History of privately run prisons
Introduction
The privatization of prisons has its roots in the contracting out of prisoner confinement and prisoner care after the American Revolution (Price & Morris, 2012). Prisoner care includes medical care, prisoner transportation, food preparation and vocational training. These elements constitute a very necessary portion of the correctional procedure that is the primary goal of prison facilities. The San Quetin prison facility was partially transferred from private to public. This was followed by the reconstruction period that occurred not long after the conclusion of the civil war (1865-1876) (Coyle et al. 2003). Various plantation owners needed replacement of labor following the termination of slave labor. Hence, convict leases were given out to private parties for the purpose of supplementing their leases. This occurred at around 1868 and continued until early in the 20th Century.
New Era in Prison Privatization
A new era in the prison privatization history dawned in 1980. The privatization shifted from the leasing out of prisoner detention and care services to the running of the whole prison facilities (Coyle et al. 2003). This was due to the war on drugs that commenced at around this time and the resultant prison overpopulation. The modern private prison business first started in 1984 with the corrections corporation of America (CCA) receiving a contract for a facility in Hamilton County, Tennessee (Price & Morris, 2012). This turned out to be a landmark in the prison privatization business which expanded further. As of December 2000 there were 153 privately run correctional facilities with an inmate population of 119,000. The trend towards privatization continued further and as of 2011 there were about 85000 inmates in privately owned facilities in the United States of America (Coyle et al. 2003). These facilities boasting major profits that exceed 400 percent as is the case in Corrections Corporation of America. The prison industry as a whole took $5 billion in revenue in 2011.
Studies have suggested that states can save money by employing for-profit prisons. Lower costs were observed to be achieved at the expense of security and efficient. Conflicting information has been sourced via various studies into the cost saving efficiency of for-profit prison establishments. This is due to the tendency of these companies to select the “less expensive” type of inmate (Price & Morris, 2012). The term “less expensive”, referring to the relative ease in controlling these inmates.
Conclusion
Despite the widely acclaimed importance of privatization the current trend has began to shift from private prison facilities to state facilities. Due to the various lawsuits plaguing these private facilities. Such is the case in Idaho, a state moving from privatization to state run facilities.
References:
Coyle, A., Campbell, A., Neufeld, R., & Human Rights Internet. (2003). Capitalist punishment: Prison privatization & human rights. Atlanta: Clarity Press.
Price, B. E., & Morris, J. C. (2012). Prison privatization: The many facets of a controversial industry. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger.
