Part A
Controversies surrounding private-sector prison providers
Private prisons are a controversial issue in the United States. Before leaving office, the Obama administration scrapped private correctional facilities. Previously, the government turned to private institutions to house inmates. There are a number of controversies that surround the private providers of prison facilities. One of these controversies concerns the effectiveness of these prisons. The primary purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate and reform inmates. It was noted that the private prisons were not effective in fulfilling this purpose (Trilling, 2017). This is despite the fact that the prisons received huge amounts from the government. The private prisons housed 8% of inmates (Trilling, 2017). In its evaluation of the effectiveness of the private prisons, the US Department of Justice determined that these prisons offer fewer services and do not guarantee the safety of inmates and staff (Margulies, 2016). The fact that the private prisons are ineffective raises questions why the government relied on them for correctional services for so long.
Another controversial issue regarding private providers of prisons concerns the failure of these providers to adequately attend to the needs of their staff. An investigation revealed that the private prisons do not offer their staff adequate training and pay them meager salaries (Margulies, 2016). It was also noted that the proportion of officers to inmates is unacceptably low. The investigation also established that inmates in the private prisons suffer assault and that the rate of officer turnover is high (Margulies, 2016). These challenges make one wonder why the government contracted the private providers to offer correction services and facilities yet there are federal prisons that are far more effective.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is believed that private prisons are less cost-effective compared to the facilities that the government operates (Margulies, 2016). This is yet another controversy. The government would save huge amounts if it took the mandate of providing correctional facilities out of the hands of private entities. Perhaps the biggest controversy surrounding private providers of prisons is the profit motive (Margulies, 2016). The main desire that drives the operations of these providers is profit maximization. To maximize profits, these providers need to house as many inmates as possible since the government pays them based on the number of inmates. It is feared that the private providers may engage in underhand efforts to increase their inmate populations. For example, private prisons are accused of colluding with judges to send inmates to these prisons (Pavlo, 2011). Essentially, the profit motive causes the private prisons to undermine justice.
In the US, it is common for companies to lobby lawmakers to pass favorable laws. Private prisons are known to engage in lobbying. This is another source of controversy. They lobby lawmakers to pass laws that promote their business. For example, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a private prison provider, is accused of convincing law makers to abandon a law that would have eliminated private prisons (Margulies, 2016). This organization also pushed for the establishment of more correctional facilities. The lobbying activities of this and other private providers of prisons amount to a conflict of interest and compromise judicial independence. Questions over the government relinquishing its authority to private actors and the violation of the rights of inmates are other issues that have caused controversy (Austin & Coventry, 2001).
Slaves of the master
The concept of “slaves of the master” is used to describe relations among inmates and the staff and management of correctional facilities. Essentially, this concept refers to the requirement that inmates must comply with the commands that the staff and management issue. Prison officers are known to employ a number of techniques to ensure compliance. Being tough and firm is among these techniques (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2016). The officers are also known to use violence. Assaulting inmates is one of the charges that have been levelled against these officers. There have been instances where the officers employ force in an effort to restore order and guarantee compliance (Cole, Smith & DeJong, 2016).
Part B
Co-gender institutions
Co-gender institutions refer to facilities that accommodate both women and men. This phrase is usually used to refer to educational institutions which admit male and female learners (Martin & Jurik, 2006). The phrase acquires different meanings based on context. For example, it can be used to refer to facilities that serve members of the LGBT community. When used in this context, the phrase refers to a facility which delivers services to all members of the community as opposed to exclusively gay or lesbian organizations. The following are some of the defining features of co-gender institutions such as mixed-sex schools:
Focus is placed on mutual respect
Effort given to allowing individuals to rise above fear of the opposite sex
Healthy competition thrives
Individuals experience enhanced self-esteem
Equips individuals with skills for survival
Eliminate discrimination
A controlled environment is instituted
Resources are managed effectively
Promotion of equality
Enhanced diversity
Functional illiteracy among inmates
It has been observed that the levels of functional literacy among inmates are very low. Figures indicate that in the US, as many as 70% of inmates lack functional literacy (Zoukis, 2017) There is need for the concerned stakeholders to institute measures to boost the literacy levels. Allocating adequate funding for education programs is among the measures that are effective (Gehring, 2011). Another measure that should be instituted is evaluating the educational programs to ensure that they are effective. If the evaluation reveals that these programs are ineffective, they should be revisited and improved. Developing certification standards through which inmates are issued with certificates after the successful completion of an education program is another measure that can be implemented (Gehring, 2011). Credit transfers are another measure that can help to address the problem of functional illiteracy among inmates. When an inmate completes a program, the credits that they earn should be transferred to another institution (Gehring, 2011). This will inspire the inmate to pursue education further upon his release. Another strategy that holds the promise of solving the illiteracy problem is challenging communities to embrace ex-convicts and avail educational opportunities. Allowing inmates to read with their children is a strategy that has been found to be effective (Zoukis, 2017). In addition to boosting literacy, this measure also enhances the connection between the inmates and their children.
In addition to equipping inmates with basic skills, literacy programs also present benefits for the wider society. Teaching inmates make communities safer (Fantuzzo, 2013). It has been observed that literate inmates pose a lower risk of reoffending when they are released. This means that educating inmates shields communities against the threat of dangerous criminals. Another benefit that the society enjoys is improvement in productivity (Fantuzzo, 2013). Literate inmates possess skills that they can use to find employment and engage in other productive economic pursuits. While the individual inmates find a source of income, their communities benefit in the form of enhanced productivity. Furthermore, as already noted, the communities become safer. This further enhances productivity. Cost savings are another benefit of teaching inmates (Fantuzzo, 2013). It has already been noted that educated inmates have a lower risk of reoffending. This means that communities spend lower amounts on rehabilitating and housing the inmates in correctional institutions. Additionally, since they are productive members of society, the educated inmates make the burden that their communities carry much lighter.
References
Austin, J. & Coventry, G. (2001). Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons. Retrieved 11 th November 2017 from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/181249.pdf
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E. & DeJong, C. (2016). Criminal Justice in America. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Gehring, T. (2011). Inmate Literacy: What are the most Effective and Cost-Effective Strategies To Teach Basic Reading and Math Skills to Adult Inmates in California? Retrieved 11 th November 2017 from http://www.csus.edu/calst/frfp/inmate_research.pdf
Margulies, J. (2016). This is the Real Reason Private Prisons should be Outlawed. Retrieved 11 th November 2017 from http://time.com/4461791/private-prisons-department-of-justice/
Martin, S. E. & Jurik, N. C. (2006). Doing Justice, Doing Gender: Women in Legal and Criminal Justice Occupations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pavlo, W. (2011). Pennsylvania Judge Gets ‘Life Sentence’ for Prison Kickback Scheme. Retrieved 11 th November 2017 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylvania-judge-gets-life-sentence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/#402747734aef
Trilling, D. (2017). Private Prisons: Research, Data and Controversies. Retrieved 11 th November 2017 from https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/private-prisons-research-data-lobbying
Zoukis, C. (2017). Parents in Prison Read to Children to Boost Literacy and Connection. Retrieved 11 th November 2017 from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parents-in-prison-read-to-children-to-boost-literacy_us_58f8fdfbe4b0de26cfeae1b7
