Privatization Of Prisons

1381 Words3 Pages

only people it benefited were those outside of the prison lining their pockets.
At the forefront of the privatized prison debate is retention and rehabilitation. Using the name “corrections” in regards to our prison system has become ironic. Privatization of prisons works against this namesake goal of correction and rehabilitation for those in prison. Instead the goal now of prison is not to protect the public or help those incarcerated but instead to generate capital. Corporations CCA and GEO advertise to its investors the truth of high prison retention in making for great profits. When individuals leave and go back to prison after they get out because they are not capable of handling life outside of the system they have lived in so long …show more content…

This is referred to as high recidivism. More prisoners equal more money. The United States has a shockingly high rate of recidivism based on the most recent encompassing study done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In this study of 30 states 77% of individuals were arrested for a new crime within five years of release (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015). These high rates include privatized prisons. There is not good research on the topic of recidivism in privatized prisons. There is one study from 2003 suggesting that privatization does have a higher rate (Bales et al, 2003). This is also shocking that we are turning to a system for those most vulnerable populations which is not well researched and where there is no incentive to rehabilitate our prisoners. A recent study found that “prisoners in private facilities are 15 percent more likely to receive an infraction (conduct violation) over the course of their sentences” allowing prisons to delay their release (Mukherjee, 2015) . Government contracts pay a particular amount …show more content…

The best thing to do at this point is compromise. A system of accountability is possible; we can do this even without giving up privatization. CCA and GEO are likely here to stay. Pushing out two major corporations from their livelihood is near impossible. The hold of money on our congress and government is far too strong. The most feasible option to improve our privatized prisons is through tax credit and independent inspectors. Financial incentives are the most persuasive measure for big business. Cassandre Davilmar of NYU law is the first to suggest this method. She argues persuasively for a Private Prison Rehabilitation Credit (PPR). “The PPR credit consists of the following features: (1) funding through the tax system; (2) delayed conditional payment; (3) performance goals; and (4) third-party assessors.” Under this system, private prisons could obtain PPR credits by meeting benchmarks set by the state. For example, a particular percent decrease in prison assault, more employee training, implementing specific rehabilitation goals, and keeping track and meeting a preset goal for reduced recidivism. (Davilmar,

Open Document