Privatizing Prisons is a band-aid approach that does not cure the infection, only spreads it. Imprisonment, whether it is operated by a state or government entity or a private corporation, is not a well desired business to operate. The private sector only stands to gain financial status by depriving others of their physical liberties. When these liberties are taken away, there should not be fiscal awards or profits from the suffering of individuals. Therefore, privatization is not a justified concept. When prisons are privatized, competition emerges. When competition emerges, quality decreases. What happens when quality decreases in a prison? A “cheaper inmate” is produced that is more likely to recidivate and escalate the problem instead of solving it. The focus should be on correcting the problem so that fewer people are incarcerated therefore decreasing the costs of operating prisons.
If our prison system in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania can only house a certain amount of people, and the numbers increase daily, why would we go to the expense of spending more money, building more prisons while the infection continues to spread? Instead of going to the Legislature to request more tax payer money to fund the erection of more prisons, why don’t we take the band-aid off and treat the infection to cure it? Let’s implement a sure fire plan to correct our future, decrease the inmate population and use alternative sentencing at a cost far less than building new prisons whether private or public operated. In simple terms, the cost of peroxide is much cheaper than Johnson & Johnson Band-aids. Peroxide is used as a disinfectant that can safely eradicate germs and stop the spread of infections. For ninety nine cents a bottle, it can cure many ailments. However, putting a five dollar Johnson & Johnson Band-aid on an infected wound may help keep dirt and more germs away, but does it cure the infection? No. Putting a two dollar no-frills type band-aid on an infection protects less, as a cheaper quality band-aid is produced solely for financial purposes. Privatizing prisons are similar to no-frills type band-aids. It is a product of cheap quality with no cure. In addition to this, infections that are not treated properly and are covered by no-frills band-aids, sometimes fester and spread thereby creating a more dangerous infection. A privately run prison can mask the problem just as well and not cure it.
Privatizing prisons also generates incarcerated individuals and turns them into commodities that increase stock holders profits in Corporate America. Rehabilitation falls by the wayside as private prisons are just not interested in rehabilitating individuals because if the rehabilitation is successful, then the profit margin decreases.
As far as inmate health is concerned, whether or not our prisons are public or private, we as a Commonwealth are responsible for the health of those incarcerated. Common health care rates are established when negotiating contracts with private prisons. Generic health care plans are part of the bargain. However, because we are responsible for the health of those who are incarcerated, all costs for health care that are above the average of the negotiated contract, still lie in the responsibility of the state to provide adequate care. Furthermore, prisons are not hospitals. They are not germ free and are a haven for disease when not operated efficiently and sanitarily.
Therefore, looking at all points, privatizing prisons, applying no-frills band-aids will only worsen our problem over time by feeding the problem instead of applying the solution.
Score – Competition – 75 / Quality – 1
The scorecard of Competition and Quality is quite lopsided. The private sector competes for the prison industry. Their goal is to remove the public sector from the prison industry. John J. Armstrong, Commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Corrections foresaw this problem. He warned that the public prison system was on its way to extinction because of the influx of privately run prisons nationwide. “Competition”, he told a trade publication in 1996, “is the word of the day. And if we’re not competitive, we’ll be gone.” Society suffers because of the ill effects of competition. When competitive measures are implemented, our focus is on housing more persons at a cheaper rate. We forget all about rehabilitation processes that could very well reduce incarceration rates. Quality takes a loss because the strategy is based on reducing costs, not population. Joseph T. Hallinan makes this argument in “Going Up the River” when he explains the point of view of Commissioner Armstrong. “Competition with private prisons is based almost entirely on cost, not quality. The emphasis is not on producing an improved inmate, one who will commit fewer crimes when released, but on producing a cheaper inmate.”
Alternative Sentencing
A plan for alternative sentencing could be implemented that would greatly eliminate the cost of building new prisons and eventually, significantly lower the cost of operating existing prisons by reducing population. It is well documented that the current system of locking people up consistently for minor infractions or for substance abuse addictions is not deterring offenders nor is it reducing the population. Therefore, a more rehabilitative approach should be used that will reduce the current population, minimize the incoming population and cure the infection at much higher rates than the current quick fix remedies. Early release, drug treatment and recidivism programs can be established at much less the cost of building new prisons.
The African American Community Suffers at the Hands of Privatization
By the high rate of incarceration that will escalate once new prisons are built, especially if privatized, the African American Community will suffer immensely. As it stands now, communities and families are torn apart by the high rates of incarceration.
Minorities that cannot afford proper legal representation, are forced to take plea bargains that include prison sentences that further increases our prison population and sends it over the recommended housing guidelines. Privatizing prisons will only increase this problem. Programs that connect the offender back to the community can only help the situation and not hurt it. Not connecting the incarcerated person back to the community issues a harsher penalty upon the individual and the family. Society stands in the way of the African American community by continuing to punish the individual after release. Many cannot be employed as employers prohibit employment to those who were incarcerated. Financial aid for college is denied to those who were formerly incarcerated, thereby disallowing individuals to better themselves and receive an education which leaves them unskilled, uneducated and jobless. This then leads to recidivism and re-incarceration. And let us not forget the restriction of voting for incarcerated individuals or in some cases, even after release. As Marc Mauer points out in “The Race to Incarcerate”, the African American community is punished severely when a substantial proportion of the community is incarcerated. “While the impact of incarceration on individuals can be quantified to a certain extent, the wide-ranging effects of the race to incarcerate on African American communities in particular is a phenomenon that is only beginning to be investigated.” He questions further when he raises the point, “What does it mean to a community, for example, to know that one out of three boys growing up will spend time in prison? What does it do to the fabric of the family and community to have such a substantial proportion of its young men enmeshed in the criminal justice system? …What is the effect on a community’s political influence when one quarter of the black men insome states cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction? Privatizing prisons will escalate this and the primary goal will be to incarcerate more to raise the financial gains of private for profit prisons while our communities suffer and incarceration rates increase for profit purposes.
Combining all the funding needed for building new prisons, contracting out services and staff and directing that funding toward our education system for our children would be a better long term investment than the current short term investment. And, it would be a solution to the problem and not the problem itself. There can never be anything wrong with investing in our children with educational measures that will prevent and deter them from committing crimes. After all, our children are our future, not private for profit prisons.
Healthcare, a Constitutional Right, not a Commodity
To understand our society, one needs to look no further than inside our prisons because inside, is a variety of individuals that represent all our ailments, both physical and emotional. The majority of people incarcerated come from lower income levels, poverty stricken areas and most are minorities. Poverty and race status seem to escalate the spread of communicable disease mainly because of poor access to adequate health care. Once incarcerated, most are already in advanced stages of health problems that require more extensive treatment. Although the incarcerated individuals may or may not have committed crimes, they are still due protection under the law from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. Withholding adequate medical care would be cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, private prisons doling out generic medical care, cannot keep up with the extensive treatments needed for most of the individuals incarcerated. Therefore, the government would have to pick up the slack. This would increase costs over and above the contracted prison cost of the private sector.
In conclusion, the recommendation is to invest in our future by education and rehabilitation, not by increasing prison populations. Privatizing prisons further escalates the problem and doesn’t correct it. It is recommended then to request funds from the Legislature for alternative sentencing, early release and prevention programs, which will decrease the prison population and put a significant dent in recidivism. The motion is on the floor to privatize prisons. NAY. Build new prisons? NAY. Educate, Rehabilitate? AYE!! It’s a no-brainer.
Sources: Marc Mauer – The Sentencing Project – The Race to Incarcerate
Joseph T. Hallinan – Going Up the River – Travels in a Prison Nation
Reference:
Sources: Marc Mauer – The Sentencing Project – The Race to Incarcerate
