overlook the hidden costs that are accountability and public safety (Chang and Thompkins). The profits that are derived go towards the corporation as opposed to the state government (Parenti 36). Ignoring the questionable ways that profits are milked from the system, it's unarguable that in order to raise any profit the private prisons must stay filled. Experts declare that a 90 to 95 percent capacity rate is required in order to produce the sizable return rates that are necessary to draw investors to the company (Silverstein 158).

With all of this in mind, the entire private prison system cannot be condemned; there are a few examples of how the system could work if societal benefit was placed above or at least on the same level as monetary gain. The Weaversville intensive treatment unit in Pennsylvania, run by the RCA Service Company, has minimum standards set by the state along with state owned buildings. The private staff publishes a yearly budget with a 5% profit margin (Ryan and Ward 15). However, when this case is a rare exception in comparison to the general trend a problem clearly exists. Jenni Gainsborough of the ACLU's National Prison Project puts it best when she said "a basic philosophical problem when you begin turning over the administration of prisons to people who have an interest in keeping people locked up" (Silverstein 158). This ethical problem is only furthered by the safety concerns that private prisons generate, and our society needs to educate itself and resist corporation's self-gratifying infringement on the penal system.

Sources:

Alexander, Elizabeth. "Private Prisons and Health Care:The HMO from Hell ." In Capitalist Punishment; Prison Privatization & Human Rights, eds. Campbell, Allison, Andrew Coyle, and Rodney Neufeld.. Atlanta: Clarity Press Inc., 2003.

Chang, Tracy F.H. and Douglas E. Thompkins. "Corporations Go to Prisons: The Expansion of Corporate Power in the Correctional Industry." Labor Studies Journal 27.1 (2002) 45-69. November 11^th, 2006 .

Greene, Judith. "Lack of Correctional Services." In Capitalist Punishment; Prison Privatization & Human Rights, eds. Campbell, Allison, Andrew Coyle, and Rodney Neufeld. Atlanta: Clarity Press Inc., 2003.

Joel, Dana. "A Guide to Prison Privatization." Backgrounder. #650. (1988). November 9^th, 2006 .

Johnston, Van R. "Privatization of Prisons: Management, Productivity, and Governance Concerns." Public Productivity & Management Review 14.2 (1990) 189-201. November 10^th, 2006. < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1044-8039%28199024%2914%3A2%3C189%3APOPMPA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3>.

Logan, Charles H. Private Prisons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio, Andrew Sheleifer, and Robert W. Vishny. "Privatization in the United States." The RAND Journal of Economics 28.3 (1997) 447-471. November 11^th, 2006. < http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0741-6261%28199723%2928%3A3%3C447%3APITUS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7>.

Parenti, Christian. "Privatized Problems: For-Profit Incarceration in Trouble." In Capitalist Punishment; Prison Privatization & Human Rights, eds. Campbell, Allison, Andrew Coyle, and Rodney Neufeld.. Atlanta: Clarity Press Inc., 2003.

Ryan, Mick and Tony Ward. Privatization and the Penal System. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.

Silverstein, Ken. "America's Private Gulag." In The Ceiling of America, ed. Daniel Burton-Rose. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 1998.

Silverstein, Ken. "America's Private Gulag." In The Ceiling of America, ed. Daniel Burton-Rose. Monroe: Common Courage Press, 1998.

Sinden, Jeff. "The Problem of Prison Privatization: The US Experience." In Capitalist Punishment; Prison Privatization & Human Rights, eds. Campbell, Allison, Andrew Coyle, and Rodney Neufeld.. Atlanta: Clarity Press Inc., 2003.

Wood, Philip J. "The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex in the United States." In Capitalist Punishment; Prison Privatization & Human Rights, eds. Campbell, Allison, Andrew Coyle, and Rodney Neufeld.. Atlanta: Clarity Press Inc., 2003.