Ashley Johnson, Crystal Hickman, Janet Roberts and Steven Martinez
Public Policy Issues AJS/582
June 16, 2014
Use of Private Institutions vs. Public Institutions
The use of private organizations to manage prison operations has existed for decades. The government consistently has contracted for services from external vendors and suppliers to provide for instance, medical services, food preparation, and kitchen duties, inmate vocational programs and training, and the transportation of inmates. Predictably, with the mass increases of prison populations during the 1980s, private businesses saw opportunities for growth and expansion in the prison systems. As a result, the responsibilities of private agencies within prison systems have expanded from simple contracts and services to in-depth contracts for management and operations of entire prison institutions. Through research and a critical analysis, this essay demonstrates the shift in legislative policy to use private prisons to maintain custody of inmates rather than state or governmental prison institutions.
Formulating polices on the use of private prisons rational The private sector involvement prisons are not new to federal and state governments have a history of contracting specific services to the private. According to the sentencing project there has been a burgeoning prison resulting from the war on drugs and increased the use of the incarceration prison overcrowding and the rise cost became increasingly problem for the local, state and federal governments (Prison Privation and the Use of incarceration, 2004). The privatization of prison is both takeover of existing public facilities by the private operators and the building operation of new and additional prison for profit and the prisons companies. Some argue that private prison contend that cost-savings and efficiency of operation in private prison which as an advantage over the public prisons and support the argument for privatization. According to that private prison have proliferated mostly under the argument of cost containment (Prison Privation and the Use of incarceration, 2004). The advocates for privation maintain the private sector by cut cost at least 20%. Private prison are operational by the private company operates a facility owned by the government and/ or manages inmates in a prisons that the company owns. With that privatization have to set boundaries but privatization is a matter of policy and not law, which means privatization decision are an expression of policy and typically should not be transferred from the political arena. With boundaries privations should be addressed using the two levels intuition based and right based. And according to Daphne Barak Erez the institution based is to whether there are certain activates that cannot be privatized and right based ask whether operation of the privatized is function (Erez, 2011). The use for private prison is because the overcrowded of prison conditions, the rapid need to build new prisons, and budgetary challenges required to fund the new prison complement the Reagan era support of using private sector prisons. Also there is a lot of decision making when come to the formulating polices of private sector of prisons. When make decision for private policy it very important to look at the administrative duty of formulates its privatization of policy before promoting the initiative of privatization. It very important to get the public participation in making decision-making process that leads to the privatization of the prison. This reason for these being said is because some do not believe in privation of prisons and do not see how it is a solution for overcrowding in prisons. For example in recent events in Alabama which had brought attention to the issue of prisons privatization. The problem was that agricultural labor shortages have arisen with undocumented immigrates that flee to