Private prisons depict a grim image of the criminal justice system. Perceptions of injustice, arbitrariness, unfairness, inhumane treatment and sheer injustice are common phenomena in private prisons. The fast-increasing number of private prisons does not only cost taxpayers a lot of money, lowers prison safety, and elevates acts of inhuman treatment. More inmates are abused in private prisons than in public prisons. Cases of inmates being denied medical care and subjected to high states of torture, rape, and other inhuman treatment forms are commonly reported in most private prisons. Ideally, the question of which of the public or private prisons is better revolves around profit-making and human dignity. Striking a balance between profit-making and human dignity could offer a solution to the problems caused by the privatization of prisons ( Dippel & Poyker, 2020) . Until the balance is reached, which is highly unlikely, Congress should implement objective reforms to ensure that private prisons are regulated or eliminated in the worst-case scenario.
Private prisons use a closed managerial system. A closed managerial system structure is a kind of system that is closed off from the public environment and is only knowable from within. Private prisons are run by private third-party companies, separate from the traditional state-run public prisons, and not monitored by the government. Officers manage a typical private prison from for-profit private entities, most of which are advanced multinational registered corporations. The most common private detention corporation operating in multiple nations is known as UK detention services. The UK detention services own most private prisons after it was handed over by the Correlations Corporation of America (CCA) ( Khey, 2015) , the first administrators of private prisons in the US. The federal and state governments run public prisons under the umbrella of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The privatization of the prisons began with the regime of President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s ( Khey, 2015) . On the other hand, public prisons are entirely non-profit making. At the top of public prisons’ structure is the BOP director under the United States Department of Justice’s management.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The primary reason why the state would want to use private prisons is because of the need to contain an increasing number of inmates in prisons. Private prisons help in decongesting prisons to enhance the safety of the inmates. Additionally, private prisons are one of the significant ways of reducing the government budget. For example, in 2005, when the government was facing the possibility of spending close to half a billion dollars in building and operating new prisons to accommodate the increasing populations of inmates in Texas, the consideration of alternatives to public prisons was inviting ( Orrick & Vieraitis, 2015) . In general, the government would consider using private prisons because they prove to be one of the most significant ways to reduce inmate influx in prisons and lessen the burden on the parole and probation systems in the States.
While private prisons can be an excellent alternative to incarceration, there are various considerations as to why the state would hesitate to use private prisons. There has been a lot of politicization of the issue of private prisons and the immigration policy. Since the implementation of the immigration policy, more private prisons have benefited from the proliferation of immigrant prisoners in private prisons. The influx of noncitizens and immigrant prisoners in private prisons is enough indication that the immigration policy pushers were after creating profit for private prisons. Another reason why states want to shun private prisons is that the private prisons’ concept is a failed experiment since it was established. While private prison officers have always promised more efficient, safer, and more cost-effective prisons, recent studies are now indicating otherwise ( Khey, 2015) . Private prisons are becoming more insecure, less economical, and less efficient. Contracting prison services is simply transferring taxpayer monies from the government into the hands of personal accounts of unmonitored players and executives who offer no real benefit in return. At the same time, private prisons contribute to high recidivism rates in the US ( Khey, 2015) . On the opposite, the third-parties only offer corporate welfare that is purely funded by taxpayer monies.
There is a big difference between the quality of services in public and private prisons. Private prisons are underlined by low, perverse, and immoral incentives that translates to an ever-increasing thirst for more prisoners and more prisons ( Cummings & Lamparello, 2016) . Simply stated, private prisons are under the most inhumane conditions. Private prisons have been known to subject inmates to cruel conditions and ghastly environments, perhaps because the government does not monitor them. Another outstanding feature of private prisons is that they are highly likely not to report data on the inmate population, spending/budget, or staffing. Also, private prisons are funded by the state on a contract basis. On the other hand, public prisons are entirely run by the state, funded by the state directly, and monitored by government agencies. The funding given to private prisons depends on the number of inmates and the average length of time that they are serving.
The use of private prisons comes with some administrative issues. Some of the administrative issues that arise with private prisons are the consequential competitions between the different players in the industry. Simultaneously, the process of contracting third-parties to manage prisons is ridden with numerous inconsistencies. Another serious administrative challenge with private prisons is the abdication of all responsibility from the government. While contracting is hailed as an effective management technique for private prisons and jails, not all are managed effectively. Generally, the primary administrative issue with the use of private prisons is the government’s action of relinquishing all its judicial and legislative functions for policy-making and handing them over to third-parties. Thus, in this case, the government abdicates all responsibility. All prisons, whether privately-run or government-run, should be subjected to the government’s supervision and regulation.
Overall, it is time for courts and legislators to realize that the experiment of private prisons has failed and that the private prisons should either be regulated and closely monitored or be eliminated. Private prisons offer no real benefit to the legislative and judicial systems. There is looming evidence that private prisons are more unsafe, more abusive, and unconducive to prisoners. Furthermore, private prisoners are not as cost-effective as the private prison officers claim. Ironically, private prisons are more costly and more inefficient than public prisons as they have been primarily absorbed in making profits. The only real solution to the looming problems and challenges of private prisons is doing away with them and increasing the efficiency and funding to public prisons.
References
Dippel, C., & Poyker, M. (2020). Do private prisons affect criminal sentencing? (No. w25715). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Khey, D. N. (2015). Privatization of prison. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment , 1-8.
Cummings, A. D., & Lamparello, A. (2016). Private prisons and the new marketplace for crime. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 6 (2), 407-440.
Orrick, E. A., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2015). The cost of incarceration in Texas: Estimating the benefits of reducing the prison population. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 40 (2), 399-415. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12103-014-9265-3
